TFL Vsebine / Pravni letopis

Glavnina članka obravnava trenutni neuspeh osrednje novosti zadnje novele v zvezi s prvostopenjskim postopkom, pripravljalnega naroka, ki je podoben nemškemu naroku, imenovanemu früher erster Termin. Razloge za neuspeh pripisuje značilno prenagljenemu sprejemanju nove zakonodaje, katerega posledica so nejasne določbe, in podcenjevanju močno prisotne, če že ne prevladujoče kulture pravdanja, skladno s katero stranke vseh svojih navedb, dokazov, argumentacije in zahtevkov ne priskrbijo, kolikor izčrpno in zgodaj v postopku je mogoče. Članek opozarja na zapostavljeni proti tok iz pravne teorije in sodne prakse, ki izvira iz predzadnje novele ZPP­D, s pomočjo katerega bi se navedena kultura lahko začela preobražati in bi tudi navedeni novi narok morda lahko kdaj zaživel. Preostanek članka vsebuje komentar nekaterih drugih (pre)nov(ljen)ih institutov prvostopenjskega postopka.

The main part of the article examines the current failure of the central first instance feature of the last CPA amendment, the preparatory hearing ­ which corresponds to the German früher erster Termin and attributes this to, on the one hand, the characteristically hasty adoption of the new legislation, which led to confusing legal provisions; and, more generally, to the underestimation of the strong, if not pervasive, legal culture of the parties, who do not present all relevant facts, evidence, arguments and requests as early and fully as possible in the course of the procedure. The article also draws attention to the largely ignored undercurrent in jurisprudence and legal theory, that emanates from the penultimate CPA amendment (“ZPP­D”) and works in the opposite direction, promoting it as an opportunity to correct the ignoble tradition while making the new type of hearing possibly viable in the future. The second part of the article is a commentary on some other (re)new(ed) provisions of the first instance proceedings.

Civil Procedure Act ZPP-E Amendment and First Instance Proceedings