UNLAWFUL AND IRREGULAR WORK AS A CONDITION OF STATE LIABILITY FOR DAMAGE CAUSED BY JUDICIAL ERRORS

Autori u radu obrađuju nezakonit i nepravilan rad sudaca kao jednu od pretpostavki odgovornosti Republike Hrvatske za štetu. U uvodu upozoravaju na različit pristup pitanju odgovornosti države za štetu nastalu radom sudaca u suvremenim pravnim poretcima te na odgovornost država članica Europske unije kada njihovi sudovi povrijede norme europskoga prava. Slijedi analiza vrste i posebnih pretpostavki odgovornosti države propisanih Zakonom o sudovima. Posebna se pažnja posvećuje pojmovima nezakonitog i nepravilnog rada sudaca i njihovim defi nicijama u pravnoj teoriji i sudskoj praksi. Upozorava se na problem kvalifi kacije takvog rada kao činjeničnog pitanja i njegovu praktičnu posljedicu, s obzirom na pravila o teretu dokaza. Prikazom pravila koja bi trebala olakšati razgraničenje činjeničnih i pravnih pitanja kod neodređenih pravnih pojmova, zaključuju da njihova primjena pri kvalifikaciji nezakonitosti i nepravilnosti rada suca u obavljanju sudačke dužnosti govori u prilog da je riječ o pravnom pitanju.In this paper, the authors discuss unlawful and irregular work of judges as a condition of liability of the Republic of Croatia for damage. In the introduction, they warn about different approaches to the question of state liability for damage caused by judges in contemporary legal systems, as well as the liability of European Union Member States when their courts infringe the norms of European law. They then analyze the type and the special conditions of state liability prescribed by the Courts Act. Special attention is given to the terms of unlawful work and irregular work of judges and their defi nitions in legal scholarship and case-law. The authors bring attention to the problem of qualifying such work as a factual question in civil procedure and the practical consequence of such qualifi cation with regard to the rules regulating the burden of proof. By demonstrating the rules which should facilitate the distinction between factual and legal questions within undetermined legal terms, they conclude that their application upon the qualifi cation of unlawfulness and irregularity of work of judges in the fulfi lment of their judicial duty goes in favour of the standpoint that unlawful and irregular work is not a factual question, but a question of law