U radu se analiziraju dva segmenta instituta izuzeća sudaca u parničnom postupku - razlozi zbog kojih se može inicirati incidentalni postupak izuzeća i pitanje inicijative za pokretanje tog postupka. Razlozi za izuzeće izlažu se i obrađuju s obzirom na to imaju li značenje tzv. apsolutnih i tzv. relativnih razloga za izuzeće. Kad je riječ o tzv. apsolutnim razlozima, razlozima čija je lista taksativno utvrđena u Zakonu, preispituju se odredbe kojima su regulirane pojedine grupe tih razloga, način njihova određenja, međusobni odnos i struktura. U vezi s tzv. relativnim razlozima nastoji se odrediti sadržaj i domašaj opće klauzule prema kojoj značenje razloga za izuzeće može imati svaka okolnost koja može dovesti u sumnju nepristranost suca, a zatim se primjerice izlažu subjektivne i objektivne okolnosti koje su prema (domaćoj i komparativnoj) praksi i doktrini imale odnosno mogle imati značenje takvog razloga, odnosno one za koje se našlo da ga nemaju. Problemski kompleks inicijative za pokretanje incidentalnog postupka izuzeća istražuje se s obzirom na to pokreće li se taj postupak oficijelnom radnjom suca, predsjednika suda kao suca ili predsjednika suda kao tijela ovlaštenog odlučiti o izuzeću, odnosno zahtjevom stranke, te s obzirom na vrstu razloga zbog kojega je ta inicijative poduzeta. Pritom se tumačenjem relativno zastarjelih, nedovoljno određenih i međusobno neusklađenih normi koje uređuju ovaj problemski kompleks pokušavaju već de lege lata ponuditi rješenja kojima bi se one uskladile s ustavnopravno i konvencijski utvrđenim pravima stranaka na neovisni i nepristrani sud, na zakonskog suca i na pravično suđenje. Zaključno se predlažu određena rješenja kojima bi se već de lege lata, ali de iure condendo unaprijedili normativna osnova i primjena obrađenih segmenata instituta.; The paper analyses two segments of the institute of disqualifi cation of judges in civil proceedings - the reasons for initiating the incidental disqualifi cation procedure and the issue of an initiative to initiate this procedure. The reasons for the exemption are examing and explained by taking into consideration whether they have the meaning of the so-called absolute or relative reasons for the disqualifi cation. When it comes to the so-called absolute reasons, whose list is exhaustively determined by law, the provisions that regulate certain groups of these reasons, the manner of their determination, the relationship between each other and the structure are reviewed. In connection with the so-called relative reasons, an attempt is made to determine the content and scope of the general clause according to which any circumstance which questions the impartiality of a judge is a reason for disqualifi cation. Furthermore, the paper also addresses subjective and objective circumstances which according to (domestic and comparative) case law and doctrine, could constitute such reason, that is, those that were found not to contain it. The complex of problems concerning the initiative for the initiation of an incidental disqualifi cation procedure is investigated by taking into account whether this procedure is initiated by an ex offi cio action of the judge, the president of the court as a judge or the president of the court as the body authorized to decide on the disqualifi cation or upon the request of the party. In addition, the type of reason why these initiatives are undertaken is also considered. By interpreting the relatively obsolete, insuffi ciently determined and mutually uncoordinated norms regulating this problem, the paper offers solutions, which would harmonize these norms with the rights of the parties to an independent and impartial tribunal and a fair trial, hence, rights guaranteed by the Constitution and the Convention.