| | SLO | ENG | Cookies and privacy

Bigger font | Smaller font
First page > Show document

Show document Help

Title:POMEN REŠEVANJA PREDHODNIH VPRAŠANJ V RAZLIČNIH POSTOPKIH IN ANALIZA UPORABNOSTI PRAVIL V ARBITRAŽNEM PRAVU : magistrsko delo
Authors:ID Gril, Timotej (Author)
ID Ivanc, Tjaša (Mentor) More about this mentor... New window
Files:.pdf MAG_Timotej_Gril_2024.pdf (1,08 MB)
MD5: B1D4E8464568D4121F4E4CDAC18D787A
 
Language:Slovenian
Work type:Master's thesis/paper
Typology:2.09 - Master's Thesis
Organization:PF - Faculty of Law
Abstract:Predhodno vprašanje je v pravdnem postopku urejeno v 13. členu Zakona o pravdnem postopku (ZPP). Ta določa, da kadar je odločitev v glavni zadevi odvisna od predhodne rešitve vprašanja, ali obstaja kakšna pravica ali pravno razmerje (predhodno vprašanje), pa o njem še ni odločilo sodišče ali kakšen drug pristojen organ, lahko sodišče samo reši to vprašanje, če ni s posebnimi predpisi drugače določeno. Odločanje o obstoju pravice ali pravnega razmerja predstavlja predhodno vprašanje le v primeru, ko je takšna odločitev v razmerju prejudicialnosti do odločitve v glavni stvari. Teorija prejudicialnost pojmuje kot odnos odvisnosti med dvema elementoma, v danem primeru med predmetom predhodnega vprašanja in odločitve o glavni stvari. Rešitev predhodnega vprašanja učinkuje zgolj v konkretni pravdi. Stranka postopka pa lahko z uveljavljanjem vmesnega ugotovitvenega zahtevka doseže, da ugotovitev o obstoju pravice ali pravnega razmerja postane pravnomočna. Sodišče pri reševanju predhodnih vprašanj ni povsem svobodno. Omejitve obstojijo zlasti na področju reševanja predhodnih vprašanj iz pristojnosti kazenskega sodišča. Ugotavljanje (ne)obstoja kaznivega dejanja v pravdnem postopku namreč predstavlja poseg v človekovo pravico posameznika do domneve nedolžnosti. Pri tem je potrebno poudariti, da mnenja sodne prakse in teorije glede dopustnosti obravnave tovrstnih predhodnih vprašanj niso enotna. Strogemu stališču Evropskega sodišča za človekove pravice (ESČP) glede absolutne prepovedi nasproti stojita slovenska sodna praksa in teorija, ki ugotavljanje (ne)obstoja kaznivega dejanja izjemoma le dopuščata. Institut predhodnega vprašanja je normativno urejen tudi v drugih pravno reguliranih postopkih, kot so: upravni, nepravdni, delovni in socialni spor ter kazenski postopek. V vseh je institut predhodnega vprašanja urejen primerljivo podobno. Razlike je denimo moč zaslediti prav na področju reševanja predhodnih vprašanj iz pristojnosti kazenskega sodišča. Za razliko od ostalih omenjenih postopkov (razen kazenskega) je v upravnem eksplicitno določena generalna prepoved in nadaljnja omejitev ugotavljanja (ne)obstoja kaznivega dejanja. Slednja ureditev se izkaže za korektno, glede na dejstvo ločenih stališč teorije in sodne prakse o omenjeni tematiki. Predhodno vprašanje se lahko pojavi tudi v arbitražnem postopku. Arbitražna postopkovna pravila ne vsebujejo pravil o institutu predhodnega vprašanja. Teorija navaja, da je v arbitražnem postopku dovoljena aplikacija pravil pravdnega postopka o predhodnem vprašanju, pri čemer so arbitražni tribunali v postopku odločanja v nekoliko drugačnem položaju kot sodišča.
Keywords:predhodno vprašanje, vmesni ugotovitveni zahtevek, ugotavljanje (ne)obstoja kaznivega dejanja v pravdi, arbitražni postopek, predhodno vprašanje v arbitražnem pravu
Place of publishing:Maribor
Place of performance:Maribor
Publisher:T. Gril
Year of publishing:2024
Number of pages:1 spletni vir (1 datoteka PDF (59 str.))
PID:20.500.12556/DKUM-91364 New window
UDC:347.918(043.3)
COBISS.SI-ID:222672131 New window
Publication date in DKUM:16.01.2025
Views:242
Downloads:131
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 Importance of Resolving Preliminary Issues in Various Procedures and the Analysis of the Applicability of Rules in Arbitration Law
Abstract:The preliminary question in civil procedure is governed by Article 13 of the Civil Procedure Act (ZPP). This provision states that when the resolution of the main issue depends on a preliminary decision about the existence of a certain right or legal relationship (preliminary question), and such a question has not yet been decided by a court or another competent authority, the court may resolve the issue itself unless otherwise stipulated by special regulations. Deciding on the existence of a right or legal relationship constitutes a preliminary question only when such a decision is prejudicial to the resolution of the main matter. The concept of prejudiciality is understood as the relationship of dependency between two elements, in this case, between the subject of the preliminary question and the decision on the main issue. The resolution of a preliminary question is valid only for the specific case at hand. However, a party to the proceedings may, by asserting an interim declaratory claim, ensure that the determination of the existence of a right or legal relationship becomes final and binding. When addressing preliminary questions, the court is not entirely free. Limitations exist, particularly in resolving preliminary questions within the jurisdiction of criminal courts. Determining the (non)existence of a criminal offense in civil proceedings constitutes an interference with an individual's human right to the presumption of innocence. It should be emphasized that judicial practice and legal theory are not uniform regarding the admissibility of such preliminary questions. The strict position of the European Court of Human Rights (ESČP) on the absolute prohibition contrasts with Slovenian judicial practice and theory, which exceptionally allow the determination of the (non)existence of a criminal offense. The institution of the preliminary question is also normatively regulated in other legally governed procedures, such as administrative, non-contentious, labor and social disputes, and criminal proceedings. In all these cases, the institution of the preliminary question is regulated in a comparably similar manner. However, differences can be observed, particularly in addressing preliminary questions within the jurisdiction of criminal courts. Unlike the other mentioned procedures (excluding criminal proceedings), administrative proceedings explicitly prescribe a general prohibition and further limitations on determining the (non)existence of a criminal offense. This regulation appears appropriate given the divided positions in theory and judicial practice on this topic. A preliminary question may also arise in arbitration proceedings. Procedural rules for arbitration do not include provisions on the institution of the preliminary question. However, legal theory suggests that the application of civil procedure rules on preliminary questions is permitted in arbitration, with arbitration tribunals being in a somewhat different position than courts in the decision-making process.
Keywords:preliminary question, interim declaratory claim, determination of the (non)existence of a criminal offense in civil litigation, arbitration procedure, preliminary question in arbitration law


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