Principle of Party Control of Facts and Means of Proof in Serbian Civil Litigation

Učenje o načelima postupka je jedno od karakteristika germanske procesualistike, pod čijim uticajem postaje i neodvojivi deo domaće doktrine. U teoriji se veoma rano se za oblast prikupljanja procesnog materijala formiraju dva antipodna načela – raspravno i istražno. Prvo podrazumeva da su samo stranke ovlašćene da unose procesni materijal, odnosno da su samo one odgovorne za to. Drugo stavlja u dužnost sudu pribavljanje procesnog materijala i prebacuje odgovornost sa stranaka na njega. Od promena u srpskom parničnom postupku koje su usledile 2004. g. tvrdi se da je raspravno načelo afirmisano, a donošenjem Zakona o parničnom postupku iz 2011. g. i da je promenjen koncept parničenja u smislu uloge suda. On je sada pasivan, i gotovo neodgovoran na planu prikupljanja procesnog materijala. Predmet istraživanja u disertaciji je postojanje raspravnog načela u sadašnjem srpskom parničnom postupku. Rezultati istraživanja pokazuju da se ne može govoriti o raspravnom načelu kao važećem u srpskom parničnom postupku. Takav zaključak je, pre svega, uslovljen teoretskim određenjem pojma raspravnog načela i njegovog odnosa prema sudijskoj dužnosti pitanja. Raspravno načelo zaista podrazumeva da samo stranke unose procesni materijal u postupak i da u tom pogledu imaju slobodu, odnosno odgovornost. U tom smislu njegova nužna posledica su tri instituta: teret tvrdnje, priznanje tvrdnji koje vezuje sud i subjektivni teret dokazivanja. Međutim, ukoliko uz ova tri instituta postoji i sudijska dužnost pitanja, onda se odgovornost delom prebacuje i na sud, što dovodi do postojanja sasvim drugog načela – ublaženog raspravnog načela. Na osnovu rečenog, promene koje su se desile napuštanjem načela materijalne istine, i to pre svega ukidanjem ovlašćenja suda da izvodi dokaze po službenoj dužnosti, nisu dovele do uspostave raspravnog načela. Sud i dalje ima dužnost da postavljanjem pitanja ukazuje strankama na deficite procesnog materijala; presuda na osnovu tereta tvrdnje, kao i presuđenje uprkos nepredlaganju dokaza može da usledi samo ako sud prethodno ispuni svoju dužnost. Sud je i u srpskom postupku saodgovorni subjekat postupka, i to ne proizilazi samo iz redakcije ZPP, već je takav smisao u skladu sa vrednovanjima slobode i odgovornosti stranaka, sa ciljem postupka, i na kraju sa osnovnim ljudskim procesnim pravima zagarantovanim Ustavom. Određenje da raspravno načelo nije važeće, već da je to ublaženo raspravno, utiče na shvatanje niza instituta koji se tiču procesa formiranja činjeničnog stanja, a spram toga se i svi drugi instituti koji se tiču procesa formiranja činjeničnog stanja moraju prosuđivati. Veoma važan deo istraživanja, koji je i prethodio zauzimanju stavova, je uporednopravno istraživanje fokusirano na germanski pravni krug – Nemačku i Austriju. S obzirom da su srpsko procesno pravo i dogmatika gotovo pod isključivim germanskim uticajem, bilo je potrebno da se temeljno istraži pitanje raspravnog načela u ovim sistemima. Rezultati ovog dela su pokazali da je ideja o raspravnom načelu koje podrazumeva pasivan i neodgovoran sud davno prevladana; upravo obratno, moderan germanski model postupka podrazumeva saodgovornost suda i stranaka.The doctrine of civil litigation principles is one of the key characteristics of the Germanic procedural theory. Under its influence the doctrine of the principles grew into the essential part of the Serbian theory as well. The theory has rather early developed two conflicting principles with regard to responsibility for collecting the facts and and evidence – the principle of party control of facts and means of proof (Verhandlungsmaxime) and principle of investigation by the court (Untersuchungsmaxime). First one entails that the parties only can provide facts and means of proof in litigation; court can not render its judgment upon facts or proof which are not introduced by the parties. Second one implies a duty of the court to ascertain and clarify the facts; by the same token, court has responsibility to do so. It is the common opinion that principle of party control over facts and means of proof is effectuated in Serbian civil litigation since legislative changes in 2004. Moreover, after the introduction of the new Civil Procedure Act in 2011it is widely accepted that the paradigm of litigation is radically changed so the court is now rather passive and almost without any responsibility for gathering facts and means of proof. The subject matter of this doctoral thesis is the existence of principle of party control of facts and means of proof in current Serbian civil litigation. The results of analysis show that the principle of party control of facts and means of proof does not exists in Serbian civil litigation. This conclusion is first of all determined by dogmatic examination of the principle’s notion. Indeed it signifies that only parties produce facts and means of proof, and in that sense that they have disposition and, accordingly, responsibility for that. By the same token, its necessary consequence are three institutes: burden of facts, binding effect of non disputed facts and burden of production of proof. However, if these three institutes exist with the court’s parallel duty to provide hints and feedback, then the responsibility is shifted partly to the court, which results in existence of a new principle – principle of soften party control of facts and means of proof. Regarding to what is said earlier, the changes which resulted in abandoning the principle of seeking of material truth, basically abrogating the court’s obligation to take the proofs ex offo, did not lead to the creation of principle of party control of facts and means of proof. The court still has a duty to give hints and feebacks, i. e. to suggest to the parties that they clarify or supplement their pleadings; dismissing the claim or striking defense as insufficient due to the lack of factual pleadings or production of means of proof can take place only if the court previously fulfills its duty. The court is also in Serbian civil litigation jointly responsible procedural subject. That conclusion is not warranted only by interpretation of wording of the Civil Procedure Code’s provision, but rather and predominantly by evaluation of party autonomy and responsibility in Serbian civil procedure, purpose of a civil procedure, and last but not least, by basic procedural constitutional rights. The conclusion that the principle of party control of facts and means of proof does not exist and that its place is taken by the principle of softened party control has fundamental consequences on set of institutes which refer to the process of determination of facts. In that sense all these institutes are analyzed by the virtue of existing principle of Serbian civil procedure. Particularly important part of the thesis, which indeed precedes the main part, is a comparative study of the Germanic legal systems – Germany and Austria. Regarding the fact that Serbian procedural law and doctrine was and still is under almost entirely Germanic influence, it was necessary to conduct a thorough analysis of these systems. Results show that the idea of principle of party control of facts and means of proof, i. e. idea of passive and unliable court is abendoned. Directly opposite, modern Germanic procedural model is distinguished by joint responsibility of court and parties