izpis_h1_title_alt

Pravica do izvajanja dokazov v upravnem postopku in upravnem sporu
Manfreda, Ive (Author), Žuber, Bruna (Mentor) More about this mentor... This link opens in a new window, Pirnat, Rajko (Co-mentor)

.pdfPDF - Presentation file, Download (841,77 KB)
MD5: FF2E6E0DB60BBE380C7E2466B2E96319

Abstract
V pričujočem delu je obravnavana pravica do izvajanja dokazov v upravnem postopku in upravnem sporu, ki je sestavni del pravice do izjave, vsebovane v 22. členu Ustave RS, ki zagotavlja pošten postopek. Priznana je kot temeljna človekova pravica in uživa varstvo v okviru pravnih aktov najvišjega ranga, kot so Ustava Republike Slovenije in Evropska konvencija o varstvu človekovih pravic in temeljnih svoboščin. V postopkovnih zakonih ima podlago že v temeljnih načelih, njeno uresničevanje pa omogočajo različna dokazna sredstva. Pravica do izvajanja dokazov daje vsakemu udeležencu postopka možnost, da navaja dejstva in predlaga dokaze, da se izjavi o navedbah nasprotne stranke in o rezultatih dokazovanja, ter da je pri vsem tem navzoč. Pravica sicer ni absolutna, saj zadevni predpisi ne zagotavljajo, da bo vsak strankin dokazni predlog tudi izveden. Zavrniti ga je mogoče iz ustavno dopustnih formalnih ali vsebinskih razlogov. Dokazni predlog mora namreč biti pravočasen, potreben, relevanten, primeren in substanciran. Če ne izpolnjuje katerega od pogojev, ga organ ni dolžan izvesti. V nasprotnem primeru pa uradna oseba ne sme kar vnaprej zavrniti izvedbe predlaganega dokaza, temveč se mora z njim neposredno seznaniti – v sodnem postopku na obligatorni ustni glavni obravnavi. Jamstvom poštenega postopka je torej zadoščeno, če odločujoči organ, zato da se resnica prav spozna, sliši in nepristransko pretehta obe plati zvona. Predlagani dokaz pa bodisi izvede bodisi njegovo zavrnitev jasno in izčrpno argumentira v obrazložitvi odločbe. Le na takšen način bosta uresničeni zahtevi po “enakosti orožij” in kontradiktornosti.

Language:Slovenian
Keywords:Ustavna procesna jamstva, EKČP, upravni postopek, načela ugotovitvenega in dokaznega postopka, dokazna sredstva, upravni spor, glavna obravnava, pravica do izvajanja dokazov, upravno sodstvo.
Work type:Master's thesis/paper (mb22)
Organization:PF - Faculty of Law
Year:2021
COBISS.SI-ID:71283715 This link opens in a new window
Views:343
Downloads:51
Metadata:XML RDF-CHPDL DC-XML DC-RDF
 
Average score:(0 votes)
Your score:Voting is allowed only to logged in users.
:
Share:AddThis
AddThis uses cookies that require your consent. Edit consent...

Secondary language

Language:English
Title:The right to take evidence in administrative proceeding and administrative dispute
Abstract:
The thesis discusses the right to take evidence in administrative proceeding and administrative dispute, which is an integral part of the right to be heard, contained in Article 22 of the Constitution of the RS, which ensures a fair trial. It is recognized as a fundamental human right and enjoys protection within the framework of legal acts of the highest rank, such as the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia and the European Convention on Human Rights. In procedural laws, its legal ground derives from fundamental principles, and its implementation is enabled by various types of evidence. The right to take evidence gives each party in legal proceedings the opportunity to state reasons and propose evidence, to make statements about the opposing party’s allegations and on the results of the evidence, as well as the right to be present at the taking of evidence. However, the right is not absolute, as the relevant regulations do not guarantee that every party’s evidentiary motion will be carried out. It can be rejected for certain constitutionally permissible formal or substantive reasons. The evidentiary proposal must be timely, necessary, relevant, suitable and substantiated. If it does not meet the above stated conditions, the authority is not obliged to carry it out. This implies that the decision-maker cannot refuse to take the proposed evidence in advance as he or she must be directly acquainted with it – in court proceedings at a mandatory oral main hearing. The guarantees of a fair trial are therefore met, if the authority, in order to know the truth, hears and impartially weighs both sides of the medal. In any case, it either carries out the proposed evidence or clearly and exhaustively argues its rejection in the reasoning of the decision. Only in such manner will the demands for “equality of arms” and adversarial proceedings be met.

Keywords:Constitutional procedural guarantees, ECHR, administrative procedure, principles of declaratory and evidentiary proceedings, evidence, administrative dispute, main hearing, the right to take evidence, administrative judiciary.

Similar documents

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

Comments

Leave comment

You have to log in to leave a comment.

Comments (0)
0 - 0 / 0
 
There are no comments!

Back