POSLANSKA IMUNITETA V REPUBLIKI SLOVENIJI

Štok, Peter

| | SLO | ENG | Piškotki in zasebnost

Večja pisava | Manjša pisava

Prva stran > Izpis gradiva

Izpis gradiva

Naslov:	POSLANSKA IMUNITETA V REPUBLIKI SLOVENIJI
Avtorji:	ID Štok, Peter (Avtor) ID Toplak, Jurij (Mentor) Več o mentorju...
Datoteke:	UN_Stok_Peter_2016.pdf (837,67 KB) MD5: 9C788067DFF7A23205BB1CC2B44BB484
Jezik:	Slovenski jezik
Vrsta gradiva:	Diplomsko delo
Tipologija:	2.11 - Diplomsko delo
Organizacija:	PF - Pravna fakulteta
Opis:	Poslanska imuniteta je bila v Sloveniji že mnogokrat v središču medijske pozornosti zaradi priznanja imunitet poslancem, ki so storili različna kazniva dejanja, ki ne spadajo v okvir opravljanja njihove funkcije. Javno mnenje, po anketah sodeč, večinsko nasprotuje poslanski imuniteti, saj velja prepričanje, da služi poslancem zgolj kot neke vrste privilegij. Tezi te diplomske naloge sta bili, da poslanska imuniteta ne ščiti dovolj poslancev pri kritiziranju in izražanju svojega mnenja ter, da so se imunitete preteklosti priznavale za kazniva dejanja, ki niso imela nobene povezave z opravljanjem funkcije poslanca. Pri proučevanju tega področja sem prišel do ugotovitve, da se poslanska imuniteta ne priznava v takem obsegu kot velja splošno prepričanje. Največ imunitet je bilo priznanih v prvem mandatu Državnega zbora v letih 1992-1996, ko je bila Slovenija še mlada demokracija s slabo razvito politično kulturo ter tudi s slabo urejeno zakonodajo glede imunitete. Od sprejetja novega Poslovnika Državnega zbora leta 2002, v katerem so določili jasna merila, kdaj se lahko poslancu prizna imuniteta, se je priznavanje slednjih praktično ustavilo, saj so v obdobju od leta 2002 do 2016 priznali zgolj dve imuniteti, od tega je bila zadnja priznana leta 2004. Glede zakonske ureditve sem med obravnavanjem te tematike prišel do ugotovitve, da ni primerna z vidika poslancev, saj poklicna imuniteta, ki varuje poslance pred kazensko odgovornostjo za izrečene besede in mnenja na sejah Državnega zbora, ne varuje tudi pred civilno, kar se je potrdilo s sodbo v primeru razžalitve nekdanjega državnega sekretarja s strani nekdanjega poslanca Iva Hvalice. Zato bi bilo verjetno primerno, da se materialno imuniteto spremeni v tej smeri, da se jo razširi še na civilno odgovornost, medtem ko se določbe o nepoklicni imuniteti primerno urejene, seveda pod predpostavko, da se Državni zbor še naprej striktno drži vseh meril v postopkih priznanja imunitete.
Ključne besede:	poslanska, materialna, procesna, imuniteta, državni zbor, parlament, poslovnik
Kraj izida:	Maribor
Založnik:	[P. Štok]
Leto izida:	2016
PID:	20.500.12556/DKUM-60050
UDK:	341.2(043.2)
COBISS.SI-ID:	5117483
NUK URN:	URN:SI:UM:DK:M7LANYK6
Datum objave v DKUM:	28.06.2016
Število ogledov:	2499
Število prenosov:	214
Metapodatki:
Področja:	PF
:	ŠTOK, Peter, 2016, POSLANSKA IMUNITETA V REPUBLIKI SLOVENIJI [na spletu]. Diplomsko delo. Maribor : P. Štok. [Dostopano 3 april 2025]. Pridobljeno s: https://dk.um.si/IzpisGradiva.php?lang=slv&id=60050 Kopiraj citat

Skupna ocena:	0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 (0 glasov)
Vaša ocena:	Ocenjevanje je dovoljeno samo prijavljenim uporabnikom.
Objavi na:

Podobna dela iz repozitorija:

Podobna dela iz ostalih repozitorijev:

Ni podobnih del

Postavite miškin kazalec na naslov za izpis povzetka. Klik na naslov izpiše podrobnosti ali sproži prenos.

Sekundarni jezik

Jezik:	Angleški jezik
Naslov:	PARLIAMENTAIRY PRIVILEGE IN THE REPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA
Opis:	Parliamentary privilege has been in the center of Slovenian media attention many times due to the fact, that the immunity was granted to the representatives for criminal acts, not belonging in the function of the representative. Public opinion, regarding the privilege, has been against it since it is considered only as a privilege for representatives and not a statute that helps them with undisturbed performance of their function. Question of thesis is wether the parliamentary privilege in Republic of Slovenia does not adequately protect representatives for expressing their opinions in parliament and that the privilege in the past was granted for criminal offences that have no connection with the function of a representative. The aim of this project is to confirm thesis is, wether the legislatition, regarding the parliamentary privilege, is written in such way that it enables the parliament to grant immunities to representatives for criminal offences, that are completely unrelated to the function as a representative. When examing this field i came to a conclusion, that the privilege is not being granted in such scale as it is percieved by the public. Most of privileges were granted in the first term of the Slovenian parliament(1992-1996), back when Slovenia was still a young democracy with political culture and legislation regarding immunity, that were still in development. Ever since parliament passed new Rules of procedures back in 2002, in which they written clear criteria on when to grant an immunity, the number of granted immunities, since 2002 all the way to 2006, has fallen to only two cases, with last one granted in 2004. Regarding the legislation about the privilege, i came to a conclusion that it is not appropriately defined form the standpoint of the representatives, since non-liability only grants them criminal immunity for their speech and opinions inside parliament, yet it does not protect them from civil prosecutions. This was proven in Ivo Hvalica case, when he was convicted for defamation for the speech he gave in parliament. Due to all these facts, it would probably be appropriate, if the scope of immunity, regarding non-liability, would be extended also to civil liability whilst the provisions of inviolability are appropriately defined, under assumption, that the representatives would strictly follow current provisions regarding the granting of immunity.
Ključne besede:	Representative, Non-liability, Inviolability, privilege, parliament, procedure

Komentarji

Dodaj komentar

Za komentiranje se morate prijaviti.

Komentarji (0)

0 - 0 / 0

Ni komentarjev!

Nazaj