TFL Vsebine / Revija Pravnik

7

Poleg kazenskih se javnopravna odgovornost uveljavlja tudi v kvazikazenskih postopkih. Tudi v teh postopkih imajo pristojni organi pooblastila, podob na tistim iz kazenskega postopka. V zvezi s tem se odpre vprašanje uvažanja dokazov iz teh postopkov za dokazovanje kazenske odgovornosti obdolženca v kazenskem postopku. Evropska konvencija o varstvu človekovih pravic (EKČP) in Evropsko sodišče za človekove pravice tega vprašanja ne obravnavata neposredno. Članek pa skozi obravnavanje sodne prakse Evropskega sodišča za človekove pravice o dometu pravic iz EKČP, o ekskluziji nedovoljenih dokazov ter posebej o ekskluziji dokazov, pridobljenih s kršitvijo pravic v kvazikazenskih postopkih, potrdi hipotezo, da je izločitev nedovoljenih dokazov, pridobljenih v kvazikazenskih postopkih, iz obremenilnega gradiva zoper obdolženca v kazenskem postopku, pred Evropskim sodiščem za človekove pravice možna, vendar omejeno.

Besides criminal procedures, national systems endorse also quasi-criminal procedures, in which public legal responsibility is enforced and the relevant authority possesses powers similar to the ones from criminal procedure. An issue, therefore, immediately arises whether evidence from such quasi-criminal procedures could be imported into criminal procedure to establish criminal responsibility. The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the European Court of Human Rights do not discuss this issue directly. However, this paper confirms the thesis that the European Court of Human Rights acknowledges the limited possibility of exclusion of evidence, obtained in quasi-criminal procedures, from the evidence in criminal procedure. This is made via an analysis of the Court’s case law on the substantive boundaries of human rights, exclusion of evidence and especially of evidence obtained by violation of the convention in quasi-criminal procedures.

The European Court of Human Rights and the Evidence From Quasi-Criminal Procedures