Odškodninska odgovornost države za kršitev pravice do sojenja v razumnem roku

Šinkovec, Tina (author), Možina, Damjan (mentor)

Koncept civilnopravne odškodninske odgovornosti je bil v teoriji, kot tudi v praksi, večkrat razdelan in je nenazadnje koncept, s katerim se pravosodni sistem srečuje vsakodnevno. Nekoliko pa od tega koncepta odstopa odškodninska odgovornost države, kot odgovornost subjekta katerega dejavnost je precej kompleksna. Zastavljajo se vprašanja, ali so predpostavke odškodninske odgovornosti posameznika, uveljavljene v splošni civilnopravni sferi, enake predpostavkam, ki morajo biti izpolnjene v primeru odškodninske odgovornosti države. Primarno lahko dejavnost države ločimo na dejanja, ki so oblastne narave (ex iure imperii) in dejanja neoblastne narave, ko država v razmerju do posameznika nastopa kot subjekt civilno pravnega razmerja (ex iure gestionis). Spoznamo, da pravica do povračila škode skladno z 26. členom Ustave varuje pravno zavarovane interese oseb, ki so bile prizadete zaradi opravljanja službe določenega (državnega) organa. Gre za človekovo pravice, ki se od ostalih tovrstnih pravic razlikuje v tem, da ne zagotavlja omejitev poseganja države v posameznika, ampak slednjemu zagotavlja odškodninsko varstvo v primeru, ko je do poseganja prišlo s protipravnim ravnanjem. V domet 26. člena ustavnopravne določbe pa sodijo le situacije, v katerih država nastopa kot oblast nasproti posamezniku (v vertikalnem razmerju). Protipravna ravnanja države zajemajo tako dejanja, kot tudi opustitve, pri čemer ugotovimo, da je država odškodninsko odgovorna tudi, ko ta opusti dolžno skrbnost s tem, ko posamezniku ne zagotovi pravice do sojenja v razumnem roku. V kolikor sodni postopek glede na okoliščine primera (zapletenost zadeve, ravnanje državnih organov, ravnanje oškodovanca, pomen zadeve za stranko) traja nerazumno dolgo, lahko stranka zahteva povrnitev bodisi nepremoženjske bodisi premoženjske škode, ki ji je nastala zaradi kršitve pravice do sojenja v razumnem roku. Zakon o varstvu pravice do sojenja brez nepotrebnega odlašanja določa, da tako za premoženjsko kot za nepremoženjsko škodo, kot posledico nerazumno dolgega sojenja, država odgovarja objektivno. ZVPSBNO natančneje ureja le odškodninsko odgovornost države za nepremoženjsko škodo, glede povrnitve premoženjske škode pa napotuje na uporabo 26. člena Ustave in določb Obligacijskega zakonika, ob hkratnem upoštevanju meril iz 4. člena ZVPSBNO. Skladno z navedenim lahko vidimo, da tako zakonodajalec kot tudi US in ESČP sojenju v razumnem času dajejo izreden pomen, ta pa se izraža predvsem v odškodninski odgovornosti države, v kolikor pride do kršitve pravice do sojenja v razumnem roku.

• Language: Slovenian
• Keywords: Infohip, Lukenda, odškodninska odgovornost države, objektivni koncept, posebna ureditev, pravica do sojenja v razumnem roku, pravično zadoščenje, predpostavke civilnopravne odškodninske odgovornosti, premoženjska škoda, ustavna določba
• Work type: Master's thesis/paper
• Organization: PF - Faculty of Law
• Year: 2020
• PID: 20.500.12556/RUL-114458
• COBISS.SI-ID: 17207889
• Publication date in RUL: 29.02.2020

Secondary language

• Language: English
• Title: State liability for breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time

Abstract

The concept of civil liability for damages has been repeatedly shared in theory, as in practice, and is nonetheless a concept that the justice system faces on a daily basis. However, the concept of tort liability of the state deviates somewhat from this concept, as the liability of an entity whose activity is quite complex. This raises the question of whether the assumptions of civil liability for liability are the same as the assumptions to be fulfilled in the case of State liability. Primarily, the activity of the state can be distinguished into acts that are of a governmental nature (ex iure imperii) and acts of a non-governmental nature when the state acts as an entity of civil legal relation (iure gestionis) in relation to an individual. First, we recognize that the right to compensation for damage, in accordance with Article 26 of the Constitution, protects the legally protected interests of persons who have been affected by the performance of the service of a state body. It is a human right that differs from other such rights in that it does not guarantee the restriction of state interference with an individual but provides the latter with damages in the event of interference with unlawful conduct. However, only the situations in which the state acts as a power over an individual (in a vertical relationship) fall within the scope of Article 26 of the constitutional law. Unlawful acts by the state include both acts and omissions, and we find that the state is liable for damages even when it omits due diligence by failing to guarantee an individual the right to a trial within a reasonable time. To the extent that the court proceedings, depending on the circumstances of the case (complexity of the case, the conduct of the authorities, the conduct of the injured party, the importance of the case to the client), last unreasonably long, the party may seek compensation for either non-pecuniary or pecuniary damage caused by the violation of the right to a trial within a reasonable time. . The Law on the Protection of the Right to a Trial, without undue delay, provides that the State shall be held liable objectively for both material and non-material damage as a result of an unreasonably long trial. ZVPSBNO regulates more precisely only the state liability for non-pecuniary damage, while referring to the compensation of property damage, it refers to the application of the provisions of the Obligations Code, while respecting the criteria of Article 4 of the ZVPSBNO. Accordingly, it can be seen that the legislature, as well as the practice of the ECtHR, give trial within a reasonable time of utmost importance, which is primarily reflected in the state's liability for damages in the event of a violation of the right to a trial within a reasonable time.

• Keywords: civil liability claims, Infohip, just satisfaction, Lukenda, objective concept, constitutional provision, property damage, right to a trial within a reasonable time, special arrangement, state liability