Restitution claim in judical practice

Abstract

In criminal proceedings restitution claims could be considered as a sui generis institute. However, this institute have not experienced its full affirmation in judicial practice yet. We have brought to attention some of the major problems integrated into practice while criticizing certain attitudes imposed by theoreticians. Due to limited scope, we have been observing the most obvious problems but we should be aware of the fact that we are far away from it's end. Thus while presenting our opinion which we have been trying to support with arguments presented below. Some of the following problems have been pointed out: firstly, we emphasized misused trend adopted by courts to always direct injured party when they partially decide on the request to obtain their excess approaching to the civil proceedings, furthermore we have pointed out problem which arise here in the form of violation of the rule 'ne bis in idem'. However, this domain needs better regulation in the legal framework; also, we haven't excluded widely adopted occurrence to allow the injured party to change their request during the process, thus meanwhile presenting one our major concerns which brings to increase of the ratio for submitted request without a valid reason, referring to the relevant provisions of the Law on Civil Procedure in solving this problem; Besides all above mentioned, we have also discussed widely distributed trend of insufficient definition of the request, in terms of its precise defining in all elements (what damage and what should be the amount for all sorts of damage required by the injured party) and finally we have specified mistakes that courts have been making in situations when they decide not to decide on submitted application, or on contradictory argumentation applied in that certain occasion.