magistrsko delo
Špela Ocvirk (Author), Tjaša Ivanc (Mentor)

Abstract

V prvem delu magistrske naloge se posvetim pojmu dokazovanju in nadalje ureditvi dokazovanja v Sloveniji. Učinkovitost reševanja civilnih sporov temelji na organiziranem, a vendar pravičnem iskanju dejstev. Nemalokrat je potrebno v tekoči pravdi opraviti uradna dejanja pridobivanja dokazov na območju sodišča v drugi državi članici, zato je potrebno zaprositi za mednarodno pravno pomoč. Sama nacionalna sodišča namreč uradnih dejanj na ozemlju tuje države ne morejo opraviti brez pomoči njenih sodišč oziroma drugih njenih organov. Pravno pomoč urejajo nacionalni predpisi, za države članice Evropske unije pa je na voljo Haaška konvencija o pridobivanju dokazov (1970). Kot njena nadgradnja je bila 28. maja 2001 sprejeta Uredba Sveta (ES) št. 1206/2001 o sodelovanju med sodišči držav članic pri pridobivanju dokazov v civilnih ali gospodarskih zadevah, ki se ji podrobneje posvetim v drugem delu magistrskega dela. S sprejetjem Uredbe 1206/2001 je postalo jasno, da sodno izvajanje dokazov ni več predvsem oblastveni akt države, ki mora biti pridržan njenim sodiščem, ampak se v imenu učinkovitega sodnega varstva na ta način odpira možnost neposrednega izvajanja dokazov na ozemlju druge države članice. Sprejeti pravni akt Evropske unije tako določa poenoten sistem pridobivanja dokazov v tujini za vse države članice in z neposredno komunikacijo med sodišči omogoča najhitrejši način posredovanja dokazov. Cilj evropskega zakonodajalca je namreč, da se doseže čim večja koordinacija jamstev v postopku dokazovanja, vendar ne s poenotenjem pravic, temveč s spodbujanjem sodelovanja pri pridobivanju dokazov v državah članicah. Uredba ureja način pridobivanja dokazov v tujini, kadar sodišče zaprosi za pomoč, medtem ko odgovor na vprašanje, katere procesne predpostavke morajo biti izpolnjene, da to lahko stori, prepušča nacionalnemu pravu vsake države članice. Po Uredbi 1206/2001 sta sicer možna dva načina pridobivanja dokazov, pridobivanje dokazov s pomočjo zaprošenega sodišča, kot aktivna pravna pomoč, in neposredno pridobivanje dokazov sodišča, ki je zaprosilo, kot pasivna pravna pomoč. V letu 2018 je Komisija predlagala Predlog sprememb Uredbe 1206/2001, v kateri se obravnava potreba po posodobitvi, zlasti pa digitalizaciji in uporabi sodobne tehnologije pri čezmejnem pridobivanju dokazov. Cilj predloga je izboljšati nemoteno delovanje območja svobode, varnosti in pravice ter notranjega trga s krepitvijo učinkovitosti in hitrosti čezmejnega pridobivanja dokazov.

Keywords

Uredba o dokazovanju št. 1206/2001;dokazovanje s čezmejnim elementom;razmerje med Uredbo 1206/2001 in ZPP;aktivna pravna pomoč;pasivna pravna pomoč;uporaba sredstev komunikacijske tehnologije.;

Data

Language: Slovenian
Year of publishing:
Typology: 2.09 - Master's Thesis
Organization: UM PF - Faculty of Law
Publisher: Š. Ocvirk]
UDC: 347.9(043.3)
COBISS: 5823531 Link will open in a new window
Views: 736
Downloads: 85
Average score: 0 (0 votes)
Metadata: JSON JSON-RDF JSON-LD TURTLE N-TRIPLES XML RDFA MICRODATA DC-XML DC-RDF RDF

Other data

Secondary language: English
Secondary title: The importance of the regulation on evidence in civil and commercial matters in theory and practice and the analysis of the proposal for amendments to regulation 1206/2001
Secondary abstract: In the first part of the master's thesis I discuss the notion of proving and further regulating the proof in Slovenia. The effectiveness of resolving civil disputes is based on an organized, yet fair, examination of facts. It is often essential to carry out official acts of taking evidence in the territory of a court in another Member State in an ongoing litigation, and to seek international legal assistance. National courts themselves cannot carry out official acts in the territory of a foreign country without the assistance of their courts or other bodies thereof. Legal aid is governed by national rules and the Hague Convention on the taking of evidence (1970) is available for Member States of the European Union. Council Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001 was adopted on 28 May 2001 as an upgrade. 1206/2001 on cooperation between the courts of the Member States in the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters, to which I turn in more detail in the second part of my master's thesis. With the adoption of Regulation 1206/2001, it became clear that the taking of evidence is no longer primarily a rule of law of the State, which must be detained by its courts, but opens the possibility of direct taking of evidence in the territory of another Member State in the name of effective judicial protection. The adoption of a legal act of the European Union thus establishes a uniform system for the taking of evidence abroad for all Member States and, by means of direct communication between the courts, provides the fastest way of transmitting evidence. The aim of the European legislator is to achieve the greatest possible coordination of guarantees in the evidence process, not by unifying rights but by encouraging cooperation in the taking of evidence in the Member States. The regulation regulates the way in which evidence is obtained abroad when the court seeks assistance, while leaving the national law of each Member State to respond to what procedural requirements must be met in order to take such action. According to Regulation 1206/2001, there are two possible ways of obtaining evidence, namely the taking of evidence by the requested court as active legal aid, and the direct taking of evidence by the requesting court as passive legal aid. In 2018, the European Commission proposed an amendment to Regulation 1206/2001, which addresses the need for modernization, and in particular the digitization and use of modern technology in cross-border taking of evidence. The proposal therefore aims to improve the smooth functioning of the area of freedom, security and justice and the internal market by enhancing the efficiency and speed of cross-border taking of evidence.
Secondary keywords: Keywords: Evidence Regulation no. 1206/2001;evidence with a cross-border element;the relationship between Regulation 1206/2001 and the ZPP;active legal aid;passive legal aid;use of communication technology tools.;
Type (COBISS): Master's thesis/paper
Thesis comment: Univ. v Mariboru, Pravna fak.
Pages: 46 str.
ID: 11258361