ignorantia rationis nocet?
Mohor Fajdiga (Author)

Abstract

Kadrovanje v sodstvu je trenutno v Evropi posebej vroča tema. V Sloveniji ima v izbirnih postopkih osrednjo vlogo Sodni svet, ki naj bi kot garant sodniške neodvisnosti zagotavljal izbor najbolj kompetentnih kandidatov. Toda postopek izbire ni pregleden, obrazložitev izbire pa je preskopa in neprepričljiva. Avtor zato najprej oriše odziv slovenskih sodišč na táko odločanje Sodnega sveta. V sodni praksi se je uveljavil zadržan sodni nadzor, ki temelji na zaupanju diskrecijski izbiri Sodnega sveta. V prispevku je zato slovenska ureditev ocenjena v luči najnovejših evropskih standardov: pravice do učinkovitega sodnega varstva in z zakonom ustanovljenega sodišča, iz 6. člena Evropske konvencije o človekovih pravicah in 19. člena Pogodbe o EU. Kot problematična se izkažeta predvsem neustrezna obrazložitev odločitev in dejstvo, da Sodni svet v nasprotju z veljavno zakonodajo ne piše zapisnika o posvetovanju.

Keywords

sodni svet;imenovanje sodnikov;obseg obrazložitve;vladavina prava;evropski standardi;transparentnost;z zakonom ustanovljeno sodišče;zapisnik o posvetovanju;Tsanova-Getcheva;Ástráđsson;

Data

Language: Slovenian
Year of publishing:
Typology: 1.01 - Original Scientific Article
Organization: UL PF - Faculty of Law
UDC: 347.962(497.4)
COBISS: 90682627 Link will open in a new window
ISSN: 1854-3839
Views: 66
Downloads: 25
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: Selection by the Judicial Council: ignorantia rationis nocet?
Secondary abstract: Recruitment in the judiciary is currently a particularly hot topic in Europe. In Slovenia, the Judicial Council, as a guarantor of judicial independence having a central role in the appointment procedure, is supposed to ensure the selection of the most competent candidates. However, the selection process fails to be transparent and the reasoning of the choice is insufficient and unconvincing. Therefore, the author first outlines the Slovenian courts’ response to such decision-making of the Judicial Council. Restrained judicial review based on trust in the discretionary choice by the Judicial Council has become established in case law. Therefore, the contribution assesses the Slovenian legal framework in light of the latest European standards: the right to efficient judicial protection and to a tribunal established by law from Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 19 of the Treaty of EU. Especially, the inadequate reasoning of decisions and the fact that the Judicial Council does not write a record of the consultation in violation of the applicable legislation turns to be problematic.
Secondary keywords: council of the judiciary;appointment of judges;extent of reasoning;European standards;transparency;tribunal established by law;record of consultation;Cooperation and Verification Mechanism;
Type (COBISS): Article
Pages: str. 63-83, 242, 252
Issue: ǂLetn. ǂ81
Chronology: 2021
DOI: 10.51940/2021.1.63-83
ID: 16506305