| | SLO | ENG | Cookies and privacy

Bigger font | Smaller font

Show document

Title:PREDHODNI POSTOPEK PO ZAKONU O KAZENSKEM POSTOPKU V ZVEZI Z NAČELOM AKUZATORNOSTI
Authors:Horvat, Miha (Author)
Dežman, Zlatan (Mentor) More about this mentor... New window
Files:.pdf UN_Horvat_Miha_2015.pdf (955,49 KB)
MD5: 73F04C804B35E50E8DDF99AF4AAE8DD3
 
Language:Slovenian
Work type:Bachelor thesis/paper (mb11)
Typology:2.11 - Undergraduate Thesis
Organization:PF - Faculty of Law
Abstract:Kazenski postopek je mogoče poimenovati kot pravno urejen proces izpodbijanja domneve nedolžnosti, ki se skozi faze postopka izpodbija glede na vsak dokaz, ki ga predloži tožilstvo. Zaradi uvajanja adversarnosti postopka in prevalitve dokaznega bremena na stranke, bi se sodišče izognilo velikim težavam pravno-organizacijske narave, kot je udeležba prič in izvajanje drugih dokazov, saj bi imele stranke večji interes na pravilnem izvajanju potrebnih dokazov. Faza preiskave je pomemben del predhodnega postopka in pripomore k lažjemu zavarovanju dokazov pomembnih v postopku. Preiskovalni sodnik se mora opredeliti kot garant postopka. Preiskovalni sodnik na predlog strank odredi pridobitev tistih dokazov, ki pomenijo zelo globok poseg v osebnostno sfero obdolženca, kot je v skladu z Zakonom o kazenskem postopku. Preiskovalni sodnik presoja pomembnost dokaza za ugotovitev dejanskega stanja v zvezi z intenzivnostjo omejevalnega ukrepa. Kljub temu se zdi, da je na načelni ravni zahteva po kontradiktornosti v kazenskem postopku na splošno sprejeta. Vendar si moramo kontradiktornost predstavljati bistveno več kakor zgolj postopkovno pravilo; je način razmišljanja, je prehod od pojmovanja kazenskega postopka kot uradovanja države k temu, da je predhodni postopek urejen kot spor med strankama. Inkvizitorno načelo je pogosto predmet kritike, saj ta onemogoča objektivnost sodišča v postopku preiskave. Problem preiskave se je v teoriji osredotočil na preiskovalnega sodnika in njegovi nasprotujoči si vlogi aktivnega preiskovalca ter pasivnega garanta v postopku. Vendar pa se glede preiskave pojavlja tudi vprašanje smiselnosti, zaradi nepotrebnega večkratnega izvajanja dokaznega postopka. Policijski predkazenski postopek, preizkus obtožnega akta in tudi sodna preiskava skupaj sestavljajo predhodni postopek. Faza preiskave služi predvsem sodnemu fiksiranju dokazov, ki jih je pred tem na neformalen način zbrala že policija. Tožilec bi moral biti v celoti odgovoren za uspeh preiskovanja kaznivega dejanja, on bi moral izključno skrbeti ob pomoči organov pregona, da bo na sodišču zadoščeno standardom dokaznega bremena. Kot dominuslitis predhodnega postopka bi se državni tožilec moral otresti svoje psihološke navezanosti na pomoč preiskovalnega sodnika. V predhodnem postopku, kot v tisti fazi postopka, ki je z vidika človekovih pravic najbolj kritična, bi morala zakonodaja predvsem okrepiti garantno funkcijo sodišča, ki bi zagotovila nepristranski nadzor nad zakonitostjo dela organov pregona in bi v izjemnih primerih s svojimi pristojnostmi zavarovalo dokaze, ki jih na glavni obravnavi ne bi mogli ponoviti.
Keywords:adversarni postopek, predhodni postopek, postopek preiskave, preiskovalni sodnik, državni tožilec
Year of publishing:2015
Publisher:[M. Horvat]
Source:Maribor
UDC:343.8(043.2)
COBISS_ID:5075243 New window
NUK URN:URN:SI:UM:DK:G4NV4XRK
Views:1306
Downloads:162
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:PRELIMINARY PROCEDURE UNDER THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE WITH REGARD TO THE ADVERSARIAL CONCEPT
Abstract:Criminal proceedings can be defined as a legally process governed by law the aim of which is to rebut presumption of innocence. Through various stages presumption of innocence is refuted by any evidence submitted by the prosecution. As a result of introducing adversary principle and the reversal of the burden of proof on the parties courts could avoid significant problems of legal and organisational nature, such as the participation of witnesses and presentation of other evidence important for the trial. Due to the fact that burden of proof would lie on the parties, they would have greater interest in proper presentation of relevant evidence. The investigation phase is an important part of the pre-litigation procedure facilitating preservation of evidence relevant to the proceedings. Investigating judges are classified as guarantors of the proceedings. Exceptionally and upon the request of the parties investigating judge may ordered obtaining evidence the gathering of which would represent a harsh invasion of defendant’s privacy. Investigating judges assess the importance of the evidence with regard to establishing facts in terms of the intensity of the restrictive measure. It nevertheless seems that in principle the requirement of adversary criminal proceedings is generally accepted. However, adversary proceedings should be interpreted as much more than merely a procedural rule, namely criminal proceedings should no longer be considered as officiating of the state but as the fact that the pre-litigation procedure is a dispute between two parties. The inquisitorial principle is often criticized because it causes bias of the court during the investigation procedure. In theory the issue of investigation focuses on investigating judges and their conflicting role of active investigators and passive guarantors of the proceedings. With regard to investigation there is also the issue of rationale due to multiple taking of evidence. Police pre-trial investigation, preliminary hearing and judicial investigation constitute the pre-litigation procedure. The investigation phase is performed mainly to fix the evidence, which had already been gathered informally by the police, before the court. The prosecutor should be fully responsible for the success of the investigation. With the help of law enforcement authorities, the prosecutor should be the only one seeing that the standards of the burden of proof are met. State prosecutor as dominus litis of preliminary proceedings should get rid of his psychological attachment to the assistance of investigating judge. Pre-litigation procedure is the phase most critical with regard to human rights; this is why the legislation should enforce the guarantee function of the court. This would provide impartiality of supervision over the lawfulness of the actions performed by law enforcement authorities and preserve evidence which cannot be reused in the main hearing.
Keywords:adversary proceedings, pre-litigation procedure, investigation, investigating judge, state prosecutor


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