TFL Vsebine / Revija Pravnik

3

Člen 240 KZ-1 inkriminira zlorabo položaja ali zaupanja pri gospodarski dejavnosti in je v zadnjih letih ena najpogosteje uporabljenih določb za pregon t. i. gospodarske kriminalitete. Pri tem pa se porajajo številna vprašanja. Prvi del prispevka obravnava vprašanje, do kod sploh segajo meje upravičenega kazenskopravnega odzivanja države v primeru odločitev poslovodstva, ki gospodarski družbi ne povzročijo nobene škode, storilec ali tretje osebe pa pridobijo (premoženjsko) korist. Gre pravzaprav za (ustavnopravno) vprašanje, do kod sega svobodna gospodarska pobuda in kje se začenja upravičen interes države v smislu kazenskopravne represije. Pri tem je treba upoštevati predvsem okoliščino, ali je družbi z ravnanjem poslovodstva nastala škoda ali ne, zgolj nastala korist pa državnega posega z instrumenti kazenskega prava ne more upravičiti, saj interesi lastnikov s tem niso bili prizadeti. Drugi del prispevka pa obravnava ustavnopravno problematično ravnanje tožilcev in sodišč v teh kazenskih postopkih, saj se kot vsebina te (blanketne) inkriminacije pogosto navaja kršitev načela vestnega in poštenega gospodarstvenika po prvem odstavku 263. člena Zakona o gospodarskih družbah (ZGD-1). Ta določba ZGD-1 namreč vsebuje zgolj načelo, ne pa tudi konkretnega pravila, kar je sporno z vidika načela zakonitosti v kazenskem (materialnem) pravu. Zato zgolj sklicevanje na omenjeni člen ZGD-1 v konkretnih obtožbah in sodbah ne more zadostiti ustavnopravnim zahtevam v smislu lex certa.

Article 240 of the Slovenian Criminal Code (KZ-1) criminalizes the abuse of power or confidence in economic activities and has become one of the most commonly used provisions for the prosecution of the so-called economic crime in recent years. This, however, raises a number of questions. The first part of the paper asks the question does the state has the right to criminalize the actions of the management that do not inflict any damage to the company, but result only in the gain for the perpetrator or a third party? What are the limits of the freedom of economic initiative and when does the State have a legitimate interest to prosecute? To answer these questions, it is necessary to first decide if the management’s actions caused any damage to the company or not. The State intervention (via the instruments of criminal law) cannot be justified if the interests of the owners of the company were not affected, i.e. if the company has not suffered any damage. The second part of the paper deals with constitutionally problematic decisions of prosecutors and courts in criminal proceedings involving economic crime, since they often allege infringement of the principle of care and diligence under Article 263(1) of the Companies Act (ZGD-1) on the part of the management. This provision of the Companies Act contains a principle and not a specific rule (norm), which is problematic because of the principle of legality in criminal law. Accordingly, the allegation that the management has not acted in accordance with the principle included in Article 263 of the Companies Act cannot meet the constitutional requirement of lex certa.

Some Constitutional Aspects of Article 240 of the Slovenian Criminal Code