DOPUŠTENOST »IZVANREDNE« REVIZIJE U GRAĐANSKOM PARNIČNOM PRAVU REPUBLIKE HRVATSKE
ADMISSIBILITY OF »EXTRAORDINARY« REVISION IN CIVIL PROCEDURE LAW OF THE REPUBLIC OF CROATIA

Summary/Abstract: The purpose of this paper is to review the institute of extraordinary legal remedy of revision available in civil procedure, namely extraordinary revision against judgment, noting in particular the court`s holding regarding the admissibility of the extraordinary revision. The admissibility of extraordinary revision is particularly distinct in terms of the way to extraordinary revision should be written, and in terms of case law indicated by revision in order to meet procedural requirements on the basis of which the court would bring its decision. This paper will give an overview of positive legal regulation of the institute of revision on points of law in civil procedure. It will also include court`s holding that interpret the normative framework of revision, and is partly contradictory due to which one gets the impression that normative framework of revision is itself vague, and certainly imprecise, and therefore subject to different interpretations which brings into question the transparency of the civil procedure itself. The findings of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia will also be presented, from which one can observe a tendency of expected future compliance of case law regarding the procedural requirements for the admissibility of extraordinary revision. Based on the analysis provided in this paper, the author will present its proposals aimed at improving the current situation in legal practice, while bearing in mind the standards set by the European Court of Human Rights and the Croatian Constitutional Court. This paper focuses not on the institute of extraordinary revision in whole, but remains on the procedural requirements for the submission of one, for which is evident to give different interpretations in legal practice and thus unlawfully reduces parties access to court. Procedural requirements for the submission of extraordinary revision exhibited in this paper point out to their specificity, as they themselves seem very important thus making them necessary to be clearly defined, pointing to specific problems, both in terms of doctrine and their practical implementation. The author will, throughout this paper, look for the answer whether it is necessary even as of today, but certainly in the future, to expand the basic theoretical hypothesis that the case law is “just” an indirect source of law or that it is becoming a direct source of, at least, procedural law.

• Details
• Contents