TFL Vsebine / Revija Javna uprava

Izvršna veja v okviru izvršilnih nalog opravlja tudi »upravno razlago« splošnih aktov zakonodajalca prek sprejemanja splošnih odvisnih in posamičnih aktov ter sodeluje pri oblikovanju politik s pripravo predlogov zakonov. Prispevek obravnava nastanek moderne (upravne) države in s tem povezane zadržane presoje sodišča, ki prepušča vse večji prostor razlage izvršni veji. Slednja pri pripravi predpisov ne izhaja le iz ustave in posameznih zakonov, pač pa predhodno iz nekaterih skupnih, univerzalnih elementov, prisotnih v večini pravnih redov. Ob tem uporablja podobna pravila gramatike, logike oziroma zdravorazumskega razmišljanja, kot to počne sodna veja pri presoji dopustnosti razlage s strani uprave. Metode razlage niso predpisane, a vendar predstavljajo temeljni kamen vsake pravne države. Prispevek podaja neketere podobne elemente, ki jih lahko najdemo v večini pravnih redov in ki natančneje podajajo izhodišča v okviru katerih se sprejemajo avtoritativne odločitve od tistih, ki se zgolj formalno navajajo. Razumevanje teh izhodišč podaja boljši uvid v posamezne odločitve.

In the frame of the executive tasks the executive branch executes also »administrative interpretation« of general acts of the legislative branch with issuing the acts of general, dependant and individual nature and with participating in policy-making with drafting bills. The paper deals with the emergence of modern (administrative) law and with that related judicial margin of appreciation that leaves more and more space for interpretation in the hands of the executive branch. The latter in the preparation of regulations not only emanates from the Constitution and individual laws, but from some previously common, almost universal elements that are present in most legal systems. At the same time it applies rules of grammar, of logic and common sense thinking, what does also the judicial branch in assessing the deference of an interpretation by the administration. Methods of interpretation are not prescribed, but they still represent the cornerstone of any legal state. It is more about the similarity of content that can be found in most legal systems and which provide precise factual circumstances under which authoritative decisions are made vis a vis to those that are only formally stated.