Izazovi postavljanja tužbenog zahtjeva u slučaju povrede prava osobnosti tjelesnom ozljedom
Zvonimir Matić, mag. iur., odvjetnik, Jurja Žerjavića 9, 10000 Zagreb; zvonimir@odvjetnik-matic.com; ORCID ID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7221-9077
Dr. sc. Marko Baretić, profesor Pravnog fakulteta Sveučilišta u Zagrebu, Trg Republike Hrvatske 14, 10000 Zagreb; marko.baretic@pravo.hr; ORCID ID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8182-0315
Sažetak
Prema odredbi čl. 19. ZOO/05 svaka fizička i pravna osoba ima pravo na zaštitu svojih prava osobnosti pod pretpostavkama utvrđenim zakonom, a pod pravima osobnosti razumijevaju se pravo na život, tjelesno i duševno zdravlje, ugled, čast, dostojanstvo, ime, privatnost osobnog i obiteljskog života, sloboda i dr. Odredbom čl. 1046. ZOO/05 neimovinska šteta definirana je kao povreda prava osobnosti, a odredbom čl. 1100. ZOO/05 propisano je da će sud, ako težina povrede i okolnosti slučaja to opravdaju, dosuditi novčanu naknadu zbog povrede prava osobnosti, vodeći pri tome računa o dužini i jačini pretrpljenih duševnih i fizičkih boli, straha te svrsi kojoj naknada služi. Iako ZOO/05 uvodi u naš pravni sustav objektivnu koncepciju neimovinske štete u smislu da je pravno priznata neimovinska šteta ona tzv. primarna šteta koja nastaje samom povredom zaštićenog neimovinskog dobra, sudska praksa pokazuje kako su u procjeni postojanja neimovinske štete i nadalje odlučne činjenice koje tvore subjektivni koncept neimovinske štete, tj. takozvana sekundarna šteta u vidu jačine i trajanja fizičkih i duševnih boli te straha. Navedeno je potvrđeno zauzetim pravnim shvaćanjem Građanskog odjela Vrhovnog suda Republike Hrvatske od 5. ožujka 2020. i 15. lipnja 2020. godine, kojim Vrhovni sud RH daje do znanja da su i nadalje u primjeni Orijentacijski kriteriji i iznosi za utvrđivanje visine pravične novčane naknade nematerijalne štete VSRH od 29. studenog 2002., koji su doneseni za primjenu subjektivnog koncepta neimovinske štete iz čl. 200. ZOO/91, smatrajući da su podobni i za primjenu odredaba čl. 19., 1046. te čl. 1100. ZOO/05.
Orijentacijski kriteriji za neimovinsku štetu Vrhovnog suda RH tijekom vremena sve su više izloženi kritici u smislu da je promjena koncepta poimanja neimovinske štete trebala i/ili morala dovesti i do suštinske promjene u činjeničnoj i pravnoj osnovi zahtjeva kojim se potražuje naknada neimovinske štete. Osobito se ta problematika potencira u slučajevima kada se pojavi dilema je li štetnom radnjom došlo do povrede većeg broja prava osobnosti ili je uvijek riječ o jednom pravu osobnosti, odnosno u slučajevima kada povredu prava osobnosti nije moguće iskazati kroz odredbu stavka 2. čl. 1100. ZOO/05 zato što se nije manifestirala kao fizička i duševna bol, odnosno strah, pa nije moguće primijeniti Orijentacijske kriterije VSRH. Ovim radom pokušat će se analizirati na koji bi način trebalo odrediti činjeničnu i pravnu osnovu tužbenog zahtjeva, odnosno kako postaviti tužbeni zahtjev u slučajevima kada jedna štetna radnja izazove veći broj povreda prava osobnosti, odnosno kada je riječ o povredi prava osobnosti koju po svojoj naravi nije moguće procijeniti s pomoću stavka 2. čl. 1100. ZOO-a, odnosno nije moguće primijeniti Orijentacijske kriterije VSRH za neimovinsku štetu.
Ključne riječi: pravo osobnosti, neimovinska šteta, činjenična i pravna osnova, novčana naknada neimovinske štete
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3935/zpfz.71.5.02
Hrčak ID: 272073
URI: https://hrcak.srce.hr/272073
Stranice: 619-644
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Challenges in Defining Prayer for Relief in Case of Personality Rights’ Violation Caused by Bodily Injury
Zvonimir Matić, LL. M., Attorney at Law, Jurja Žerjavića 9, 10000 Zagreb; zvonimir@odvjetnik-matic.com; ORCID ID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7221-9077
Marko Baretić, Ph. D., Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Zagreb, Trg Republike Hrvatske 14, 10000 Zagreb; marko.baretic@pravo.hr; ORCID ID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8182-0315
Summary
Pursuant to Article 19 of the COA/05, any natural and legal person is entitled to protection of their personality rights under the conditions determined by the law, whereas the notion of personality rights includes right to life, bodily and mental health, reputation, honour, dignity, name, privacy of personal and family life, freedom, etc. The provision of Article 1046 of the COA/05 defines non-material damage as violation of personality rights, whereas the provision of Article 1100 of the COA/05 provides that in deciding on the amount of just pecuniary compensation, the court must take into account the degree and duration of physical and mental pain and fear caused by the violation, the objective of the compensation, and the fact that it should not promote aims that are not compatible with its nature and social purpose.
Even though the COA/05 introduces into our legal system the objective concept of non-material damage in the sense that only the so-called primary damage, i.e. damage that arises with the mere violation of the protected non-material goods is considered to be legally relevant non-material damage, case law demonstrates that in the process of assessing non-material damage, facts relevant in the context of the so-called subjective concept of non-material damage, i.e. the so-called secondary damage in the form of degree and duration of physical and mental pain and fear, are still relevant. The above is confirmed by the recently adopted legal position of the Civil Law Department of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Croatia of 5 March 2020 and 15 June 2020, whereby the Supreme Court of the Republic of Croatia held that the Orientation criteria and the amounts for determining the value of just pecuniary compensation for non-material damage of 29 November 2002 are still applicable, even though they were adopted in the context of the application of the subjective concept of non-material damage from Article 200 of the COA/91, thus obviously implying that Orientational criteria are suitable for application even in the context of the provisions of Articles 19, 1046 and 1100 of the COA/05.
Over time, the Orientation criteria were frequently criticised for not being harmonised with the new, objective concept of non-material damage introduced by the COA/05. The critics argued that the change in the concept of non-material damage introduced in 2005 should have been reflected in the factual and legal basis of a prayer for relief by which compensation for non-material damage is sought. The problem of incompatibility of the Orientation criteria with the objective concept of non-material damage is particularly apparent in cases where one wrongful act causes multiple violations of personality rights, or where a violation of personality rights cannot be subsumed under the provision of paragraph 2 of Article 1100 of the COA/05, because the violation of personality rights has not been manifested in physical or mental pain and fear so that Orientation criteria cannot be applied. This paper attempts to analyse how to define a prayer for relief in cases where one wrongful act causes multiple violations of personality rights, or where the violation of personality right cannot be assessed according to the provision of paragraph 2 of Article 1100 of the COA, that is when Orientation criteria cannot be applied.
Keywords: personality rights, non-material damage, factual and legal basis, pecuniary compensation for non-material damage
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3935/zpfz.71.5.02
Hrčak ID: 272073
URI: https://hrcak.srce.hr/272073
Pages: 619-644