Skrajna sila v teoriji in sodni praksi

(magistrska naloga)

Abstract

O skrajni sili govorimo takrat, ko obstoji nevarnost za neko pravno dobrino, ki se lahko odvrne samo s posegom v pravno dobrino drugega, pri čemer se izpolnijo zakonski znaki kaznivega dejanja. Za razliko od silobrana, kjer gre za konflikt med protipravnim napadom in dejanjem obrambe (konflikt prava z nepravom), sta pri skrajni sili v konfliktu dve pravno zavarovani dobrini: tista, ki je v nevarnosti in se rešuje ter tista, na račun katere se rešuje prva. Pomembno je, v kakšnem razmerju sta ti dve dobrini. V primeru koflikta dobrin različnega ranga se nedvomno da prednost tisti, ki je višje na lestvici pravno zavarovanih dobrin. Pravna teorija pa je imela več težav s situacijami, ko sta na tehtnici dobrini enakega ranga, npr. življenji. Skladno z monistični teorijami ima skrajna sila lahko le en pravni učinek in sicer lahko izključuje bodisi krivdo (subjektivna teorija) bodisi protipravnost (objektivna teorija). Danes uveljavljena diferenčna teorija različnim situacijam skrajne sile pripisuje različne pravne učinke. Prvi slovenski kazenski zakonik je predvideval zgolj eno obliko skrajne sile, ki je izključevala protipravnost ravnanja. Njegov naslednik KZ-1 je že razločeval med skrajno silo, ki izključuje krivdo in skrajno silo, ki izključuje kaznivost storilca. Ta nenavadna in unikatna izpeljava diferenčne teorije je bila deležna številnih kritik. Od novele KZ-1B slovenska ureditev ločuje dve obliki skrajne sile in sicer temeljno upravičljivo skrajno silo, ki izključuje protipravnost ravnanja in opravičljivo skrajno silo, ki izključuje krivdo storilca. V sodni praksi uporaba instituta ni pogosta, saj so situacije skrajne sile tudi v življenju izjemno redke. Tudi v teh redkih primerih, pa se zaradi strogih pogojev skrajna sila storilcu skoraj nikoli ne prizna.

Keywords

skrajna sila;protipravnost;krivda;kaznivost;upravičena;opravičena;monistična teorija;diferenčna teorija;

Data

Language:	Slovenian
Year of publishing:	2025
Typology:	2.09 - Master's Thesis
Organization:	UL PF - Faculty of Law
Publisher:	[E. Voje]
UDC:	343:336.228.34(043.2)
COBISS:	228811267
Views:	180
Downloads:	50
Average score:	0 (0 votes)
Metadata:

Other data

Secondary language:	English
Secondary title:	Necessity in theory and judicial practice
Secondary abstract:	Necessity appeal to situations when there is a threat to a legal good that can only be averted by interfiring with another legal good, thereby fulfilling the elements of a criminal offence. In contrast to self-defence, where there is a conflict between an unlawful attack and the defensive action (a conflict between law and unlawfulness), necessity involves a conflict between two legally protected goods: the one under threat, which is being protected, and the one that is harmed in the process of protecting the first. The important factor is the relationship between these two goods. In cases of conflict between goods of differing rank, precedence is unequivocally given to the one higher on the scale of legally protected goods. Legal theory has faced particular challenges in situations where goods of equal rank are in conflict, such as two lives. According to monistic theories, necessity can have only one legal effect, either excluding culpability (subjective theory) or unlawfulness (objective theory). The presenlty accepted differential theory attributes different legal effects to different situations of necessity. The first Slovenian Criminal Code only envisaged one type of necessity, which excluded the unlawfulness of the act. Its successor, the Criminal Code (KZ-1), distinguished between necessity that excludes culpability and necessity that excludes punishability. This unusual and unique interpretation of the differential theory has been subject to numerous criticisms. Since the amendment KZ-1B, Slovenian criminal law now distinguishes between two forms of necessity: the fundamental justified necessity, which excludes unlawfulness, and the excusable necessity, which excludes the perpetrator’s culpability. In judicial practice, the application of this institute is rare, as situations of necessity are exceptionally uncommon in real life. However, even in these rare cases, due to the strict conditions, necessity is almost never recognised in favour of the defendant.
Secondary keywords:	Kazensko pravo;
Type (COBISS):	Master's thesis/paper
Study programme:	0
Embargo end date (OpenAIRE):	1970-01-01
Thesis comment:	Univ. v Ljubljani, Pravna fak.
Pages:	43 f.
ID:	26048541