Protipravno pridobljeni dokazi v luči ustavnih procesnih jamstev

Abstract

V slovenskem pravnem redu uporaba protipravno pridobljenih dokazov v pravdnem postopku ni normativno urejena, zato so se rešitve razvile v sodni praksi, ki to vprašanje naslavlja skozi prizmo reševanja kolizije ustavnih pravic. Prispevek se osredotoča na pomanjkljivosti ureditve, ki izhajajo iz odločbe Ustavnega sodišča RS kot edine pravne podlage za odločanje o dopustnosti dokazov, pridobljenih s kršitvami ustavno varovanih pravic. Obravnava teoretične vidike presoje dopustnosti protipravno pridobljenih dokazov v kontekstu ustavnih procesnih jamstev ter relevantno sodno prakso, v kateri se te težave odražajo. Posebna pozornost je posvečena pomenu pravice do dokaza, metodološkemu pristopu, ki naj se uporabi pri tehtanju pravic, ter argumentom, na podlagi katerih sodišča utemeljujejo svoje odločitve o dopustnosti dokazov. Prispevek kot najustreznejšo metodo za razreševanje kolizije pravic predlaga metodo praktične konkordance, hkrati pa opozarja na potrebo po poenotenju sodne prakse ob uporabi kriterijev, ki upoštevajo tako pravico stranke do dokaza kot tudi osebnostne pravice nasprotne stranke.

Keywords

protipravno pridobljeni dokaz;pravica do dokaza;kolizija pravic;načelo sorazmernosti;praktična konkordanca;pravdni postopek;

Data

Language:	Slovenian
Year of publishing:	2024
Typology:	1.16 - Independent Scientific Component Part or a Chapter in a Monograph
Organization:	UM PF - Faculty of Law
UDC:	346
COBISS:	181996035
Parent publication:	Studia Iuridica Miscellanea
Views:	0
Downloads:	2
Average score:	0 (0 votes)
Metadata:

Other data

Secondary language:	English
Secondary title:	Illegally obtained evidence in view of procedural constitutional guarantees
Secondary abstract:	In the Slovenian legal system, the admissibility of illegally obtained evidence is not regulated by normative legal acts. Instead, solutions had to be established through case law, where this issue is being approached through the prism of balancing constitutional rights in conflict. The paper focuses on the shortcomings of the regulation stemming from the decision of the Slovenian Constitutional Court as the sole legal basis for determining the admissibility of evidence obtained in violation of constitutionally protected rights. It examines the theoretical aspects of assessing the admissibility of illegally obtained evidence in the context of procedural constitutional guarantees and relevant case law reflecting these challenges. Special attention is given to the significance of the right to evidence, the methodological approach to balancing rights, and the arguments applied by Slovenian courts when assessing the admissibility of evidence. The author suggests the use of practical concordance as the most appropriate method for resolving the conflicts of rights and highlights the need for the uniform application of criteria that consider both the party's right to evidence and the personal rights of the opposing party.
Secondary keywords:	illegally obtained evidence;the right to evidence;rights in conflict;the principle of proportionality;practical concordance;civil litigation;
Pages:	Str. 71-96
DOI:	10.18690/um.pf.1.2024.3
ID:	27111676