20.500.12556/DKUM-76466 Vprašanje pravnomočnosti sklepa državnega tožilca o zavrženju kazenske ovadbe magistrsko delo Jurisdiction of the state prosecutor's office decision of dismissing the criminal charge Državni tožilec ima skozi ves kazenski postopek posebno in specifično procesnopravno funkcijo. Položaj državnega tožilca kot stranke kazenskega postopka, s katerim smo v največji meri seznanjeni v pravni praksi, se začne v formalnem kazenskem postopku. Državni tožilec pred pristojnim kazenskim sodiščem zastopa vloženo obtožnico na podlagi podane kazenske ovadbe ter vse svoje ravnanje usmerja v sprejem obsodilne kazenske sodbe, da bo zadoščeno kazenskopravni represiji zoper storilca kaznivega dejanja. Njegov prominentni položaj se začne že prej, v samem neformalnem predkazenskem postopku. Državni tožilec kot upravičeni tožilec je v predkazenskem postopku dolžan ukreniti vse, kar je potrebno v zvezi z odkrivanjem kaznivih dejanj, izsleditvijo storilca in usmerjanjem predkazenskega postopka, saj so lahko predmet kazenskega postopka le tista pravno-relevantna dejstva, ki jih zatrjuje upravičeni tožilec. Temeljna naloga državnega tožilca v predkazenskem postopku je sprejeti odločitev o kazenskem pregonu zoper storilca kaznivega dejanja. Slednji je tudi eden najpomembnejših in odločilnih trenutkov državnega tožilca, saj državni tožilec lahko v primeru neustrezne dejanske in pravne podlage začne kazenski pregon zoper domnevno nedolžnega storilca kaznivega dejanja ali opusti kazenski pregon zoper neoporečno krivega storilca kaznivega dejanja. Nedvomno bi bilo pravno odločanje nehumano, okrutno in strogo, če ne upoštevamo možnosti, da lahko tudi v procesnih postopkih državnega tožilca prihaja do napak in spodrsljajev. Državni tožilec je temeljni varuh javnega interesa v zvezi s kazensko represijo in hkrati predstavnik pravne države, zato v okviru državnotožilske službe ne sme prihajati do zlorab funkcionalne samostojnosti in neodvisnosti državnih tožilcev, ki sta zagotovljeni na ustavnopravni in zakonodajnopravni ravni slovenskega pravnega sistema. Neutemeljeno vlaganje kazenskih ovadb in nadaljnje nepremišljeno nadaljevanje kazenskega pregona oziroma prikrito utemeljeno zavrženje kazenskih ovadb ni podvrženo sodnemu preizkusu, kar lahko predstavlja tudi morebitni politični filter. Pravo Evropske unije, ki velja vzporedno s slovenskim nacionalnim pravnim sistemom, je s svojim pravnim okvirjem direktive zvezalo države članice EU k enotni uporabi ciljev na področju pravic, podpore in zaščiti žrtev kaznivih dejanj, in sicer da imajo oškodovanci v ustreznem kazenskem sistemu pravico zahtevati presojo odločitve, da se ne izvede kazenski pregon. Takšne kazenskoprocesne določbe oziroma neka vrsta rešitve zadevne problematike nova novela Zakona o kazenskem postopku (ZKP-N) ni predvidela, saj je za slednje sprejela cilj »posvetovalne« narave mnenja oškodovanca. Pravna mnenja in stališča, zavzeta skozi vso zgodovino slovenskega pravnega reda, so glede predmetne problematike deljena. V morebitnem iskanju argumentacije v primerjalno-pravnem vidiku lahko opazimo, da tudi avstrijski pravosodni sistem nima jasnih in natančnih določil v zvezi s predmetno problematiko, vendar slednje opravičujejo z »blokadnimi« učinki, ki jih ima načelo ne bis in idem. Tudi angloameriški pravni sistem deli procesne učinke zavrženja kazenske ovadbe, in sicer na tiste s pravnim učinkom ter na tiste brez pravnega procesnega učinka. Throughout the criminal proceeding, public prosecutor has a special and specific operational function. A position of the public prosecutor as a client in criminal proceeding with which we are most familiar with in legal practice, begins in a formal criminal proceeding. In front of the competent criminal court, public prosecutor represents the filed indicment that is based on the filed criminal charges, and directs all their actions in adoption of the criminal conviction in order to satisfy criminal repression against the perpetrator of the criminal offence. Their prominent position begins earlier, in the informal pre-trial proceeding. In pre-trial proceeding, the public prosecutor is obliged to take all the necessary measures in relation to the detection of criminal offences, tracing of the perpetrator, and directing of the pre-trial proceeding, as only legally relevant facts claimed by the eligible prosecutor may be the subject of criminal proceedings. The basic assignment of the public prosecutor in pre-trial proceeding is to make a decision regarding criminal prosecution against the perpetrator of a criminal offence. The latter is also one of the most important and decisive moments of the public prosecutor, as the public prosecutor may, in case of inadequate factual and legal basis, initiate criminal proceedings against an allegedly innocent offender or discontinue criminal prosecution against a guilty offender. Undoubtedly, legal decision-making would be inhumane, cruel, and strict, if we do not consider the possibility that errors and failures might occur in the public prosecutor’s operational procedures. The public prosecutor is the fundamental guardian of public interest in criminal repression, and, at the same time, a representative of the legal state. Therefore, there must be no abuse of the functional autonomy and independence of public prosecutor within the public prosecutor’s office that are ensured at constitutional and legislative level. Unjustified filing of criminal charges and further reckless continuation of criminal prosecution or covertly justified rejection of criminal charges is not subject to judicial review, which may also represent a possible political filter. European Union law, which applies in parallel with the Slovenian national legal system, has bound the EU Member States to the uniform application of the objectives in the field of rights, support, and protection of victims of criminal offences, namely that victims have the right to request an assessment in the relevant penalty system in order the prosecution not to be implemented. The new amendment to the Criminal Procedure Act (ZKP-N) did not provide such criminal procedure provisions or a kind of solution to the relevant issue, as it adopted the aim of the "consultative" nature of the victim's opinion. Legal opinions and positions taken throughout the history of the Slovenian legal order are divided on the basis of the subject matter. In the possible search for argumentation in the comparative legal aspect, we can see that the Austrian judicial system does not have clear and precise provisions regarding the subject matter issue, but justify the latter with the "blocking" effects of the ne bis in idem principle. The Anglo-American legal system also divides the procedural effects of dismissing a criminal charges into those with legal effect and those without legal procedural effect. predkazenski postopek načelo ne bis in idem procesnopravni učinki sklepa državnega tožilca odločitev o kazenskem pregonu zavrženje kazenske ovadbe samovoljna odločitev pritožbena pot nadzor nad delom državnega tožilca Direktiva 2012/29/EU. pre-trial proceeding ne bis in idem principle procedural effects of a public prosecutor's decision prosecution decision dismissal of a criminal charges arbitrary decision appeals route supervision of the public prosecutor's work Directive 2012/29/EU. true true false I. Zgaga] Slovenski jezik Angleški jezik Magistrsko delo/naloga 2020-05-28 17:28:29 2020-06-18 09:15:14 2022-08-09 13:35:45 2021-04-13 03:13:24 2020 0 [Maribor 0 [Maribor 54 f. 0000-00-00 NiDoloceno NiDoloceno NiDoloceno 0000-00-00 0000-00-00 0000-00-00 343.157(043.3) 20052739 URN:SI:UM:DK:UGLVKXQ2 MAG_Zgaga_Iris_2020.pdf MAG_Zgaga_Iris_2020.pdf 1 FC3390411B587F89BA5E04B606813510 c68d9c3df2c265972b6011a3896dee9d1e5159c7938797a117ca216937bdaf39 53e2eb38-7c11-11eb-bb7a-00155d0001ca 20.500.12556/dkum/32478f11-3db1-4045-bd42-c7ffd8ec9ea9 https://dk.um.si/Dokument.php?lang=slv&id=142378 Pravna fakulteta 0 0 0