Suchergebnisse

Demokracija je oblika oblasti, ki jo danes večina ljudi dojema kot najbližjo idealni ureditvi države, saj temelji na svobodi, enakosti in varnosti – ciljih, za katere bi si morala prizadevati sodobna družba. V uvodu, ki je hkrati prvo poglavje magistrske naloge, podajam opredelitve demokracije in ustavne demokracije na način, kot jih trenutno razumem sama. V drugem poglavju se ukvarjam z načeli in pogoji ustavne demokracije ter z ustavno demokracijo v Republiki Sloveniji. V tretjem poglavju poskušam poudariti pomen ustave. Najbolj me zanima, ali ustava kot najpomembnejši pravni in politični akt svobodo v demokratični ureditvi omejuje ali jo zagotavlja. Čeprav je demokracija nepredstavljiva brez svobode kot svojega temeljnega elementa, ta svoboda ne sme in ne more biti neomejena. Si lahko predstavljamo družbo, v kateri svoboda nima meje, v kateri ni vrhovnega zakona, na katerega bi se lahko vsak posameznik skliceval, ko njegove pravice ogroža država ali drug posameznik? Prvo ključno vprašanje, s katerim se v tem kontekstu ukvarjam, je del četrtega poglavja z naslovom »Človekove pravice in svoboščine – srž ustavne demokracije?«. V petem poglavju namenim pozornost Ustavnemu sodišču. Bistvo ustavne demokracije je Ustavno sodišče opredelilo v odločbi št. U-I-111/04 z dne 8. 7. 2004, ki jo predstavim na koncu magistrske naloge. V sklepu predstavim moj osebni pogled na politični sistem, kakšna je ustavna demokracija ter potrdim oziroma zavrnem postavljene hipoteze ; Democracy is a form of government that is perceived by most people today as the closest to the ideal form of a state, since it is based on freedom, equality and security – the goals that every modern society should aim for. The introduction of the master's thesis, which is also its first chapter, defines democracy and constitutional democracy from our point of view. The second chapter focuses on the principles and conditions of the constitutional democracy and briefly presents the constitutional democracy in the Republic of Slovenia. The third chapter tries to underline the significance of the Constitution. We were mostly interested if the Constitution as the most important legal and political act in a democratic systemrestricts or guarantees ourfreedom. Although democracy is unperceivable without freedom as its fundamental element, it must not and cannot be unlimited. Is it possible to imagine a society in which freedom is unlimited and where there is no supreme law one can refer to in case their rights are undermined by the state or another individual? The first key question that is raised in this context is part of the forth chapter, titled Human Rights and Liberties – Core of Constitutional Democracy? The fifth chapter deals with the Constitutional Court. The essence of the constitutional democracy was defined by the Constitutional Court in the U-I111/04 decree on July 8th, 2004, which is presented at the very end of our master's thesis. The conclusion encompasses our personal view of the political system, such as the constitutional democracy, and either confirms or refutes our set hypotheses.

Magistrsko diplomsko delo z naslovom Glavna obravnava v upravnem sporu kot človekova pravica celovito obravnava vprašanje (ne)izvedbe glavne obravnave v upravnem sporu. Mednarodni in slovenski predpisi predvidevajo javne sodne postopke z neposrednim ustnim obravnavanjem zadev. Prvi odstavek 6. člena Evropske konvencije o varstvu človekovih pravic in temeljnih svoboščin določa, da je javna obravnava sestavni del pravice do poštenega sojenja. Ustava Republike Slovenije posredno ureja glavno obravnavo v upravnem sporu, in sicer zlasti v 22. členu (enako varstvo pravic), 23. členu (pravica do sodnega varstva) in 24. členu (javnost sojenja). Glavno obravnavo kot zakonsko materijo podrobneje urejajo določbe Zakona o upravnem sporu in Zakona o pravdnem postopku. Izhajajoč iz ugotovitev Evropskega sodišča za človekove pravice, Ustavnega sodišča Republike Slovenije in Vrhovnega sodišča Republike Slovenije v magistrskem diplomskem delu zagovarjam dosledno izvedbo glavne obravnave, predvsem v primeru spornega dejanskega stanja in ko stranka njeno izvedbo izrecno zahteva. Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije in Ustavno sodišče Republike Slovenije sta v novejši sodni praksi zavzela enotno stališče, da ima glavna obravnava v upravnem sporu enako naravo in smisel kot glavna obravnava v katerem koli drugem sodnem postopku. Ustavno sodišče Republike Slovenije je pravico do glavne obravnave v upravnem sporu opredelilo kot samostojno človekovo pravico, ki jo zagotavlja 22. člen Ustave Republike Slovenije. Pravica ni absolutna, zato morajo biti posegi vanjo zakonsko določeni ter prestati ustavna testa legitimnosti (tretji odstavek 15. člena Ustave Republike Slovenije) in sorazmernosti (2. člen Ustave Republike Slovenije). ; The master's thesis titled The main hearing in an administrative dispute as a human right comprehensively deals with issues regarding decision-making in an administrative dispute. International and Slovenian legal acts envisage public legal procedures with direct oral proceedings. The right to an oral hearing is an integral part of the right to a fair trial, as guaranteed by Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia indirectly regulates the right to a main hearing in an administrative dispute, especially in Article 22 (Equal Protection of Rights), Article 23 (Right to Judicial Protection) and Article 24 (Public Nature of Court Proceedings). The right to a main hearing is specified in the Administrative Dispute Act and the Contentious Civil Procedure Act. Building on the findings of the European Court of Human Rights, the Constitutional and the Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia, the master's thesis advocates for the consistent execution of the main hearing, particularly in cases where facts are being disputed and when a party explicitly demands it. The Constitutional and the Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia agreed that the main hearing possesses the same nature and meaning in an administrative dispute as it does in any other judicial proceeding. The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia has declared the right to a main hearing in an administrative dispute as an independent human right, which is guaranteed by Article 22 of the Constitution. As the right is not absolute, the absence of the main hearing is only permissible in duly justified cases prescribed by law and when the Constitutional tests of legitimacy (paragraph 3 of Article 15 of the Constitution) and proportionality (Article 2 of the Constitution) are passed.

Sodba ESČP mora biti ustrezno implementirana na nacionalni ravni, zato bodo uporabljeni nadzorstveni mehanizmi Sveta Evrope. Ko ESČP izda zoper državo obsodilno sodbo, je posredovana Odboru ministrov, ki mu je na podlagi EKČP zaupana naloga nadzora nad izvršitvijo dokončne sodbe. Odbor ministrov ugotavlja v običajnem ali v razširjenem postopku, ali je država sprejela vse potrebne ukrepe za izvršitev naloženih obveznosti iz pravnomočne sodbe. Če je država izpolnila vse obveznosti iz sodbe, Odbor ministrov sprejme resolucijo, s katero konča nadzor. Združeno kraljestvo in Rusija sta državi, ki v zadnjih letih močno kljubujeta avtoriteti ESČP in zavračata izvršitev nekaterih sodb tega sodišča. V Rusiji so sprejeli sporni Zvezni ustavni zakon z dne 14. 12. 2015 št. 7-FKZ, ki je omogočil Ustavnemu sodišču Ruske federacije, da presoja skladnost sodb ESČP z Ustavo Ruske federacije. V primeru ugotovitve neskladnosti lahko Ustavno sodišče prepreči izvršitev sodbe ESČP. V Združenem kraljestvu že več let kljubujejo sodbi v zadevi Hirst proti ZK, tako da zavlačujejo s sprejemom zakonodajnih sprememb, ki jih je zahtevalo ESČP. Neizvrševanje sodb ima v obeh državah skupno točko – obe sta namreč ogrozili učinkovitost izvrševanja sodb ESČP ravno zaradi volilne pravice zapornikov. Kljubovanje ESČP je v Združenem kraljestvu ostalo na politični ravni, medtem ko je šla Rusija po drugačni poti, saj je sprejela zakonodajne spremembe prav z namenom, da ne bo izvrševala protiustavnih sodb ESČP. V Rusiji ne gre samo za razpravo o razmerju med strasbourškim sodiščem in domačimi sodišči tako kot v Združenem kraljestvu, ampak za kljubovanje države odločitvam v celoti, kar je zaskrbljujoče. Če hočejo ohraniti učinkovit sistem varstva človekovih pravic, si morajo Svet Evrope in njegove članice odločneje prizadevati za dosledno uresničevanje sodb ESČP. ; A judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (abbreviated as ECtHR) must be properly implemented on a national level. For that reason, supervisory mechanisms of the Council of Europe will be used. When the ECtHR delivers a judgment against a state, it is passed on to the Committee of Ministers, which is entrusted with a task of supervising enforcement of a final judgment. The Committee of Ministers finds whether the State has taken all necessary measures to comply with obligations imposed by a final judgment. If the State has fulfilled all obligations, the Committee of Ministers shall adopt a final resolution. The UK and Russia are countries that have strongly defined authority of the ECtHR in the recent years. In several occasions, both states refused to enforce judgments. In Russia, they adopted controversial Federal Constitutional Law of 14 December 2015 no. 7-FKZ that has enabled the Constitutional Court to assess compliance of judgments of the ECtHR with the Constitution of the Russian Federation. If the Constitutional Court finds that a judgment of the ECtHR is not in compliance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, it may prevent execution of a judgment. For many years, the UK has defied execution of a judgment in the case of Hirst v. the UK by delaying adoption of legislative changes that were required by the ECtHR. Failure to enforce judgments is a common point in both countries. In the UK, resentment against the ECtHR remains at political level. While in Russia, they implemented legislative changes with clear intention not to implement unconstitutional judgments of the ECtHR. If we want an effective system of human rights protection, we must continue to strive toward consistent implementation of judgments of the ECtHR.

Doktorska disertacija analizira konstituiranje funkcije predsednika republike v bivših socialističnih državah. Podrobneje je analiziran ustavni položaj predsednika republike Estonije, Latvije, Litve, Poljske, Češke, Slovaške, Slovenije, Hrvaške, Madžarske, Romunije ter Bolgarije, torej v enajstih državah članicah Evropske unije. Gre za ureditve, ki so funkcijo predsednika republike kot individualnega šefa države uvedle v devetdesetih letih prejšnjega stoletja. Preučevane države so se ob konstituiranju funkcije predsednika republike in umestitvi njegovega položaja zgledovale po etabliranih pravnih sistemih. Pri tem je ob upoštevanju lastnih zgodovinskih, kulturnih in političnih razlogov prelitje posameznih ustavnih institutov privedlo do vzpostavitve svojevrstnega institucionalnega (ne)ravnovesja, kar odločilno vpliva na razmerje med vlado, parlamentom in predsednikom republike ter posledično na samo delovanje državne oblasti. V nekaterih ureditvah so bile sprva prisotne tendence po uvedbi sistema z močnejšim položajem šefa države, povzetim po predsedniškem oziroma polpredsedniškem sistemu, vendar je večina teh držav skozi ustavni razvoj in stabilizacijo političnega prostora postopoma omejila predsednikove pristojnosti. Drugače je v tistih ureditvah, kjer je ustavodajalec predsedniku že ob konstituiranju funkcije podelil predvsem reprezentativne pristojnosti, zgledujoč se po sistemih z nadvlado parlamenta, in tako onemogočil, da bi lahko predsednik, skladno s svojo nevtralno vlogo, ustrezno razreševal »krizne situacije« povezane z blokado oblasti, do katere lahko pride zaradi konfliktov med parlamentom in vlado. Danes se v analiziranih ustavnih ureditvah prepletajo številni elementi, značilni za različne politične sisteme, ki determinirajo (specifičen) položaj šefa države. Položaj predsednika republike, zlasti obseg njegovih pristojnosti in iz tega izhajajoča razmerja do zakonodajnih in izvršilnih organov, pa je hkrati tudi eno izmed temeljnih meril klasične klasifikacije političnih sistemov. Na predsednikov položaj poleg pristojnosti, ki jih izvršuje (predvsem na zakonodajnem in izvršilnem področju), vpliva tudi način njegove izvolitve. V primerjavi s tradicionalnimi zahodnimi sistemi v večini obravnavanih bivših socialističnih držav način izvolitve predsednika republike ni v neposredni korelaciji z obsegom njegovih formalno določenih pristojnosti. Na podlagi opravljene primerjalnopravne analize je mogoče ugotoviti, da ima predsednik republike v slovenski ureditvi (kjer mu je ustavodajalec z neposrednimi volitvami okrepil legitimnost, na drugi strani pa mu hkrati določil šibke, predvsem reprezentativne pristojnosti) najšibkejši položaj izmed obravnavanih enajstih bivših socialističnih držav. ; This doctoral dissertation deals with the constituting i.e. formation of the function of the President of the Republic in former socialist countries. It analyses in greater detail the constitutional role of the President of the Republic of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Croatia, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria, i.e. eleven Member States of the European Union. These states put in place the office of President of the Republic as the individual Head of State in the 1990s. In the process of the formation of the function of the President of the Republic, the countries analysed took inspiration from other established legal systems. In this context, while taking into account their own historical, cultural and political reasons, these states have experienced a spill-over of individual constitutional institutions leading to the creation of a sui generis institutional equilibrium i.e. separation of powers, or lack thereof, which has a decisive impact on the relations between the Government, the Parliament and the President of the Republic, as well as, consequently, on the functioning of the authority of the state itself. Some political systems initially showed a tendency to introduce a system with a stronger head of state, inspired by presidential or semi-presidential republics, but the majority of these countries gradually limited the powers of the President through the constitutional development and stabilisation of their political space. The situation is, however, different in those countries where, from the very beginning of the formation of the function of the President of the Republic, the constitutional legislator conferred upon the President mainly representative powers, following the example of systems with parliamentary supremacy, thus preventing the President, in accordance with his or her neutral role, from being able to adequately address 'crisis situations' in relation to the blocking of authorities arising from conflicts between the Parliament and Government. Hence, the analysed constitutional regimes have now seen certain elements appear which are "alien" to different political systems and which determine the (specific) position of the Head of State. The position of the President of the Republic, and in particular the extent of his or her powers and the resulting relationship with the legislative and executive bodies, is also one of the fundamental criteria of the classic classification of political systems. In addition to the powers exercised (mainly in the legislative and executive domains), the President's position is also influenced by the way he or she is elected. Compared to traditional western systems, the way in which the President of the Republic is elected in most of the former socialist states in question is not directly correlated to the extent of his or her formally defined powers. Based on the analysis of comparative law carried out, it can be concluded that in a regime like the one set up in Slovenia (where the constitutional legislator strengthened the President's legitimacy by holding direct elections, but at the same time conferred upon him or her weak, mainly representative powers), the President's position is the weakest among the eleven former socialist states analysed.

Po načelu samoodločbe imajo ljudstva pravico do suverenosti, ki je razdeljena na notranjo in zunanjo samoodločbo. Notranja samoodločba se kaže v pravici do kulturnega, socialnega in ekonomskega razvoja, medtem ko se zunanja najbolj kaže v pravici do oblikovanja svoje države in do nastopanja v mednarodnopravnem prostoru kot suveren subjekt. Teorijo je v mednarodnih dokumentih po koncu druge svetovne vojne začela razvijati OZN, ki je notranjo samoodločbo priznala vsem ljudstvom, medtem ko je zunanjo omejila na kolonialna ljudstva in pri njihovi definiciji ubrala zelo ozko razlago. Druga polovica 20. stoletja je posledično prinesla nastanek ogromnega števila novih držav, zlasti na afriškem in azijskem kontinentu. Več ali manj se vse centralne vlade soočajo z obstojem skupine ali skupin ljudi, ki imajo drugačne kulturne, jezikovne in socialne značilnosti. Pristop vsake centralne vlade do teh skupin ljudi je različen, vendar je v zadnjih stotih letih možno opaziti, da imajo več posluha za njihove potrebe in priznavanja različnih oblik samoupravljanja. Centralne vlade z njimi sprejemajo mednarodne sporazume, ki se zapišejo v ustavo. Teorija pozna dva različna modela, ki skušata pojasniti sanacijsko pravico do samoodločbe, to je zunajpravne pravice do odcepitve, ki naj bi popravila nepravično stanje. Naloga vzame pod drobnogled sanacijsko pravico do odcepitve avtorja Allena Buchanana. Buchanan namreč priznava pravico ljudstvom, ki so grobo zatirani s strani države, odcepitev pa bi predstavljala sanacijo. Katalonija je že več stoletij del Kraljevine Španije. Po španski ustavi ima status avtonomne regije, na podlagi katere ima določene specifične pravice. Kataloncem je po mednarodnem pravu skoraj nemogoče priznati pravico do zunanje samoodločbe, čemur tudi ni naklonjena španska ustava. Nemiri v zadnjem desetletju nakazujejo, da v Španiji nekaj ni v redu, zato je treba morebitno rešitev poiskati v teorijah, kot je sanacijska pravica do samoodločbe. ; According to the principle of self-determination, peoples have the right to sovereignty, which is divided into internal and external self-determination. Internal self-determination is manifested in the right to cultural, social and economic development, while external self- determination is most evident in the right to form one's country and to act as a sovereign entity in the international legal space. The theory was developed in international documents after the end of World War II by the UN, which recognized internal self-determination for all peoples while restricting external ones to colonial peoples and defining a very narrow interpretation in their definition. The second half of the 20th century, in turn, brought about the emergence of a huge number of new countries, especially in the African and Asian continents. More or less all central governments are confronted with the existence of a group or groups of people with different cultural, linguistic and social characteristics. The approach of each central government to these groups of people is different, but over the last hundred years, it can be observed that they have more of an ear for their needs and for recognizing different forms of self-government. Central governments sign international agreements with them and adopt them into constitution. Theory knows two different constructs that seek to explain the remedial right to self-determination, that is, the unlawful right to secession, which is to remedy an unjust state. The task under scrutiny takes the remedial right to secede Allen Buchanan. Buchanan recognizes the right of people who are severely oppressed by the state, and secession would mean a remedial action. Catalonia has been part of the Kingdom of Spain for centuries. Under the Spanish Constitution, it has the status of an autonomous region, on the basis of which it has specific rights. It is almost impossible for Catalans to recognize the right to external self-determination under international law, which is not favored by the Spanish Constitution. The unrest of the last decade suggests that something is not right in Spain, so any solution must be sought in theories such as the remedial right to self-determination.

Listina o temeljnih pravicah Evropske unije predstavlja osrednji dokument varstva temeljnih pravic v Evropski uniji, ki so se razvila skozi prakso Sodišča Evropske unije. Kot deklaracija je bila najprej slovesno razglašena 7. decembra 2000, pravna veljava in status primarnega prava Evropske unije pa ji je bil podeljen devet let kasneje z Lizbonsko pogodbo. Vsebina Listine o temeljnih pravicah Evropske unije temelji na skupnih ustavnih tradicijah in mednarodnih obveznosti držav članic, Evropski konvenciji o varstvu človekovih pravic, socialnih listinah Evropske unije in Sveta Evrope, sodni praksi Sodišča Evropske unije ter Evropskega sodišča za človekove pravice. Kljub temu pa je njena vsebina tudi inovativna in v nekaterih primerih širša. Tako je z Listino o temeljnih pravicah Evropske unije, zagotovljena pravica do azila, kar predstavlja redkost v mednarodnih dokumentih varstva temeljnih pravic. V praksi jo tako Sodišče Evropske unije kot nacionalna sodišča velikokrat uporabljajo na področju migracij in azila. Sodišče Evropske unije igra pomembno vlogo pri harmonizaciji Skupnega evropskega azilnega sistema in zagotavljanju minimalnih standardov varstva pravic prosilcev za mednarodno zaščito skozi interpretacijo skladnosti določb sekundarne zakonodaje Evropske unije na področju azila in nacionalne zakonodaje z Listino o temeljnih pravicah Evropske unije. ; "Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union" represents a core bill of rights document within the European union which developed through the case law of the European Court of Justice. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union was solemnly announced on 7 December 2000 as a Declaration, only becoming legally binding nine years later with the entry into force of the Lisbon treaty, which granted it the status of primary law of the European Union. The contents within the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union is based on the constitutional traditions and international obligations common to member states, the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, Social Charters of the European union, and the Council of Europe, the case law of the European Court of Justice, and the European Court of Human Rights. However, it is also innovative and broader in some cases. Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union provides a right to be granted asylum, which represents a rarity in international instruments of fundamental rights. It is often used in practice by the European Court of Justice and national courts in the field of migration and asylum. The European Court of Justice plays an important role in harmonization of the Common European Asylum System and in setting of minimum standards for protection of the rights of applicants for international protection through its interpretation in compliance of secondary legislation of the European Union and national legislation with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

V članku je prikazan poskus ureditve mednacionalnih odnosov na istrskem polotoku v letih pred prvo svetovno vojno v širšem kontekstu reševanja nacionalnih konfliktov v avstrijski polovici Habsburške monarhije. Poseben poudarek je na predstavitvi in analizi moravskega kompromisa leta 1905, ki je temeljil na osebnem načelu in je postal nekakšen model za urejanje mednacionalnih odnosov v Cislajtaniji ter na analizi istrskega kompromisa leta 1908, ki je temeljil na teritorialnem načelu. ; The Habsburg monarchy was an absolutist monarchy before 1848, and from the Theresian-Josephine period there was a tendency to introduce a centralised unitary state. However, this was resisted by Hungary, which was able to maintain its special position under constitutional law. In 1867, the Habsurg Monarchy accepted the Austro-Hungarian compromise to be organized as a dual monarchy, as a personal and real union of two equal and more or less centralized states. The Monarchy was renamed to Austro-Hungary, however, in both parts of the states, this caused various national groups to experience a sense of discomfort and threat and consequently revoked their historical rights and national law. After the establishment of the Dual monarchy, the Wienna governments first favoured the correctional measures plans leading to federalism, after the affirmation of the dualism and the centralization, however, the idea of compromises became the central focus of solving the national disputes in Cisleithania. In 1905, German and Czech politicians in Moravia managed to reach an agreement on how to regulate the national situation in the country. The Moravian Agreement, which was conceived by the Regional Committee, was not based on territorial but on personal principles and became a model for the regulation of international relations in Cislaitania. The Istrian peninsula was also a focal point of national conflict, where Slavic deputies, especially after 1883, strongly advocated the realisation of linguistic equality in the country. The Italian majority in the Istrian Regional Assembly consistently rejected linguistic equality in the Regional Assembly. The Italian side became more receptive to Slavic demands only after the introduction of universal male suffrage for the National Assembly (1907), when it became clear that the process of political democratisation was working in favour of the emancipation of the majority Slavic population. In 1908, the Istrian Agreement, or the Regional Electoral Reform, was signed. The Slavs on the Istrian peninsula have thus won a victory. The Istria Agreement was based on the territorial division of electoral districts according to the principle of nationality and ensured that neither side majorised the other.