TFL Vsebine / Revija Pravnik

7

Namen prispevka je opozoriti na pomembnost jasne, strukturirane in logično koherentne obrazložitve pravnih odločitev. Da ni pomembna le končna od- ločitev, ampak tudi argumentacijska pot, ki je odločevalca pripeljala do take odločitve, se zavedamo toliko bolj takrat, ko nas neka odločitev preseneti in skušamo iz obrazložitve (ki je, če v postopku nismo sodelovali, pogosto edini vir informacij o odločilnih dejstvih zadeve) razbrati nosilne razloge zanjo. Ena takih odločitev je tudi odločitev Vrhovnega sodišča o razveljavitvi glasovanja na zakonodajnem referendumu o Zakonu o izgradnji, upravljanju in gospo- darjenju z drugim tirom železniške proge Divača – Koper. Ker me je odločitev presenetila, sem skušala utemeljitev zanjo najti v obrazložitvi. Ta me, kot neko- ga, ki ima pred seboj le splošno znana dejstva in tisto, kar je navedeno v obra- zložitvi, žal ne prepriča. Ker namen prispevka ni kritika sodnikov in njihovega dela, temveč želja po (ob siceršnjem upoštevanju odločitve) strpni razpravi tudi o argumentacijah in obrazložitvah, s katerimi se ne strinjamo oziroma jih ne razumemo, si v prispevku prizadevam podrobno razčleniti merila, ki jih je za odločanje Vrhovnega sodišča postavilo Ustavno sodišče, in preveriti njiho- vo konkretizacijo v obrazložitvi Vrhovnega sodišča.

The aim of the article is to draw the attention to the importance of clear, struc- tured, and logically coherent reasoning of legal decisions. It is not only the final decision that is important, but also the line of argumentation that has led the decision maker to reach such a decision. We are particularly made aware of this when we find a decision surprising and try to find its supporting ratio- nale through its reasoning, which is (often, if we have not been involved in the decision-making process itself) the only source of information on the relevant facts of the case. One of such decisions is also the decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia to annul the results of the vote in the refer- endum on the Act Regulating the Construction, Operation and Management of the Second Track of the Divača – Koper Railway Line. Because this decision has surprised me, I have tried to find its rationale in its reasoning. Having at my disposal only the commonly known facts of the matter and the facts contained in its reasoning itself, this decision, unfortunately, does not convince me. The purpose of the article is not criticism of the judges and of their work, but the desire to (while respecting the decision) considerately discuss the arguments and the reasoning that we disagree with or do not understand. Therefore, in the article I try to elaborate in more detail on the criteria for abrogating a referen- dum set by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia and to verify the concretization of these criteria in the reasoning of the Supreme Court.

The Importance of the Reasoning of a Decision Through the Example of the Supreme Court’s Decision in the “Second-Railway-Track” Case