| Popis: |
Diplomska naloga obravnava problematiko določanja višine denarne odškodnine za razžalitev časti in dobrega imena v slovenskem pravu. Tako v teoriji kot sodni praksi je čast opredeljena kot osebni občutek vrednosti (notranja, subjektivna čast), dobro ime ali ugled pa kot vrednost, ki jo ima prizadeti v družbi (zunanja, objektivna čast). Vendar sta pojma čast in ugled dva pola ene celostne vrednote, ki se med seboj prepletata in dopolnjujeta, zaradi česar ju ni mogoče povsem razmejiti. Za lažje razumevanje pojma razžalitev je v civilnem pravu v pomoč sodna praksa. Pravno priznane oblike nepremoženjske škode, na podlagi katerih upravičenec lahko uveljavlja pravično denarno odškodnino, so določene v 179. členu Obligacijskega zakonika. Obligacijski zakonik uzakonja subjektivno-objektivno koncepcijo nepremoženjske škode. Bistvo subjektivno-objektivne koncepcije je, da se za prisojo odškodnine zahtevata primarna in sekundarna škoda, ki morata biti podani kumulativno. Zgolj kršitev osebnostne pravice oziroma poseg v osebno sfero fizične osebe (primarna škoda), ne zadošča za prisojo pravične denarne odškodnine. Kršitev je morala povzročiti kakšno izmed nadaljnjih naštetih škodnih posledic (sekundarna škoda). Kot vrednostno usmeritev pri odmeri denarne odškodnine je sodna praksa izoblikovala dve načeli: načelo individualizacije odškodnine in načelo objektivne pogojenosti višine odškodnine. Predvsem v praksi se porajajo očitki, zakaj ne bi denarne odškodnine za okrnitev ugleda in dobrega imena priznali tudi fizičnim osebam, neodvisno od tega, ali so pri tem trpele duševne bolečine, saj se marsikateremu oškodovancu zdi nesmiselno prikazovati in dokazovati, kakšne duševne bolečine je trpel, in da mora »igro« sprejeti, ker se zaveda, da sicer ne bo dobil denarne odškodnine. Sodišče mora potem, ko ugotovi škodo in njen obseg, določiti še višino denarne odškodnine. Kolikšen naj bo ta znesek, tega Obligacijski zakonik ne predpisuje, določa le, da je treba prisoditi pravično denarno odškodnino, kar pomeni v vsakem konkretnem primeru ustrezni denarni znesek. Sodišča pri iskanju razponov zadoščenja za posamezno obliko nepremoženjske škode vselej naletijo na isto težavo, saj v slovenskem pravu ne obstajajo okvirna usmerjevalna merila v obliki razponov denarnih odškodnin oziroma tipske odškodninske tabele. This diploma work deals with issues in regard with specifying the amount of monetary damages for insulting one’s honour and good name in the Slovene law. Both in theory and judicial practice the honour is defined as a personal sense of worth (inner, subjective honour), and the good name or reputation is defined as the worth which a stricken person has in a society (exterior, objective honour). However, the terms honour and reputation are two poles of one integral value, which interlace and supplement each other, therefore they cannot be completely detached. In civil law there is the judicial practice which helps to understand the term insult in an easier way. Legally acknowledged forms of non-material damage, on the basis of which a rightful claimant can enforce righteous monetary damages, are defined in the Article 179 of the Code of Obligations. The Code of Obligations legalises a subjective-objective concept of the non-material damage. The point of the subjective-objective concept is that both primary and secondary damage are requested for the damages to be awarded, and they must be delivered cumulatively. Merely a violation of personal rights, respectively an intervention into a personal sphere of a physical person (primary damage) is not sufficient for the righteous monetary damages to be awarded. The violation must have caused one of the following enumerated damage consequences (secondary damage). The judicial practice formed two principles regarding worth standpoint at the monetary damages assessment: the principle of damages individualisation and the principle of objective determinism of the amount of the damages. Mainly in the practice there rise reproaches with a question, why also the physical persons would not be acknowledged the monetary damages for the infringed reputation and good name, regardless whether they suffered from emotional distress since many persons suffering damage see no point in showing and proving the emotional distress the ones have gone through, and they are aware that they must accept “the game”, otherwise they will not get the monetary damages. After the court realises the damage and its scope it must also define the amount of the monetary damages. The Code of Obligations does not regulate the height of the amount, but it only defines that the righteous monetary damages should be awarded, which means the adequate amount of money in each specific case. When looking for ranges of satisfaction at individual cases of the non-material damage, the courts always come up to the same problem since in the Slovene law there do not exist estimated guiding standards regarding ranges of the monetary damages, respectively a standard table of damages. |
