Zašto hrvatski javni bilježnici nisu sud. U povodu tumačenja Uredbe br. 805/2004 i Uredbe Bruxelles I bis u presudama Zulfikarpašić i Pula parking
Marko Bratković, mag. iur., asistent Pravnog fakulteta Sveučilišta u Zagrebu, Trg maršala Tita 14, Zagreb, Hrvatska; marko.bratkovic@pravo.hr; ORCID ID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0893-6682
Sažetak
Hrvatski javni bilježnici, kada izdaju rješenje o ovrsi na temelju vjerodostojne isprave, ne mogu se smatrati sudom u smislu Uredbe br. 805/2004 ni Uredbe Bruxelles I bis, odlučio je Sud EU-a u predmetima Zulfikarpašić i Pula parking u povodu dvaju zahtjeva za prethodnu odluku hrvatskih sudova. Postupak izdavanja javnobilježničkog rješenja o ovrsi na temelju vjerodostojne isprave, naime, nije kontradiktoran, a načelo uzajamna povjerenja u sudovanje u Uniji iziskuje da odluke, čija se ovrha traži u državi članici različitoj od države podrijetla, donosi neovisno i nepristrano tijelo u postupku inter partes. Nakon analize argumentacije Suda EU-a u tim odlukama, u ovom se radu razmatraju neke od implikacija koje one imaju ne samo za konkretne predmete u kojima je zahtjev za prethodnu odluku postavljen nego i za uređenje hrvatskoga građanskog postupovnog prava u cjelini.
Ključne riječi: javni bilježnici, vjerodostojna isprava, Uredba Bruxelles I bis, Uredba br. 805/2004, autentična isprava
Puni tekst: http://hrcak.srce.hr/181639
Stranice: 287 – 317
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Why Croatian Notaries are Not the Court. On Interpretation of Regulation No. 805/2004 and Regulation Brussels I bis in Judgements Zulfikarpašić and Pula parking
Marko Bratković, mag. iur., Assistant, Faculty of Law, University of Zagreb, Trg maršala Tita 14, Zagreb, Croatia; marko.bratkovic@pravo.hr; ORCID ID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0893-6682
Summary
Croatian notaries, issuing enforcement orders based on ‘trustworthy’ documents, cannot be considered as a court within the meaning of Regulation No. 805/2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims or of Regulation Brussels I bis – thus ruled the Court of Justice of the EU in the Zulfikarpašić and Pula parking cases in the pertinent preliminary ruling procedures initiated by Croatian courts.
The Court of Justice of the EU reasoned its decision by invoking the principle of mutual trust in the judicial system in the EU, which requires a narrower interpretation of the notion of ‘court’ in order to facilitate for national authorities the identification of judicial decisions delivered by courts in other member states. In addition, it is primarily the national courts in member states that should take care that at least the minimum standards of protection of a debtor’s rights, as provided in the said Regulations, are observed. Exceptionally, this task can be performed by other bodies provided that they are independent and impartial, and that they adjudicate in inter partes proceedings.
Considering that Croatian notaries do not adjudicate in inter partes proceedings, a notary’s enforcement order based on a trustworthy document is enforceable only in the Republic of Croatia within the EU. However, even in situations which do not have a cross-border character from the outset, issuing such orders is not a good choice for creditors as they will not be able to obtain a “European passport” at a later date, which would entitle them to carry out the enforcement on a debtor’s property in another member state.
Reinstatement of orders for payment in the competence of Croatian courts appears to be a good solution as it requires the least infrastructural and legislative changes (if any). Croatian courts should, however, be mindful in the application of EU law as regards their international competence and service of documents to defendants in other member states. Also, the issue of service should be more systematically regulated in Croatian law so that it may meet the minimum standards of the protection of a debtor’s rights in the European judicial area.
Keywords: notaries, trustworthy document, Regulation No. 805/2004, Regulation Brussels I bis, CJEU, authentic document
Full text: http://hrcak.srce.hr/181639
Pages: 287 – 317