The jurisdiction and proceedings of the court in the process of forced sale of the ship – delege lata and solutions de lefe ferenda

Nadležnost i postupanje suda u postupku prisilne prodaje broda regulirani su odredbama članaka 844. – 847. Pomorskog zakonika Republike Hrvatske. Dio tih odredbi ne pridonosi efikasnosti i osnovnom cilju postupka pa se javlja potreba za davanjem dodatnih ovlasti sudu od strane zakonodavca. To se odnosi na trenutak kada bi sud trebao započeti s postupkom provedbe ovrhe, što predstavlja krucijalni segment cijelog postupka. Taj trenutak predstavlja vrijeme podnošenja prijedloga za ovrhu nadležnom sudu. Sadašnje zakonske odredbe, po kojima sud započinje s postupkom provedbe ovrhe donošenjem odnosno primitkom rješenja o ovrsi, nepotrebno povisuju troškove, posebno one koje mora podnijeti ovrhovoditelj, i duljinu samog postupka. Ovlast suda da započne s postupkom provedbe ovrhe podnošenjem prijedloga za ovrhu, a ne donošenjem ili primitkom rješenja o ovrsi sukladno trenutno važećim odredbama, otvara mogućnost da se troškovi u postupku i trajanje samog postupka svedu u razumne okvire. Ovršni sud u praksi samo iznimno odbacuje prijedlog za ovrhu, obično iz formalnih razloga, pa nema valjanog razloga da zakonodavac ne predvidi provedbu ovrhe i u ranijoj fazi postupka nego je predviđeno odredbama. Osnovni cilj svakog ovršnog postupka, pa tako i onoga na brodu, jest brza i efikasna naplata ovrhovoditeljeve nesporne tražbine, bazirane na ovršnoj ili vjerodostojnoj ispravi, pri čemu treba voditi računa o eliminaciji nepotrebnih troškova i ovršenikovim pravima. Takvi troškovi su, osim sudskih, i oni koje eventualno mora podnijeti ovrhovoditelj da bi saznao lokaciju broda koji je pod ovrhom, time i nadležan sud za pravno postupanje. Učinkovitosti postupka pridonijele bi i dodatne odredbe kojima se određuju, u određenom slučaju, sankcije za sudionike postupka i postupanje suda u takvom slučaju.The jurisdiction and proceedings of the court in the process of forced sale of the ship are regulated by the provisions of articles 844.-847. of the Maritime Law of Croatia. Part of these provisions do not benefit to efficiency and the basic purpose of the procedure so there is a need for providing additional powers to the court by the legislature. It refers to the moment when the court should start with the implementation process of enforcement, which represents an important part of the whole process. This moment is the time for submission of proposals to the competent court for enforcement. Current legal legislations by which the court begins with the process of enforcement with the adoption of the receipt of the eviction order unnecessarily increases costs especially those who must endure the bailiff and the length of the procedure it self. Power of the court to begin with the implementation process of execution by filing an application for enforcement rather than adoption or receipt of a writ of execution in accordance with the currently applicable provisions raises the possibility that the costs of the procedure and the duration of the procedure are reduced to the reasonable framework. Enforcement court in practise only rarely rejects proposal for enforcement, so there is no valid reason that the legislator does not provide the implementation and enforcement in an earlier stage than it is specified in the provisions. The main goal of any enforcement proceeding, including the one on the boat, is fast and efficient collection of bailiff\u27s undisputed claims, based on enforcement or authentic document whereby should take the account of elimination of unnecessary costs and debtor\u27s rights. These costs in addition to court costs may occur from bailiff\u27s application to find out the location of the ship, which is under enforcement, hence the court of competent jurisdiction for legal action. The effectiveness of the procedure contributed to the additional provisions governing the sanctions in certain cases for the participants and the process of the court in such a case