| | SLO | ENG | Cookies and privacy

Bigger font | Smaller font

Show document Help

Title:VARSTVO INTERESA OŠKODOVANCA KAZNIVEGA DEJANJA V ADHEZIJSKEM POSTOPKU
Authors:ID Prosen, Nina (Author)
ID Rijavec, Vesna (Mentor) More about this mentor... New window
Files:.pdf MAG_Prosen_Nina_2016.pdf (897,46 KB)
MD5: 5B77D233EC449EB7DEAD14354DA80E57
 
Language:Slovenian
Work type:Master's thesis/paper
Organization:PF - Faculty of Law
Abstract:Magistrska naloga preučuje učinkovitost varstva pravice oškodovanca kazenskega postopka, da je o povračilu škode, ki mu je bila povzročena s kaznivim dejanjem, odločeno že v okviru kazenskega postopka. V prvem delu naloge opozarja, je da nemška ureditev adhezijskega postopka v nekaterih elementih ugodnejša tako za obdolženca kot za oškodovanca. Te institute predstavi in argumentira njihovo vključitev v Zakon o kazenskem postopku. Največ pozornosti je namenjene nujnosti vročitve predloga oškodovanca s poukom o pravici do odgovora, tudi z vidika uspešnosti morebitne prisilne uveljavitve adhezijske odločbe po Uredbi 1215/2012. Drugi del naloge se posveča vprašanju, ali veljavna zakonska ureditev omogoča izvedbo dokaznega postopka glede utemeljenosti premoženjskopravnega zahtevka. Zaključi, da zaradi pravila o vezanosti civilnega dela kazenske odločbe na obsodilni del in v njem ugotovljeno višino škode, sodišču posebnega dokaznega postopka glede zahtevka po povrnitvi premoženjske škode ni potrebno izvajati. To pa ne velja, kadar oškodovanec uveljavlja nepremoženjsko škodo. Zaradi številnih procesnih opravil, ki so potrebna pri ugotavljanju obstoja in višine nepremoženjske škode, ter dejstva, da se glede teh vprašanj relevantno dejansko stanje ne razišče v okviru ugotavljanja dejanskega stanja kaznivega dejanja, je zaključiti, da gre za zamudno delo, ki bi tek postopka nedvomno preveč podaljšalo. Nadalje ugotavlja, da pripoznava zahtevka v kazenskem postopku ni samostojno zavezujoča, temveč vezana na obsodilno sodbo.
Keywords:adhezijski postopek, premoženjskopravni zahtevek, kontradiktornost, Uredba 1215/2012, pripoznava zahtevka, izvajanje dokazov v adhezijskem postopku, identično dejanjsko stanje, vezanost na ugotovitev o višini škode
Place of publishing:Maribor
Year of publishing:2016
PID:20.500.12556/DKUM-61282 New window
COBISS.SI-ID:5241643 New window
NUK URN:URN:SI:UM:DK:BMGCZDHY
Publication date in DKUM:20.09.2016
Views:1467
Downloads:667
Metadata:XML DC-XML DC-RDF
Categories:PF
:
Copy citation
  
Average score:(0 votes)
Your score:Voting is allowed only for logged in users.
Share:Bookmark and 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:THE PROTECTION OF INTERESTS OF THE VICTIM IN ADHESION PROCEEDINGS
Abstract:The master`s thesis focuses on effectiveness of the adhesion procedure in relation to the victims right to introduce a pecuniary claim in criminal proceedings. It compares Slovenian and German legal regulation of this institution, points out some strengths of German regulation and offers to introduce them in Slovenian regulation. The main focus is on the obligation of German court to serve on the accused the application of pecuniary claim, especially in regard of enforcement of the court decision on pecuniary claim in the procedure under Regulation No. 1215/2012. The second part concentrates on the question of whether current regulation allows the criminal court to conduct taking of evidence regarding pecuniary claim. Since the court is bound by finding of facts in criminal part of the judgment, which also includes finding on the extent of damages, it may be concluded that extra taking of evidence regarding pecuniary claim is not required. However, this is not the case when the aggrieved person files pecuniary claim for non-property damage. The determination of existence of non-property damage and evaluation of its extent is made by extensive taking of evidence. Since the finding facts of non-property damage are not identical to finding facts of criminal part of the judgment, it may be concluded that the taking of evidence in this situation would largely prolong the duration of criminal procedure. The acknowledgment of the pecuniary claim in criminal procedure is dependent on judgment of conviction.
Keywords:adhesion proceedings, pecuniary claim, right to be heard, Regulation 1215/2012, acknowledgement of the pecuniary claim, taking of evidence in adhesion proceedings, indentical finding of facts


Comments

Leave comment

You must 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