TFL Vsebine / Pravni letopis

V prispevku je predstavljena sodna praksa v primeru neposredne odgovornosti delodajalca za škodo, ki jo povzročijo zaposleni novinarji in odgovorni uredniki, na podlagi 147. člena OZ. Stališče Vrhovnega sodišča, da za zaposlene novinarje in urednike ne velja privilegij izključne odškodninske odgovornosti delodajalca za škodo, povzročeno iz navadne malomarnosti, po mojem mnenju ni pravilno. To velja za oba argumenta, na katera se opira sodna praksa najvišjega sodišča: ni res, da naklep napisati članek vsebuje tudi naklep s člankom povzročiti škodo, in ni res, da je 6. člen (oziroma 18. člen) ZMed lex specialis v razmerju do 147. člena OZ. Praksa višjega sodišča v Ljubljani v zadnjem času ne sledi stališču Vrhovnega sodišča, temveč uporablja enake argumente, kot so predstavljeni v članku. Tak razvoj sodne prakse višjih sodišč pozdravljam in upam, da bo sčasoma vplival tudi na vrhovne sodnike.

The position of the Slovenian Supreme Court, according to which staff journalists and editors (employees) are not subject to the privilege of exclusive liability of their employer (media company) for damage caused by ordinary negligence, is neither justified nor theoretically correct. This applies to both arguments, applied by the highest court: first, it is not true that the intent to write an article per se contains the intent to cause damage. Second, Article 6 (and Article 18) of the Media Act do not constitute a lex specialis (as an exception) in relation to 147 Code of Obligation. In the case law of the higher courts differing views can be found. While Ljubljana High Court rejects the Media Act as a legal basis justifying deviation from Article 147 Code of Obligation both for editors and journalists alike, Maribor High Court believes that only Article 18 Media Act represents the legal basis for the direct responsibility of the editors as the journalists’ work is »less responsible » and therefore not subject to direct liability. The author believes that there is no need to treat staff journalists and editors more harshly than other employees in Slovenian civil law. Journalistic and editorial work is certainly responsible, but not more than some other professions in which the liability of the employer for their staff in case of negligent behavior has never been disputed – doctors, judges or teachers. The author further believes that this trend is problematic both in terms of the regulations regarding the responsibility of the employer towards the worker, as well as in terms of the constitutional provisions on freedom of expression and the principle of equality.

Damage Liability of Journalists and Editors Pursuant to Article 147 and Dilemmas Arising from the Case Law