| | SLO | ENG | Cookies and privacy

Bigger font | Smaller font

Show document

Title:Načelo ne bis in idem v slovenski pravni ureditvi in ureditvi ZDA : magistrsko delo
Authors:Mom, Žan (Author)
Šepec, Miha (Mentor) More about this mentor... New window
Files:.pdf MAG_Mom_Zan_2021.pdf (615,35 KB)
MD5: D1C5E9A3A48CAFC0982B338F1D363943
 
Language:Slovenian
Work type:Master's thesis/paper (mb22)
Typology:2.09 - Master's Thesis
Organization:PF - Faculty of Law
Abstract:Ustava Republike Slovenije v 31. členu določa, da nihče ne sme biti ponovno obsojen ali kaznovan zaradi kaznivega dejanja, za katero je bil kazenski postopek zoper njega pravnomočno ustavljen, ali je bila obtožba zoper njega pravnomočno zavrnjena, ali je bil s pravnomočno sodbo oproščen ali obsojen. 31. člen Ustave doslej ni bil spreminjan, kar pa ne pomeni, da se pri prepovedi ponovnega sojenja v okviru modernega kazenskega postopka, pojavljajo določene dileme, ki zaradi prekrivanja tako kaznivih dejanj kot tudi prekrškov lahko predstavljajo kršitev prepovedi določene v 31. členu Ustave. Določbo 31. člena Ustave povzema prvi odstavek 10. člena ZKP. Namreč že pravnomočna razsojena zadeva je razloga, da se v predhodnem postopku preiskava s sklepom senata ustavi, da se v postopku z obtožnico obtožba ne dopusti in se postopek s sklepom ustavi, da se obtožnica zavrže ali da po opravljeni glavni obravnavi sodišče izreče zavrnilno sodbo. Problematika se nadaljnje kaže v razmerjih med kaznivimi dejanji in prekrški, kjer pa Zakon o prekrških v 11.a členu določa, kdaj se postopek o prekršku ne vodi, če je že v teku kazenski postopek oz. če je bil kazenski postopek že končan, kar pa tudi nujno ne pomeni, da je izdana sodba. Z zadevno problematiko se ukvarjajo, tudi supranacionalna sodišča, kot sta Evropsko sodišče za človekove pravice in Sodišče Evropske unije, ki izdajata sodbe, ki zadevajo slovenski pravni red in ki pomembno vplivajo na sodno prakso slovenskih sodišč, vse od doktrine ENGEL do zadeve Zolotukhin, ki je nato aplicirana na prakso slovenskih sodišč. Tudi Združene države Amerike imajo v njihovem pravnem redu prepoved ponovnega sojenja, pod imenom »double jeopardy« obstaja pa razlika, saj odločbe izdane s strani sodišč v Združenih državah Amerike ne spadajo, niti nimajo možnosti, da preidejo pod presojo supranacionalnih sodišč ampak je vrhovna instanca njihovo Vrhovno sodišče. Nadaljnje zaradi razlik v pravnih redih držav članic EU in Združenih državah Amerike prihaja, tudi do različnih sodnih odločb, ki bi bila v enem pravnem redu na državni ravni relativno sporna, medtem ko so v pravnem redu ZDA praviloma popolnoma skladna z zakoni in pravno doktrino. To po avtorjevem mnenju predstavlja tudi zadnja sodba Vrhovnega sodišča Združenih držav Amerike s področja »double jeopardy«, ki zaradi zvezne ureditve Združenih držav Amerike, omogoča dvojni pregon dvema »suverenema«, kar pa ne predstavljala kršitve prepovedi ponovnega sojenja o isti stvari.
Keywords:kazensko pravo, ne bis in idem, dvojna suverenost, mednarodno kazensko pravo, kazensko pravo ZDA, kazenski postopek, 31. člen Ustave Republike Slovenije
Year of publishing:2021
Place of performance:[Maribor
Publisher:Ž. Mom]
Number of pages:57 f.
Source:Maribor
UDC:343.157.3(043.3)
COBISS_ID:51440387 New window
NUK URN:URN:SI:UM:DK:XQVCMTCQ
Views:425
Downloads:117
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.

Licences

License:CC BY-NC-ND 4.0, Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
Link:http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Description:The most restrictive Creative Commons license. This only allows people to download and share the work for no commercial gain and for no other purposes.
Licensing start date:07.01.2021

Secondary language

Language:English
Title:Ne bis in idem principle in legal sistems of Slovenia and USA
Abstract:Article 31 of the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia stipulates that no one may be convicted or punished again for a criminal offense for which criminal proceedings against him have been finally terminated, or the charge against him has been finally dismissed, or acquitted by a final judgment convicted. Article 31 of the Constitution has not been amended so far, which does not mean, that the prohibition of retrial in modern criminal proceedings does not raise certain dilemmas which, due to the overlap of both criminal offenses and misdemeanors, may constitute a violation of the prohibition set out by Article 31 of the Constitution. The provision of Article 31 of the Constitution is summarized in the first paragraph of Article 10 of the Criminal procedure act. The already final adjudicated case is the reason why in the preliminary proceedings the investigation is stopped by a decision of the senate, that the accusation is not allowed in the indictment proceedings and the proceedings are stopped by a decision to dismiss the indictment, or to reject the court after the main hearing. The problem is further reflected in the relationship between criminal offenses and misdemeanors, where the Misdemeanors Act in Article 11a determines when the misdemeanor proceedings are not conducted, if criminal proceedings are already underway, or if the criminal proceedings have already been completed, which does not necessarily mean that a judgment has been issued. This issue is also addressed by supranational courts, such as the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union, which issue judgments concerning Slovenian law and which have a significant impact on the case law of Slovenian courts, from the ENGEL doctrine to the Zolotukhin case. It is then applied to the practice of Slovenian courts. The United States also has a ban on retrials in its legal system, but there is a difference under the name "double jeopardy", as decisions issued by courts in the United States do not fall, nor do they have the possibility to pass under the judgment of supranational courts. their. Furthermore, differences in the legal systems of the EU Member States and the United States also lead to different court decisions, which would be completely inadmissible in one legal system, while in another legal system they are generally fully in line with laws and legal doctrines. According to the author, the same can also be seen in the latest judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States in the field of "double jeopardy", which, due to the federal regulation of the United States, allows double prosecution of two "sovereigns", which does not violate the »double jeopardy clause«.
Keywords:criminal law, ne bis in idem, dual sovereingty, international criminal law, criminal law of the USA, criminal procedure, Article 31. of the Slovenian Constitution


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