THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF
THE REPUBLIC OF CROATIA
No. U-IV-108/2002
Zagreb, 6 February 2002
The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia, composed of Smiljko
Sokol, President of the Court, and Judges Marijan Hranjski, Petar Klaric, Mario Kos,
Jurica Malcic, Ivan Matija, Ivan Mrkonjic, Jasna Omejec, Zeljko Potocnjak, Agata
Racan, Emilija Rajic, Vice Vukojevic and Milan Vukovic, in proceedings initiated by
the request of Damir Vinketa, judge in the Municipal Court of Rijeka, to solve a
jurisdictional dispute, at its session held on 6 February 2002, delivered the following
RULING
The request is dismissed.
Statement of reasons
1.
Damir Vinketa (hereinafter: the applicant), as judge of the Municipal Court in
Rijeka, in case No.: P-1136/91-31, presented a request for solving a negative
jurisdictional dispute.
He claims that he requested, as president of the judicial council in the above case,
and because the 3rd defendant Domenik Simac passed away during the civil action,
from the Social Welfare Centre in Rijeka, in a letter dated 30 August 2001, to supply
the court with the names and surnames and the exact addresses of the heirs of the
deceased Domenik Simac. Failing that, if the Social Welfare Centre in Rijeka does
not know who the heirs of the deceased are, the applicant requested the above
administrative body to appoint for them a special-case trustee.
In letters to the Municipal Court in Rijeka, in reference to the above case (dated 12
September 2001 and 5 November 2001), the Social Welfare Centre in Rijeka
informed the court that it cannot ascertain the heirs of a deceased person for the
needs of court proceedings (in which it is not a party), nor can it appoint a specialcase trustee for persons whose names and surnames are not known to the court.
In the above the applicant recognises a negative jurisdictional dispute, because he
considers that the Municipal Court in Rijeka is not competent to ascertain the heirs of
the deceased 3rd defendant Domenik Simac in the civil action at hand, or to appoint
a special-case trustee for the unknown heirs.
The request is not admissible.
2
2.
The Constitutional Court shall reject the request, proposal and constitutional
complaint by a ruling if it is not competent, if the foregoing have not been timely
submitted, and in other cases when preconditions do not exist for deciding on the
substance of the case (Article 31 of the Constitutional Act on the Constitutional Court
of the Republic of Croatia - Narodne novine, No. 99/99, hereinafter: Constitutional
Act).
In the specific case, the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia has found that
is not competent to decide.
3.
A negative conflict of competence among bodies of legislative, executive or
judicial powers exist under the preconditions stipulated in Article 78 para. 1 of the
Constitutional Act, which provides:
“(1) If a jurisdictional dispute between the bodies of the legislative and the
executive or the judicial branch occurs, because a certain body of the legislative, the
executive or the judicial branch refuses the jurisdiction in the same matter, the
request to resolve the jurisdictional dispute may be submitted after entering into force
of the court decision, respective the final decision of the body of the executive branch
or the corresponding decision of the legislative body, who has first decided on its
jurisdiction.”
4.
Therefore, in accordance with the above provision of the Constitutional Act, for
solving a negative jurisdictional dispute it is necessary for the bodies of the legislative
and the executive or the judicial branch to have refused jurisdiction in the same
matter.
Since the Court established, during constitutional-court proceedings, that no
decisions of the Municipal Court in Rijeka and the Social Welfare Centre in Rijeka
exist, in which the court or the administrative body had refused jurisdiction in the
same matter, the Court finds that the preconditions about jurisdictional dispute in
Article 78 of the Constitutional Act have not been fulfilled.
5.
Pursuant with the above, and in accordance with the provision of Article 31 of
the Constitutional Act, the Court found as in the dictum.
PRESIDENT
Smiljko Sokol, LLD, m. p.