Odgovornost javnog izvršitelja kao preduzetnika

Abstract

Predmet istraživanja doktorske disertacije jeste odgovornost javnih izvršitelja kao nove pravosudne profesije, odnosno oblici odgovornosti sa posebnim osvrtom na pravnu formu u kojoj obavljajuju delatnost, a to je prvenstveno preduzetnička pravna forma, kao i kritika postojećih odredbi Zakona o izvršenju i obezbeđenju kojima je isključena odgovornost države za rad javnih izvršitelja i ukazivanje na mogućnosti odgovornosti države za rad javnih izvršitelja. Disertacija ima za cilj da analizira materijalne i procesne aspekte odgovornosti javnih izvršitelja i ukaže na specifičnosti i značaj koji imaju krivična odgovornost, odgovornost za štetu kao i disciplinska odgovornost javnih izvršitelja u Republici Srbiji, uz uporednopravni prikaz. Cilj je da se kroz analiziranje položaja javnog izvršitelja, preduzetničke forme, njegovog odnosa sa državom koja mu poverava javna ovlašćenja, ukaže na specifičnosti oblika odgovornosti javnih izvršitelja, posebno odgovornosti za štetu kao i da odgovornost države ne može biti isključena, te da se doprinese daljoj reformi izvršnog zakonodavstva, otklanjanju manjkavosti i nedorečenosti regulative, kao i razvoju javnoizvršiteljske delatnosti i jačanju uloge u postupku izvršenja i obezbeđenja. Metodologija istraživanja korišćena u radu je u skladu sa postavljenim hipotezama, kao i u saglasnosti sa osnovnom svrhom, predmetom i ciljevima istraživanja. Karakteristike izvršnog procesnog zakonodavstva u Republici Srbiji jesu česte promene i eksperimentalna rešenja, te je pažnja usmerena i na evoluciju izvršnog zakonodavstva, na uvođenje javnih izvršitelja u pravni sistem Republike Srbije Zakonom o izvršenju i obezbeđenju iz 2011. godine, kao i na novine koje je Zakon o izvršenju i obezbeđenju Republike Srbije iz 2015. godine uneo u pogledu širih ovlašćenja javnih izvršitelja, profesionalizacije, mogućnosti odlaganja izvršenja, uvođenja načela dovostepenosti, kao i proširenja broja težih disciplinskih povreda. Odgovornost javnih izvršitelja prema zakonodavstvu Republike Srbije može biti: krivična, disciplinska i odgovornost za štetu. Ove vrste odgovornosti su autonomne i ne isključuju jedna drugu. Javne izvršitelje određujemo kao stručnjake koji vrše profesionalnu delatnost, jer poseduju prvenstveno pravnička znanja i sposobnosti, imenuju se na osnovu konkursa koji se sprovodi nepristrasno, pažljivo i transparentno i organizovani su u strukovno udruženje, Komoru javnih izvršitelja. Reč je o intelektualnoj profesiji koja je čvrsto vezana za lice koje obavlja ovu delatnost, koje je samostalno u radu, odnosno u pitanju je lice koje ima određene intelektualne sposobnosti, svojstva i stručnosti koje su neophodne da bi obavljao javnoizvršiteljsku delatnost, a koje su prepoznate od strane države, pa na osnovu navedenog jasno proizilazi da je odgovornost javnih izvršitelja odgovornost stručnjaka. Specifičnost javnoizvršiteljske delatnosti su i poverena javna ovlašćenja, te se u tom smislu njegova odgovornost ne može smatrati kao odgovornost bilo kog drugog stručnjaka, jer im je država poverila i prenela deo svojih izvornih nadležnosti. Posledica utvrđene krivice kod građanskopravne odgovornosti kod javnog izvršitelja prema odredbama Zakona o izvršenju i obezbeđenju je da javni izvršitelj odgovara celoukupnom svojom imovinom za štetu koju namerno ili nepažnjom prouzrokuje u izvršnom postupku ili postupku obezbeđenja. Zakonom je takođe izričito određeno da za štetu ne odgovara Republika Srbija, čime je javni izvršitelj lišen finansijske potpore države. Međutim, navedenu zakonsku odredbu smo preispitali, potvrdili glavnu hipotezu disertacije, te smo ukazali da odgovornost države ipak postoji, kao i koji su to slučajevi, o čemu svedoči bogata praksa Evropskog suda za ljudska prava. Odgovornost se prvenstveno odnosi na odgovornost za neizvršenje presuda i obavezu države da obezbedi delotvorni sistem izvršenja. Na državi je prema stavovima Suda da preduzme se potrebne korake da se izvrši pravnosnažna sudska presuda kao i da u tome osigura delotvorno učešće celog svog aparata bez obzira da li je postupak sprovođenja izvršenja poveren jednom nedržavnom subjektu. Pitanje disciplinske odgovornosti tačnije disciplinskih povreda je i dalje uopšteno i neprecizno regulisano, iako je u odnosu na prethodni zakon povećan broj disciplinskih povreda. Pojedinim disciplinskim povredama se može prigovoriti da nije precizno određeno u čemu se biće disciplinske povrede sastoji. Dok su sa druge strane disciplinske mere pa i disciplinski postupak podrobnije regulisani novim Zakonom o izvršenju i obezbeđenju iz 2015. godine i podzakonskim aktima. Uvedena je podela disciplinskih povreda na teže i lakše, te su teže regulisane zakonom, dok su lakše predviđene Statutom Komore javnih izvršitelja, što nije bio slučaj kada je u pitanju prethodni zakon. Analiziranjem prigovora trećeg lica i zahteva za otklanjanje nepravilnosti kao instituta doprinosi se boljem razumevanju ovih potencijalnih izvora odgovornosti javnih izvršitelja za štetu. Kako javni izvršitelji imaju ovlašćenje da odlučuju o njima, značajnu ulogu ima i analiziranje ovih instituta u uporednom pravu, kao i prikazivanje obimne sudske prakse koja je pokazala da su javni izvršitelji u oceni zakonitosti i pravilnosti svojih odluka bili objektivni, nepristrasni i tačni. Nesumnjiv značaj za rad i odgovornost javnih izvršitelja ima i institut odlaganja izvršenja, koji je ponovo uveden u naš pravni sistem novim Zakonom o izvršenju i obezbeđenju iz 2015. godine. Postupak naplate novčanih potraživanja nastalih iz komunalnih i srodnih delatnosti i specifičnosti ovog postupka značajni su zbog ovlašćenja da javni izvršitelj donosi rešenje o izvršenju u ovom postupku, odnosno da vrši kvazisudsku delatnost. Mehanizmi kontrole i nadzora javnih izvršitelja u direktnoj su vezi sa odgovornošću javnih izvršitelja, jer mogu preventivno uticati na poštovanje zakonitosti i pravilnost rada javnih izvršitelja i očuvanje ugleda profesije javnih izvršitelja. Dolazi se do zaključka da u svom radu javni izvršitelj nema prava na grešku, da mu se nameću brojne dužnosti, ograničenja, da se nastoji njihov rad staviti pod konstantni nadzor i kontrolu, a da se sa druge strane govori o njihovoj nezavisnosti i da svojom celokupnom imovinom odgovaraju za svoj rad. Država je ta koja treba da ima značajniju ulogu u radu javnih izvršitelja, ne samo kada je u pitanju postupak imenovanja, kontrole i nadzora, već i u slučaju njihove odgovornosti, jer su svojim dosadašnjim rezultatima i radom pokazali da to zaslužuju. U konkurenciji javnopravnih obeležja i preduzetničkog statusa država sa isključivanjem svoje odgovornosti za rad javnih izvršitelja se jasno opredelila da javnog izvršitelja tretira kao preduzetnika, ali kod zakonske odredbe kojom je regulisana ravnomerna raspodela predmeta, gde nema mogućnosti izbora javnog izvršitelja, ostaje nejasno zašto je i tu država isključila svoju odgovornost, ako ne postoji mogućnost izvršnog poverioca da izabere javnog izvršitelja. Naučni cilj istraživanja je postignut potvrđivanjem validnosti postavljenih hipoteza, te se na osnovu naučno utemeljenog istraživačkog procesa došlo do pouzdanih podataka u oblasti koja je nedovoljno istražena od strane drugih autora. Rešenja koja su kao preporuka izložena u ovoj disertaciji predstavljaju novinu pa je time i društvena opravdanost rada mnogo veća.

The subject of the doctoral dissertation research is the liability of the public bailiff as a new judicial profession, ie forms of responsibility with special reference to the legal form in which he performs activities, which is primarily entrepreneurial legal form with criticism of existing provisions of the Law on Enforcement in which the responsibility of the state for the work of public bailiffs is excluded, as well as pointing out the possibilities of the responsibility of the state for the work of public executors. The dissertation aims to analyze the material and procedural aspects of the responsibility of public bailiffs and point out the specifics and importance of criminal liability, liability for damage and disciplinary liability of public bailiffs in the Republic of Serbia with a comparative law overview. The aim is to point out the specifics of the form of liability of public bailiffs, especially liability for damage, and that the responsibility of the state cannot be excluded, as well as to contribute to further reform of executive legislation, elimination of shortcomings and vagueness of regulations, as well as the development of public enforcement activities and strengthening the role in the enforcement process. The research methodology used in the dissertation is in accordance with the set hypotheses, as well as in accordance with the basic purpose, subject and goals of the research. Characteristics of executive procedural legislation in the Republic of Serbia are frequent changes and experimental solutions, and attention is focused on the evolution of executive legislation, the introduction of public bailiffs in the legal system of the Republic of Serbia by the Law on Enforcement and Security from 2011. as well as the novelties introduced by the Law on Enforcement of the Republic of Serbia from 2015 in terms of broader powers of public bailiffs, professionalization, the possibility of postponing enforcement, introduction of the principle of two instances, as well as expanding the number of serious disciplinary violations. The liabilities of the public bailiffs according to the legislation of the Republic of Serbia can be: criminal, disciplinary and liability for damage. These types of liabilities are autonomous and do not exclude each other. We appoint public executors as experts who perform professional activities because they have primarily legal knowledge and skills, they are appointed on the basis of a competition conducted impartially, carefully and transparently and are organized into a professional association, the Chamber of Public Bailiffs. It is an intellectual profession that is firmly connected to the person who performs this activity, who is independent in its work, and that it is a person who has certain intellectual abilities, qualities and expertise that are necessary to perform public enforcement activities, and which are recognized by the state, and on the basis of the above it clearly follows that the responsibility of public bailiffs is the responsibility of experts. The specificity of the public enforcement activity is also the entrusted public authorities to the bailiff, and in that sense its responsibility cannot be considered as the responsibility of any other expert, because the state has entrusted them and transferred part of its original competencies. The consequence of the established guilt of the public executor according to the provisions of the Law on Enforcement is that the public bailiff is liable with all his property for the damage he intentionally or negligently causes in the enforcement procedure or security procedure. The law also explicitly stipulates that the Republic of Serbia is not liable for the damage, thus depriving the public bailiff of financial support from the state. However, we reviewed the mentioned legal provision, confirmed the main hypothesis of the dissertation, and pointed out that the liability of the state still exists, as well as which are the cases, as evidenced by the rich practice of the European Court of Human Rights. Liability primarily refers to liability for non-enforcement of judgments and the obligation of the state to provide an effective enforcement system. According to the Court, it is up to the state to take the necessary steps to enforce a final court judgment, as well as to ensure the effective participation of its entire staff, regardless of whether the enforcement procedure is entrusted to a non-state entity. The issue of disciplinary liability, more precisely disciplinary violations, is still generally and imprecisely regulated, although the number of disciplinary violations has increased compared to the previous law. It can be objected to certain disciplinary violations that it is not precisely determined what the nature of the disciplinary violation consists of. While on the other hand, disciplinary measures and even disciplinary procedure are regulated in detail by the new Law on Enforcement from 2015 and bylaws. The division of disciplinary violations into heavier and lighter violations was introduced, and it is stated by the law that heavier violations will be regulated by that law, and violations of the lighter type will be regulated by the Statute of the Chamber of Public Bailiffs, which was not the case with the previous law. Analyzing third party complaints and claims for redress as an institution, it contributes to a better understanding of these potential sources of public enforcement liability for damages. As public bailiffs have the authority to decide on them, the analysis of these institutes in comparative law has a significant role, as well as the extensive case law that showed that public bailiffs were objective, impartial and accurate in assessing the legality and correctness of their decisions. The institute of postponement of execution, which was re-introduced into our legal system by the new Law on Enforcement from 2015, is of undoubted importance for the work and responsibility of public bailiffs. The procedure of collection of monetary claims arising from communal and related activities and the specifics of this procedure are important due to the authority for the public executor to make a decision on execution in this procedure, ie to perform quasi-judicial activity. Mechanisms for control and supervision of public bailiffs are directly related to the responsibility of public bailiffs, because they can preventively affect the respect for the legality and regularity of the work of public bailiffs and the preservation of the reputation of the profession of public bailiffs. It is concluded that in his work the public bailiff has no right to make mistakes, that he is imposed numerous duties, restrictions, that his work is under constant supervision and control, and on the other hand the narrative is about his independence and his faults are only his own and that liability is only that of the public bailiff and that his entire property are responsible for his work and none elses. It is the state that should have a more significant role in the work of public executors, not only when it comes to the procedure of appointment, control and supervision, but also in the case of their responsibility, because with their results and work so far they have shown that they deserve it. In the competition of public law features and entrepreneurial status, the state, excluding its responsibility for the work of public bailiffs, has clearly decided to treat the public bailiff as an entrepreneur, but the problem is with the legal provision regulating the even distribution of cases, where there is no possibility of choosing a public bailiff, it remains unclear why the state excluded its liability from public bailiffs work, if there is no possibility for the executive creditor to choose a public executor. The scientific goal of the research was achieved by confirming the validity of the set hypotheses, and on the basis of a scientifically based research process, reliable data were obtained in an area that has been insufficiently researched by other authors. The solutions presented in this dissertation as a recommendation are a novelty, so the social justification of the work is much greater.