izpis_h1_title_alt

Varstvo pravic uporabnikov storitev na področju negospodarskih javnih služb
ID Gantar, Damjan (Author), ID Trpin, Gorazd (Mentor) More about this mentor... This link opens in a new window

.pdfPDF - Presentation file, Download (2,26 MB)
MD5: 2C6B5AE2D0B6898BCB8003F28BF6B25F

Abstract
Javna služba je servisna dejavnost javnega sektorja, za razliko od njegovih oblastnih funkcij, ki se izvajajo pretežno v državnih organih. Bistvo delovanja javnih služb je v tem, da se posamezniku nudi neka storitev ali dobrina, oblast izvajalcev javne službe nad posameznikom pa se odraža v tem, da storitev, ki naj bi jo nudili, odklonijo ali pa posamezniku naložijo neko zakonsko predpisano obveznost, ki jo je dolžan sprejeti. S tem odločajo o pravicah in obveznostih, podobno kot to delajo državni organi. Uporabnik torej nujno potrebuje neko procesno varstvo, podobno kot ga ima posameznik pri odločanju uprave v upravni zadevi. Značilno za dejavnosti negospodarskih javnih služb je, da se z njimi zagotavljajo dobrine in storitve, ki so predmet človekovih pravic in temeljnih svoboščin. Najpomembnejša področja negospodarskih javnih služb so zdravstvo, vzgoja in izobraževanje, socialna varnost ter kultura. Odločitve izvajalcev teh služb lahko razdelimo v dve skupini: na odločitve, ki so v celoti ali v pretežnem delu strokovne narave, in upravnopravne odločitve. Pri nekaterih odločitvah se eno od drugega ne da povsem ločiti. Kadar gre za upravnopravno odločanje ali je to prevladujoče, je uporaba Zakona o splošnem upravnem postopku povsem na mestu, s tem da so lahko določena pravila postopka urejena tudi drugače. V teh zadevah namreč lahko odločajo osebe, ki imajo predvsem znanja s področja upravnega procesnega prava in ni potrebno neko specializirano znanje iz nepravnega področja. Pri odločanju izvajalcev javnih služb, ki je v pretežni meri strokovne narave, pa so potrebna določena specializirana strokovna znanja z zelo različnih področij. Vendar pa, tudi kadar gre za strokovno odločanje, morajo določena pravila postopka vseeno veljati, vsaj minimalni procesni standardi. Posameznik je namreč lahko pri svojih pravicah prizadet tudi, ko gre za izrazito strokovne odločitve, ki se nanašajo nanj. Sprejeti bi bilo treba ali poseben zakon, ki bi določal postopek pri strokovnem odločanju izvajalcev javnih služb, ali pa v ta namen nadgraditi Zakon o splošnem upravnem postopku. Najboljša rešitev je vsekakor sprejetje posebnega postopkovnega zakona, ki bi enotno urejal le postopke izvajalcev javnih služb. Različne postopkovne ureditve na posameznih področjih posebej (šolstvo, zdravstvo, kultura …) bi namreč vodile k neenotnosti, nepreglednosti in razdrobljenosti. Enoten postopek za vse izvajalce javnih služb bi moral biti enostavnejši od splošnega upravnega postopka. V njem bi bilo treba upoštevati vsa temeljna načela postopka in zagotoviti osnovna procesna jamstva. Sodno varstvo posameznika v upravnem sporu mora biti dopustno tudi, ko gre za strokovne odločitve, vendar bi morala biti v tem primeru sodna kontrola omejena na presojo zakonitosti postopka in presojo, ali je končna odločitev očitno nerazumna ali arbitrarna.

Language:Slovenian
Keywords:negospodarska javna služba, zdravstvo, vzgoja in izobraževanje, socialna varnost, kultura, pravice in obveznosti uporabnika, upravnopravno odločanje, strokovno odločanje (»lex artis«), procesna jamstva, sodno varstvo
Work type:Doctoral dissertation
Organization:PF - Faculty of Law
Year:2019
PID:20.500.12556/RUL-113141 This link opens in a new window
COBISS.SI-ID:17059665 This link opens in a new window
Publication date in RUL:06.12.2019
Views:1648
Downloads:361
Metadata:XML RDF-CHPDL DC-XML DC-RDF
:
Copy citation
Share:Bookmark and Share

Secondary language

Language:English
Title:The Protection of the Rights of the Social Services Users
Abstract:
Public service is the service activity of the public sector; this distinguishes it from its authoritative functions, which are mainy practised by public authorities. The essence of public services is that they provide to an individual goods or services, while the authority of the providers of public services is defined either by their ability to deny these services or by their right to impose on an individual a legally prescribed responsibility he or she is compelled to accept. By doing this they make rulings on rights and responsibilities in a similar manner as the authorities. The user, therefore, inevitably needs a form of procedural protection comparable to the one an individual has in any decision during the administrative process. The main characteristic of social services is that they provide those goods and services that are the matter of essential human rights and freedoms. The most important fields of social services are health care, education, social security, and culture. Decisions by the providers of these services can be divided into two types: those that are either partially or entirely expert in their nature and administrative legal decisions. In certain cases, the two cannot be fully separated. When dealing with wholly or predominantly administrative legal decisions, the use of the Administrative Procedure Act is perfectly appropriate, provided that certain procedural regulations can be adjusted. The reason for this is that the decision-makers in these matters are trained in administrative procedures law and do not require a specialist knowledge in a non-legal field. In public service decisions that are predominantly expert in nature some specialized knowledge in a variety of fields is needed. Yet even when it comes to expert decisions certain procedural rules must be followed, foremost among them minimum procedural standards. The individuals’ rights, for instance, can be violated even when they have been affected by a wholly expert decision. To rectify this, a special law should be passed defining the process for expert decision-making by public service providers or, alternatively, the existing Administrative Procedure Act should be amended. The preferred solution is definitely the development of a special procedural law that would focus exclusively on public service processes. Distinct procedural regulations for each separate field (education, health care, culture) would, conversely, result in incoherence, lack of clarity, and fragmentation. A consistent process for all public service providers would have to be simpler than the general administrative procedure. It would have to take into account all fundamental procedural principles and ensure the essential procedural guarantees. The judicial protection of an individual in an administrative dispute should also be available in expert matters, though the judicial control should in this case be restricted to the rulings on procedural matters and on reasonability and arbitrariness of the final decision.

Keywords:social service, health care, education, social security, culture, individual's rights and responsibilities, administrative legal decision-making, expert decision-making (“lex artis”), procedural guarantees, judicial protection

Similar documents

Similar works from RUL:
Similar works from other Slovenian collections:

Back