magistrsko delo
Maja Kokot (Avtor), Miha Šepec (Mentor)

Povzetek

Prvi odstavek 28. člena Ustave Republike Slovenije določa, da ne sme biti nihče kaznovan za dejanje, za katero ni zakon določil, da je kaznivo, in ni zanj predpisal kazni, še preden je bilo dejanje storjeno. Skozi omenjeni člen se v kazenskem pravu zrcali načelo zakonitosti (»nullum crimen sine lege, nulla poena sine lege«), iz katerega izhaja splošno sprejeta zahteva, da mora biti kazensko pravo samo zakonsko pravo, saj dotična pravna panoga najhuje posega v temeljne pravice posameznikov in je zato pomembno, da jo ohranjamo znotraj ustavno začrtanih meja. Že v drugi polovici osemnajstega stoletja sta Beccaria in Montesquieu opozarjala na samovoljo sodnikov in zakonodaje ter iz tega razloga ravno kot prva oblikovala načelo zakonitosti. Nastanek predmetnega načela, njegova vsebina in poznejši razvoj kažejo, da se skozenj zagotavlja garantna funkcija v kazenskem pravu, saj je njegova poglavitna vsebina zaščita posameznika, ki je v konfliktu z državo, oziroma zagotovitev pravne varnosti le-temu pred samovoljnimi, nezakonitimi in čezmernimi posegi kazenskega represivnega aparata. V zvezi z zahtevo po zagotavljanju načela zakonitosti v kazenskem pravu je potrebno omeniti problematiko zelo raznolikih razlag kazenskopravnih določb slovenske teorije in sodne prakse, ki so neredko v nasprotju z načelom zakonitosti. Največje težave pri razlagi nastajajo pri zakonskih znakih, ki so pomensko bolj odprti, dvomljivi, nejasni in od sodnika zahtevajo vsebinsko vrednostno zapolnitev. Analiza judikature sicer ne ponuja nikakršne striktne metodologije sodišč pri odločanju, pokaže pa, da je podlaga nezakonitih odločitev sodišč, največkrat argument sistematične metode razlage kazenskopravnih določb ter, po nekakšnem notranjem občutku za pravičnost razlagalca, iskanje takšne razlage posamezne določbe, da bo temeljna dobrina karseda zavarovana. Povedano predstavlja hudo napako in pomanjkljivost našega pravnega sistema, saj so s tem ogrožena številna načela pravne države, na primer: načelo enakosti pred zakonom, načelo delitve oblasti, pravna varnost ipd. Zaradi težnje po enakem varstvu pravic in poenotenju sodne prakse sta se v teoriji pojavila dva teoretično-filozofska pogleda na načelo zakonitosti - koncept maksimalne določenosti in koncept supremacije teleološke interpretacije, ki ponujata odgovor na vprašanje, koliko svobode ima sodnik pri razlagi zakonskih določb KZ-1 in kako lahko le-te razlaga, da pri tem ne krši načela zakonitosti. Pri določbah splošnega dela KZ-1, ki navajajo splošne institute ter jih podrobneje razvijata kazenskopravna teorija in praksa, se zdi smiselno uporabiti koncept supremacije teleološke interpretacije, pri razlagi določb posebnega dela KZ-1 pa se zdi pravilneje, zaradi načela »lex certa«, ki je tukaj bistveno bolj stogo uveljavljeno, dati prednost konceptu maksimalne določenosti. Magistrsko delo odraža trenutno, kaotično stanje slovenske kazenskopravne teorije in sodne prakse z vidika načela zakonitosti ter pokaže očitno ignoriranje in nezavedanje razlagalcev, da razlaga zakona ne sme nikoli biti korektura zakona.

Ključne besede

načelo zakonitosti;kazenskopravna norma;določenost zakona;prepoved retroaktivnosti;analogija;teleološka razlaga;jezikovna razlaga;kazensko materialno pravo;zakonski znaki kaznivega dejanja;jasnost zakonskega zapisa;

Podatki

Jezik: Slovenski jezik
Leto izida:
Tipologija: 2.09 - Magistrsko delo
Organizacija: UM PF - Pravna fakulteta
UDK: 343.32(043.3)
COBISS: 150118403 Povezava se bo odprla v novem oknu
Št. ogledov: 32
Št. prenosov: 6
Ocena: 0 (0 glasov)
Metapodatki: JSON JSON-RDF JSON-LD TURTLE N-TRIPLES XML RDFA MICRODATA DC-XML DC-RDF RDF

Ostali podatki

Sekundarni jezik: Angleški jezik
Sekundarni naslov: The concept of maximum certainty and the concept of supremacy of teleological interpretation in the practice of slovenian courts
Sekundarni povzetek: The first paragraph of Article 28 of the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia stipulates that no one may be punished for an act for which the law has not determined that it is a crime and has not prescribed a punishment for it even before the act was committed. Through the aforementioned article, the principle of legality (»nullum crimen sine lege, nulla poena sine lege«) is reflected in criminal law, from which comes the generally accepted requirement that criminal law must be only statutory law, since the legal branch in question worst interferes with the fundamental rights of individuals and it is therefore important to keep it within the constitutionally defined limits. In the second half of the 18th century, Beccaria and Montesquieu pointed out the arbitrariness of judges and legislation, and were the first to formulate the principle of legality. The origin of the subject principle, its content and subsequent development show that it provides a guarantee function in criminal law, since its main content is the protection of an individual who is in conflict with the state, or the provision of legal security to him against arbitrary, illegal and excessive interventions of the criminal repressive apparatus. In relation to the requirement to ensure the principle of legality in criminal law, it is necessary to mention the issue of very diverse interpretations of criminal law provisions in Slovenian theory and judicial practice, which are often in conflict with the principle of legality. The biggest difficulties in interpretation arise in the case of legal signs, which are semantically more open, dubious, unclear and require the judge to fill in the content and value. The analysis of the jurisprudence does not offer any strict methodology of the courts in decision-making, but it shows that the basis of the illegal decisions of the courts is most often the argument of a systematic method of interpretation of criminal law provisions and, according to a kind of internal feeling for the justice of the interpreter, the search for such an interpretation of an individual provision that the fundamental good of the car will be insured. In other words, it represents a serious mistake and shortcoming of our legal system, as many principles of the rule of law are threatened by this, for example: the principle of equality before the law, the principle of separation of powers, legal security, etc. Due to the desire for equal protection of rights and unification of judicial practice, two theoretical-philosophical views on the principle of legality appeared in the theory - the concept of maximum certainty and the concept of the supremacy of teleological interpretation, which offer an answer to the question of how much freedom a judge has when interpreting the legal provisions of the Criminal Code and how can it explain that it does not violate the principle of legality. For the provisions of the general part of the Criminal Code, which state general institutes and are developed in more detail by criminal law theory and practice, it seems reasonable to use the concept of the supremacy of teleological interpretation, and when interpreting the provisions of the special part of the Criminal Code, it seems more correct, due to the principle of »lex certa«, which is significantly more strictly enforced here, to give preference to the concept of maximal definiteness. The master thesis reflects the current, chaotic state of Slovenian criminal law theory and jurisprudence from the point of view of the principle of legality, and shows the obvious ignorance of interpreters that the interpretation of the law should never be a correction of the law.
Sekundarne ključne besede: principle of legality;legal norm;certainty of law;prohibition of retroactivity;analogy;teleological interpretation;linguistic interpretation;substantive criminal law;signs of a crime;clarity of the statutory record;Univerzitetna in visokošolska dela;
Vrsta dela (COBISS): Magistrsko delo/naloga
Komentar na gradivo: Univ. v Mariboru, Pravna fak.
Komentar vira: Sistemske zahteve: Acrobat reader
Sistemski komentar: Sistemske zahteve: Acrobat reader
Strani: 1 spletni vir (1 datoteka PDF (80 str.))
ID: 18390122