Navigacija
Portal TFL

TFL Vsebine / Pravni letopis

Predhodna vprašanja in identično dejansko stanje v razmerju med kazenskim in civilnim postopkom

O AVTORJU
dr. Aleš Galič, redni profesor na Pravni fakulteti Univerze v Ljubljani
VRSTA ČLANKA
Izvirni znanstveni članek
AVTOR
Aleš Galič
TIP DOKUMENTA
Znanstveni članki in razprave
IZDAJATELJ
Inštitut za primerjalno pravo pri Pravni fakulteti v Ljubljani
KLJUČNE BESEDE
predhodno vprašanje, kaznivo dejanje, civilno procesno pravo, presumpcija nedolžnosti
KEYWORDS
preliminary question, criminal offence, civil procedure, presumption of innocence
NASLOV SEKCIJE
IV. PREDHODNA VPRAŠANJA: RAZMERJE MED PRAVDNIM IN DRUGIMI POSTOPKI
PUBLIKACIJA
Pravni letopis
ZALOŽNIK
GV Založba
POVZETEK
Avtor obravnava dva položaja, ko se sodišče v pravdnem postopku srečuje s kazensko sodbo oziroma vprašanjem obstoja kaznivega dejanja. Za predhodno vprašanje gre v tistih redkih primerih, ko je obstoj civilnopravne obveznosti odvisen od obstoja kaznivega dejanja. Če kazenskega postopka še ni bilo je sporno, ali tedaj domneva nedolžnosti pravdnemu sodišču preprečuje, da bi samostojno odločalo o obstoju kaznivega dejanja. Glede predhodnih vprašanj je pravdno sodišče vezano na kazensko obsodilno in oprostilno sodbo, sporna pa je vezanost na kazensko zavrnilno sodbo. Pri identičnem dejanskem stanju, je pravdno sodišče, ki obravnava isti historični dogodek kot ga je pred tem kazensko sodišče, vezano le na kazensko obsodilno sodbo. Gre za edini primer, ko je v slovenskem pravu uveljavljena vezanost kot collateral estoppel. Vezanost na kazensko obsodilno sodbo je v nasprotju z načelom kontradiktornosti in s pravico stranke do zaslišanja v postopku, v kolikor gre v škodo oseb, ki v kazenskem postopku niso imele možnost sodelovati.
SUMMARY
Concerning the interaction between criminal and civil law, there are extremely few cases in Slovenian legislation where the existence of a criminal offence is a pre-condition for the application of a certain consequence in the field of civil law. The only such a case in the field of Law of Obligations concerns the length of the prescription period for obligations in torts; if the event that caused the damage was a criminal offence, the prescription period may be longer (Article 353, Code of Obligations). In such a case, a civil court is bound by both the conviction and the acquittal of the wrongdoer in criminal procedure (thus, if the wrongdoer was acquitted, the civil court may not in a later action for damages use a longer prescription period based on a finding that the wrongful act was a criminal offence). If, however, a criminal procedure has not taken place yet and the civil court is faced with a preliminary question of whether a criminal offence was committed (because this is decisive for the determination of the length of the prescription period), the civil court may not, in principle, decide on this preliminary question by itself. According to the position of the Supreme Court, if a civil court would find, even if just as a preliminary question, that the wrongful act was a criminal offence although a criminal procedure has not been accomplished yet, it would violate the presumption of innocence (Article 27 of the Constitution). Cases where a criminal offence represents a preliminary question in civil proceedings need to be distinguished from so called »identical historical event«; which are cases, where in order to establish civil liability the court needs to establish (partially) the same facts as were previously established in criminal proceedings. For such cases, the Civil Procedure Act provides for a certain effect of a collateral estoppel, produced by a conviction in a criminal case. In a case when the same cause of action resulted in previous conviction of the wrongdoer in criminal procedure it is easier for the aggrieved party to pursue its civil claim. The CPA (Article 14) determines that when the claim is based on the same state of facts that has already been adjudicated in criminal proceedings, the court shall be 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. For instance, in such a claim, the defendant will be precluded from raising an objection that his act was not illegal or objection that there was no causal link or that no damage occurred. In fact, this is the only case of the so-called collateral estoppel in Slovenian civil procedure (there is no such effect between two civil procedures, just between a criminal and a subsequent civil procedure).
TITLE
A Criminal Offence as a Preliminary Question in Civil Proceedings and Civil and Criminal Cases Based on the Same Cause of Action

Za ogled celotnega dokumenta je potrebna prijava v portal.

Začnite z najboljšim.
VSE NA ENEM MESTU.

PRIJAVA

ŠE NISTE UPORABNIK PORTALA TFL?

Dobra novice! Portal TFL je za nove uporabnike pripravil poseben brezplačen dostop do vsebin portala Tax-FinLex, da ga lahko preizkusite. Brezplačna registracija vam omogoča:

  • Vpogled v 7 dokumentov
  • Prejemanje e-dnevnika Lex-Novice
  • Prejemenje e-tednika TFL Glasnik

Potrebujete pomoč?
Posvetujte se z našim strokovnjakom.

Pišite nam +386 1 4324 243
BREZPLAČNI PREIZKUS

Tax-Fin-Lex d.o.o.
pravno-poslovni portal,
založništvo in
izobraževanja

Tax-Fin-Lex d.o.o.
Železna cesta 18
1000 Ljubljana
Slovenija

T: +386 1 4324 243
E: info@tax-fin-lex.si

CERTIFIKATI IN EU PROJEKTI

 
x Dialog title
dialog window