Extraordinary legal remedies in civil proceedings are actually legal options available to litigants, through which parties can challenge the legality and regularity of second-instance court decisions.
One of the extraordinary legal remedies recognized by our Law on Civil Procedure is revison.
In property law disputes, the revision can be declared within 30 days from the date of delivery of the second-instance decision, regardless of the content of that decision, provided that the value of the object of the disputed part exceeds the amount of 40,000.00 euros in dinar equivalent at the middle exchange rate of the National Bank of Serbia on the day of filing the lawsuit. However, there are situations when revision as an extraordinary legal remedy can be declared in property disputes and when the condition regarding the value of the subject matter of the dispute is not met. This will be possible when a special law stipulates that a review can be declared, when the second-instance court changed the first-instance verdict and decided on the parties’ requests, as well as when the second-instance court accepted the appeal, canceled the first-instance verdict and decided on the parties’ requests.
If one of the above-mentioned legal requirements for declaring an audit is not met, the audit cannot be declared, that is, in the case of a declaration, it will be rejected as illegal. The revision will be illegal even when it is declared by a person who has no legal interest in declaring the revision, a person who has withdrawn the revision, as well as when it is not submitted by a lawyer, except when the party himself is a lawyer.
However, there is an exception to this rule, which is regulated in Article 404 of our Law on Civil Procedure under the name “special review”. A special review is an extraordinary legal remedy that can be declared against a second-instance decision that otherwise could not be challenged by review due to the incorrect application of substantive law, if, according to the opinion of the Supreme Court of Cassation, it is necessary to consider legal issues of general interest or legal issues in the interest of the equality of citizens in order to standardize court practice, as well as if a new interpretation of the law is needed. The Supreme Court of Cassation decides on the admissibility and merits of a special review in a panel of 5 judges.
The revision is submitted to the court that issued the first-instance judgment, and the Supreme Court of Cassation decides on the submitted revision, without discussion. The declaration of revision does not have a suspensive effect, that is, it does not postpone the execution of the legally binding court decision against which it was declared.
The reasons for which an audit may be declared are as follows:
-
when the court decided on a request that does not fall under the jurisdiction of the court, that is, if the court refused to decide on a request for which it is competent;
-
when the court, contrary to the law, rendered a judgment based on recognition, a judgment based on a waiver, a judgment due to omission or a judgment due to absence, provided that this was pointed out in the appeal, i.e. that the specified significant violations of the provisions of the civil procedure were committed before the second-instance court;
-
when the court contrary to the law rejected the party’s request to freely use its own language and script or if the proceedings were not conducted in the official language of the national minority even though the legal prerequisites were met, provided that this was stated in the appeal, i.e. that significant violations were mentioned provision of civil proceedings conducted before the second-instance court;
-
when the court has decided on a request that was previously legally adjudicated or on which a court settlement was previously concluded, provided that this was emphasized in the appeal, i.e. that the specified significant violations of the provisions of the civil procedure were committed before the second-instance court;
-
if, contrary to the law, the public was excluded from the main hearing, provided that this was pointed out in the appeal, i.e. that the mentioned essential violations of the provisions of the civil procedure were committed before the second-instance court;
-
when significant violations of the provisions of the civil procedure were committed in the proceedings before the second-instance court;
-
incorrect application of substantive law;
-
exceeding the claim if that violation was committed in the proceedings before the second-instance court.
An audit cannot be declared due to an incorrectly or incompletely established factual situation, except in the case of declaring a “special review” from Article 404 of the Law on Civil Procedure.
Immediately after receiving the review, the first-instance court determines whether the procedural prerequisites for its submission have been met. That is, it is checked whether it was submitted within the legal deadline of 30 days, whether it has all the necessary elements, and whether the declaration of audit is allowed in the specific case. In the event that the submitted revision is untimely, incomplete or illegitimate, it will be dismissed as such by a decision of the first-instance court. Otherwise, the court that issued the first-instance judgment delivers the declared audit to the opposing party, who has a deadline of 30 days to submit a response to the audit. Immediately after receiving the response to the review, i.e. after the deadline for submitting the response to the review, the first-instance court will submit the review, the response to the review, along with the case files through the second-instance court, to the Supreme Court of Cassation for decision.
The Supreme Court of Cassation decides on revision by decision or judgment.
If it determines that there are significant violations of the provisions of the civil procedure for which a review can be declared, the Supreme Court of Justice will cancel the first and second instance judgments, or only the second instance judgment and return the case for retrial to the court whose decision was revoked, that is, to another competent court.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court of Justice will reject the revision as unfounded if it determines that there are no reasons for which the revision was declared, as well as those that it looks after by official duty. The Supreme Court of Justice will not explain such a verdict separately, if it concludes that it is not necessary because the audit mostly repeated the statements from the appeal, that is, when explaining the verdict would not achieve a new interpretation of the law nor would it contribute to a uniform interpretation of the law.
If, when deciding on revision, the Supreme Court of Justice determines that there has been a wrong application of substantive law, it will adopt the revision and amend the challenged judgment by judgment.
The decision of the Supreme Court of Cassation is submitted to the court of first instance, through the court of second instance.
Revision can also be declared against the decision of the second-instance court by which the procedure has been legally terminated, with the fact that it would not be allowed in disputes in which revision against the final judgment would not be allowed either.
Revision is always allowed:
-
against the decision of the second-instance court rejecting the appeal, that is, confirming the decision of the first-instance court rejecting the appeal against the first-instance verdict, in the part where the main case was decided;
-
against the decision of the second-instance court, which confirms the decision of the first-instance court on the rejection of the review filed against the final judgment in disputes in which the review would be allowed;
-
against the decision of the second-instance court rejecting the proposal to repeat the procedure and the decision of the second-instance court confirming the decision of the first-instance court rejecting the proposal to repeat the procedure.
In the procedure regarding the review against the decision, the rules related to the procedure regarding the review against the legally binding judgment rendered in the second-instance procedure shall be applied accordingly.
Finally, revision as an extraordinary legal remedy is not allowed in lawsuits regarding interference with the state, in disputes of small value, in commercial disputes, provided that the value of the disputed part of the final judgment does not exceed the amount of 100,000.00 euros in dinar equivalent at the middle exchange rate of the NBS on the day filing a lawsuit, as well as against a judgment that divorces or annuls a marriage.
Revision is allowed in disputes regarding the establishment, existence and termination of employment, as well as in disputes about family relations, unless otherwise prescribed by the Family Law, such as, for example, made in relation to a judgment annulling or divorcing a marriage.