Problematika odklonitve pričanja zaradi varovanja poklicne skrivnosti in odklonitve odgovora na posamezno vprašanje

Šuligoj, Tjaša

| | SLO | ENG | Cookies and privacy

Bigger font | Smaller font

First page > Show document

Show document

Title:	Problematika odklonitve pričanja zaradi varovanja poklicne skrivnosti in odklonitve odgovora na posamezno vprašanje
Authors:	ID Šuligoj, Tjaša (Author) ID Ivanc, Tjaša (Mentor) More about this mentor...
Files:	MAG_Suligoj_Tjasa_2016.pdf (1,04 MB) MD5: 58163CDF4E5AA6276C1A8144BA83B969
Language:	Slovenian
Work type:	Master's thesis/paper
Typology:	2.09 - Master's Thesis
Organization:	PF - Faculty of Law
Abstract:	Dokazni postopek je zakonsko urejen proces pred sodišči, na podlagi katerega stranki poskušata prepričati sodišče o resničnosti pravno relevantnih trditev, sodišče (oziroma sodnik) pa mora preveriti resničnost teh trditev in o zadevi razsoditi. Za pravilno uporabo materialnega prava in pravilno ter zakonito sodbo določbo mora sodnik naprej ugotoviti dejansko stanje primera. Pri definiranju le tega si pomaga z dokaznimi sredstvi – z ogledom, listinami, izvedenci, zaslišanjem stranke in prič. Priče so na sodišču zelo pogostno dokazno sredstvo. V zakonu je predpisana splošna dolžnost pričanja, obveznega prihoda na sodišče in pričanja po resnici. Ker vsaka ureditev pozna izjeme in pri pričah ni nič drugače, se srečamo s tremi od splošne dolžnosti pričanja. Zakon najprej ureja pravno nesposobne priče, ki jim je onemogočeno pričanje zaradi varovanja državnih ali vojaških skrivnosti. Kot drugo omogoča določeni vrsti oseb, ki so pozvane na sodišče kot priče in ki se pri svojem delu srečujejo s poklicnimi skrivnostmi ali zaupnostjo razmerja, da odklonijo pričanje. Tretja izjema pa se ne nanaša na odklonitev pričanja v celoti, ampak zgolj na odklonitev odgovora na posamezna vprašanja. V povezavi z izjemo do splošne dolžnosti pričanja se pojavijo vprašanja glede ugotavljanja dejanskega stanja in posledično odkrivanja materialne resnice. Kako v teh primerih ravna sodnik? Je pravilna in zakonita sodna odločba s takšno ureditvijo okrnjena ali prav načelo sodnega varstva, kjer tehtamo med javnim in zasebnim interesom, utrjuje zaupanje v pravo? Zaradi pravil o dokaznem bremenu, materialnega procesnega vodstva sodišča, načela proste presoje dokazov, trditvenega in dokaznega bremena strank, zaradi katerih se je postopek tudi začel, dvomi v tej smeri niso potrebni.
Keywords:	Priča, odklonitev pričanja, načelo proste presoje dokazov, sodniški silogizem, poklicna skrivnost, zaupnost razmerja, privilegirana priča, pravno nesposobna priča, odklonitev odgovora na posamezno vprašanje.
Place of publishing:	Maribor
Publisher:	[T. Šuligoj]
Year of publishing:	2016
PID:	20.500.12556/DKUM-60391
UDC:	347.943(043.3)
COBISS.SI-ID:	5119787
NUK URN:	URN:SI:UM:DK:REMKZJDA
Publication date in DKUM:	29.06.2016
Views:	1965
Downloads:	204
Metadata:
Categories:	PF
:	Copy citation

Average score:	(0 votes)
Your score:	Voting is allowed only for logged in users.
Share:

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:	ISSUES CAUSED BY REFUSAL TESTIFY SECRECY AND DECLINING TO ANSWER A PARTICULAR QUESTION
Abstract:	Evidentiary hearing is a regulated legal process before the courts, based on which the parties are trying to convince the court of the reality of the legal relevant arguments, the court (or the judge) has to verify the truth of these allegations and reach a decision. The judge must first determine on the facts of the case for the proper usage of the substantive law and the proper and legal statutory provision. In this definition, the judge helps himself with the pieces of evidence - examination, documents, experts, hearing the parties and witnesses. Witnesses apply to the court for a very popular means of proof. The law prescribes a general obligation to testify, mandatory arrival to court and the testimony of the truth. Because each regulation has exemptions, witnesses are no different, we encounter three particularities of the general duty to testify. The law first regulates legally incompetent witnesses who are prevented from testify in order to protect state or military secrets. As second, law allows certain types of people who are called upon to the court as witnesses and who have to deal with professional secrecy or confidentiality of the relationship to refuse to testify. The third exception is not connected fully with the refusal to testify, but only with the refusal to answer particular questions. In connection with the exception of the general duty to testify, issues arise in relation to determining the actual status and the consequent discovery of material truth. How a judge handles such cases? Is correct and legal judgement with such arrangement infringed or the principle of justice, which weighs between public and private interests, strengthens the trust in the law? Due to the rules on the burden of proof, the substantive court process, the principle of free evaluation of evidence, the burden of pleading and proof rating, which started the process, doubts in this direction are not necessary.
Keywords:	The witness, a refusal to testify, the principle of free evaluation of evidence, the judicial syllogism, professional secrecy, the confidentiality of the relationship, a privileged witness, legally incompetent witness, refusal to answer a particular question.

Comments

Leave comment

You must log in to leave a comment.

Comments (0)

0 - 0 / 0

There are no comments!

Back