| | SLO | ENG | Cookies and privacy

Bigger font | Smaller font

Show document

Title:KAZENSKA ODGOVORNOST JAVNIH FUNKCIONARJEV
Authors:Štromajer, Eva (Author)
Dežman, Zlatan (Mentor) More about this mentor... New window
Files:.pdf UNI_Stromajer_Eva_2013.pdf (1,95 MB)
 
Language:Slovenian
Work type:Undergraduate thesis (m5)
Typology:2.11 - Undergraduate Thesis
Organization:PF - Faculty of Law
Abstract:Diplomsko delo obravnava odgovornost nosilcev javnih pooblastil, pri čemer se osredotočam predvsem na premiso med politično in kazensko odgovornostjo javnih funkcionarjev s posebnim ozirom na župane. Javni funkcionarji so voljeni ali imenovani ˝predstavniki ljudstva˝, ki svojo funkcijo opravljajo poklicno ali nepoklicno in predstavljajo osebe, če izhajamo iz zakonske opredelitve, ki jih na funkcijo volijo skupščine družbenopolitičnih skupnosti, predsednik in člani predsedstva Republike Slovenije in delegati v zborih skupščin družbenopolitičnih skupnosti, kakor tudi funkcionarji pravosodnih organov, ki jih imenujejo skupščine družbenopolitičnih skupnosti, funkcionarji družbenega pravobranilca samoupravljanja, namestniki republiških sekretarjev ter generalni sekretarji Predsedstva Republike Slovenije, Skupščine Republike Slovenije, Ustavnega sodišča Republike Slovenije in Izvršnega sveta Skupščine Republike Slovenije. V večini primerov za nastop funkcije in njeno opravljanje, posebni strokovni pogoji, ki bi jih funkcionarji morali izpolnjevati, niso potrebni. Pri opravljanju svojih funkcij so nosilci javnih pooblastil sicer do neke mere avtonomni, zakonodaja jih pa v določenem obsegu skuša omejevati. Kakršnokoli omejevanje pa ne doseže svojega namena in posledično temu učinka, saj ne glede na dejstvo, da so kazenskopravne, politične in civilne oziroma odškodninske sankcije zakonsko sicer opredeljene, je pojem odgovornosti javnega funkcionarja, iz prakse izhajajoč, nepopolno definiran in kot tak neoprijemljiv. Redki so primeri, ko funkcionarji za svoja ravnanja, ki so lahko kazenskopravno preganjana in imajo določene materialnopravne sankcije, dejansko odgovarjajo, ravno zaradi ohlapno urejene zakonodaje na tem področju. Če povzamemo, so funkcionarji moralno in etično odgovorni za dejanja, ki jih pri opravljanju svoje funkcije zagrešijo, pojem morale in etike pa lahko skorajda zatrdimo, je slovenskim funkcionarjem, v večini primerov, tuj. Ureditev odgovornosti funkcionarjev ima več podvrst, s skupno značilnostjo, ki se kaže v zahtevi, da mora kršitev nastati pri opravljanju funkcije. Drug problem, ki se kaže predvsem skozi prakso predstavlja dejstvo, da (pre)večkrat pride do zlorabe objektivne odgovornosti, v smislu prehajanja iz sfere pravne v objektivno politično odgovornost, o čemer govorimo v smislu odgovornosti poslancev, ministrov, tudi predsednika in drugih funkcionarjev. Šibkost ureditve pravne odgovornosti je predvsem posledica nenehne uporabe objektivne odgovornosti. Zato lahko govorimo o zlorabi objektivne odgovornosti, ker ne pride do ugotavljanja pravne odgovornosti, četudi za le-to obstajajo razlogi. Tudi v okviru objektivne politične odgovornosti pa, žal, opažamo, da do sankcij pravzaprav ne pride. Razlog je, kot ugotavljam v tem diplomskem delu, v zakonodaji, ki tega ne določa dovolj natančno in je določila, ki govorijo o sankcijah, mogoče obiti. Druga pomanjkljivost oziroma neprimernost sankcije se kaže v nesorazmernosti sankcije z izvedenim kaznivim dejanjem ali prekrškom, kar se tipično kaže v primeru kršitve 27. v povezavi z 28. členom ZIntPK, ki kot sankcijo določa nesorazmerno oglobitev posameznega funkcionarja. Glavni razlog je nepopolna zakonodaja v smislu razpršenosti določil v več zakonih, ki veljajo za nosilce javnih pooblastil. Zato potrebujemo zakon, ki bo enotno urejal oblike odgovornosti funkcionarjev in predvideval konkretne materialnopravne sankcije in predvsem potrebujemo institut, ki bo omogočal razrešitev županov, ki so po trenutno aktualni zakonodaji skorajda nedotakljivi. Diplomsko delo je v jedru razdeljeno na tri temeljne dele, od katerih v prvem podrobno opredeljujem pojem javnega funkcionarja in povzemam temeljne značilnosti in naloge posameznih. V drugem delu so izpostavljene oblike odgovornosti javnih funkcionarjev, od politične, do kazenske in nazadnje, odškodninske odgovornosti. V okviru odgovornosti obravnavam tudi institute za uveljavljanje le-te. Tretji del jedra diplomskega dela predstavlja obr
Keywords:javni funkcionar, nosilec javnih pooblastil, kazenska odgovornost, kazensko pravo, politična odgovornost, etika in morala, uveljavljanje odgovornosti, odškodninska odgovornost, instituti uveljavljanja odgovornosti, župan
Year of publishing:2013
Publisher:[E. Štromajer]
Source:Maribor
UDC:343(043.2)
COBISS_ID:4552491 Link is opened in a new window
NUK URN:URN:SI:UM:DK:JOO8AXH4
Views:740
Downloads:109
Metadata:XML RDF-CHPDL DC-XML DC-RDF
Categories:PF
:
  
Average score:(0 votes)
Your score:Voting is allowed only for logged in users.
Share:AddThis
AddThis uses cookies that require your consent. Edit consent...

Hover the mouse pointer over a document title to show the abstract or click on the title to get all document metadata.

Secondary language

Language:English
Title:CRIMINAL LIABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS
Abstract:This thesis deals with the liability of holders of public authority, where the main point of concentration is premise between political and criminal liability of public officials, with concentration on Mayors. Public officials are elected or appointed “representatives of the people”, their function can be professional or amateur. Based on the statutory definition, they are the people, elected to their functions by the Assembly of socio-political communities, the President and members of the Presidency of the Republic of Slovenia and the delegates in the assembly of assemblies socio-political communities, as well as judicial officers, appointed by the general socio-political communities, officials of General Attorneys office, the Deputy Secretaries and the Secretaries-General of the Republic of Slovenia, the Assembly of the Republic of Slovenia, the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia and the Executive Council of the Republic of Slovenia. In most cases, there are no necessary special professional conditions to be fulfilled by officials, for taking their function. In carrying out their functions, the holders of public offices are up to some extent autonomous, but the legislation does in certain extend restrict their authorization (power). Any restriction does not achieve its purpose and consequently its effect, because regardless of the fact that the criminal justice, political, and civil damages or penalties otherwise specified by law, the concept of accountability of public functionaries, in practice, is incompletely defined, and as such anti-adhesive (intangible). Therefore the occasions where officials actually respond for their actions, which may be prosecuted and have some substantive sanctions are rare, also because of the loose legislation in this area. To summarize, officials are morally and ethically responsible for acts committed while performing their duties, but we can almost assure that in most cases, notion of morality and ethics is foreign to Slovenian officials. The arrangement of the liability of officials has several subtypes, with the shared denominator, which is reflected in the requirement that the breach be incurred in the performance of functions. Another problem, which is seen primarily through the practice, lies in the fact that (too) many times there is an abuse of strict liability, in terms of transition from the sphere of legal liability to political accountability, where we are talking about the liability of Members of the Parliament, Ministers, also the President and other officials. The weakness of the legal liability regime is primarily the result of continued use of strict liability. Therefore, we can talk about the abuse of strict liability because there is no assessment of legal liability, even it for this there are also alternative reasons. Even in the context of the strict political accountability, unfortunately, we observe that the sanctions actually do not occur. The reason, as I note in this thesis, is that the legislation does not provide sufficient detail on sanctioning, and that the provisions on sanctioning can be bypassed. Another shortcoming or inadequacy of sanctions is reflected in the disproportionate sanctioning for carried out an offense or a crime. This is typically seen in cases of breach of the 27th Atricle in conjunction with the 28th Article ZIntPK, which as a sanction provides disproportionate fines for individual officers. The main reason is incomplete legislation in terms of dispersion of provisions in several laws, applicable to holders of public authority. Therefore, we need a law, which will uniformly regulate forms of accountability and liability of officials and will anticipate concrete and substantive legal sanctions. Primarily we need an Institute, which will provide for dismissal of Mayors, who are under current legislation almost untouchable. The core of the thesis is divided into three fundamental parts. First part specifies the notion of a public official and summarizes the basic features and functions of individual officials. T
Keywords:public official, holder of public authority, criminal liability, criminal law, political accountability, ethics and morals, the liability, tort (liability of damages, General Attorneys office, Mayor


Comments

Leave comment

You have to log in to leave a comment.

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

Back
Logos of partners University of Maribor University of Ljubljana University of Primorska University of Nova Gorica