TFL Vsebine / Pravni letopis

Prispevek obravnava primere, v katerih je isti historični dogodek predmet obravnavanja v več sodnih postopkih. Kadar gre za dva pravdna postopka ali več, avtorica opozarja na razliko med vmesno sodbo, ki učinkuje samo v postopku, v katerem je bila izdana, ter sodbo o predhodnem pravnem razmerju, ki ima učinek pravnomočnosti in zavezuje tudi druga sodišča, ki odločajo o zahtevkih iz istega pravnega razmerja. Po drugi strani pa je civilno sodišče vezano na sodbo kazenskega sodišča v dveh primerih: ko je obstoj kaznivega dejanja predhodno vprašanje, od katerega je odvisen obstoj odškodninske odgovornosti, in v primeru tako imenovanih identičnih dejanskih stanj, ko je civilno sodišče vezano na obsodilno sodbo kazenskega sodišča, vendar le glede obstoja kaznivega dejanja in kazenske odgovornosti storilca. Po večinskem stališču domneva nedolžnosti pravdnemu sodišču preprečuje, da bi samo odločilo o obstoju kaznivega dejanja, če kazenskega postopka ni bilo. V primeru identičnih dejanskih stanj pa je sporno, ali vezanost na kazensko sodbo ni v nasprotju s pravico nasprotne stranke do izjave, če ni imela možnosti sodelovati v kazenskem postopku.

The article discusses situations when the same historical event is subject-matter of the procedure before different courts. Regarding two or more several civil proceedings, the author points up the difference between an interlocutory judgment, which has effects only in the proceeding in which it was rendered, and a judgement upon prejudicial legal relationship which obtains the effects of res iudicata and is binding for other courts deciding upon claims based on the same legal relationship. On the other hand, there are two situations in which a civil court is bound by a criminal court judgement: in the case of preliminary questions, when the existence of civil liability depends on the existence of a criminal offence and in the case of so-called identical issues of facts when a civil court is bound by the final condemnatory sentence issued in criminal proceedings but only in respect of the existence of criminal offence and criminal liability of the offender. According to the prevailing opinion the presumption of innocence prevents a civil court to decide about the existence of criminal offence if no criminal procedure took place. In the case of so-called identical issues of facts, however, the dependence on the conviction can be in contradiction with the right to be heard of the opposite party, when he or she had no possibility to participate in previous criminal proceeding.

Interlocutory Judgement, Preliminary Questions and Identical Issues of Facts in Compensation of Damages Disputes