TFL Vsebine / Pravni letopis

Neenotna praksa sodišč, to so različne odločitve v pravno in dejansko enakih ali bistveno primerljivih zadevah, je načeloma neželen pojav, ki spodjeda zaupanje ljudi v delovanje sodišč in pravne države. V prispevku ugotavljam, koliko je to problem na področju civilnega sodstva v Sloveniji, s poudarkom na pritožbenih sodiščih, med katerimi je referenčno Višje sodišče v Ljubljani. Kljub temu, da za enotnost sodne prakse de lege lata skrbi Vrhovno sodišče, imajo tudi pritožbena sodišča pri zagotavljanju enotne sodne prakse pomembno vlogo, ker so v sistemu dopuščene revizije v veliki večini zadev zadnja instanca, čeprav formalnih vzvodov za to ni veliko. V prispevku ugotavljam, da neenotna praksa pritožbenih sodišč ni zelo pogosta, saj sodniki praviloma sledijo stališčem Vrhovnega sodišča, kljub temu da nanje niso formalno vezani. A do nepojasnjenih različnih odločitev prihaja celo na Vrhovnem sodišču, številna pa so tudi področja, na katerih se pojavljajo različna stališča pritožbenih senatov v zadevah, ki niso pod nadzorom Vrhovnega sodišča. Na koncu so predstavljeni tudi nekateri neformalni mehanizmi, s katerimi se pritožbena sodišča trudijo zagotoviti čim bolj enotno in stabilno sodno prakso.

The inconsistent case-law, i.e. different decisions in legally and factually identical or essentially comparable cases, is in principle an undesirable phenomenon that undermines people’s confidence in the functioning of the courts and the rule of law. In the article, I examine the extent to which this is a problem in the area of civil justice in Slovenia, focusing on the courts of appeal, among which the Supreme Court in Ljubljana is a reference. Although the Supreme Court de lege lata ensures the uniformity of case law, the courts of appeal also play an important role in ensuring uniform case law, although there are not many formal levers for this. In the paper, I note that the inconsistent case law of appellate courts is not very common, as judges generally follow the Supreme Court’s positions even though they are not formally bound by them. But even in the Supreme Court, there are unexplained different decisions, and there are also many areas where differing views of appellate panels emerge in cases that are not under the Supreme Court’s control. At the end, some informal mechanisms by which the appellate courts try to ensure uniform and stable jurisprudence are also presented.

Fickle on the bench – certain problems of inconsistent case-law of the courts of appeal