TFL Vsebine / Revija Pravnik

7

Novejša sodna praksa je sprejela stališče, da domneva nedolžnosti po 27. členu Ustave RS pravdnemu sodišču načeloma preprečuje, da bi samostojno odločalo o obstoju kaznivega dejanja kot o predhodnem vprašanju, če kazenski postopek še ni bil pravnomočno končan. Ob tem pa vendarle dopušča izjemo: pravdno sodišče sme samo odločati o obstoju kaznivega dejanja kot o predhodnem vprašanju, kadar je očitno, da kazenskega postopka sploh ne more biti. Dodatni argumenti, ki zaostrujejo možnosti odločanja o kaznivem dejanju kot predhodnem vprašanju, temeljijo na predpostavki, da civilna pravda nikoli ne sme temeljiti na ugotovljenem predhodnem vprašanju o kazenski odgovornosti posameznika, ki ni imel možnosti adversarnega kazenskega postopka z vsemi pravnimi garancijami in zagotovljenimi pravicami, ki mu jih nudita ustava in zakon v kazenskem postopku.

Recent judicial practice has upheld that the presumption of innocence under Article 27 of the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia in principle prohibits civil courts from independently determining the occurrence of a criminal offence as a preliminary question, if criminal proceedings have not yet legally concluded. However, an exception is permitted: civil courts may determine the occurrence of a criminal offence as a preliminary question only when it is clear that no criminal proceedings will be initiated. Further arguments that restrict the ability of civil courts to decide on criminal offences as preliminary issues are based on the premise that civil litigation should not rely on an established preliminary question of an individual’s the criminal responsibility without the opportunity for an adversarial criminal process, complete with all legal guarantees and rights afforded by the constitution and criminal law.

Can a Civil Court Decide on Criminal Liability in Non-Criminal Proceedings?