| Popis: |
Magistrsko diplomsko delo se začne s predstavitvijo pravne podlage pravice do nepristranskega sojenja, in sicer so podrobneje predstavljeni 23. in 22. člen URS ter 6. člen EKČP. Pravico do nepristranskega sojenja se v sodni praksi presoja po dvojnem subjektivno-objektivnem testu, zato je v nadaljevanju del magistrskega dela posvečen tej temi. Predstavljen je razvoj dvojnega subjektivno-objektivnega testa in nato tudi sodna praksa glede pravice do nepristranskega sojenja, tako ESČP kot tudi US RS. Sledi predstavitev instituta kaznovanja zaradi žalitve sodišča. Opisana je pravna podlaga, 109. in 304. člen ZPP. Nato se magistrsko delo dotakne problematike stare ureditve 11. člena ZPP, natančneje vprašanja, ali je šlo po stari ureditvi kaznovanja zaradi žalitve sodišča v bistvu za odločanje o kazenski obtožbi in ne zgolj o disciplinskem ukrepu. Zatem magistrsko diplomsko delo obravnava samo bistvo. Pripelje nas do prepleta pravice do nepristranskega sojenja ter instituta kaznovanja zaradi žalitve sodišča. Ti dve temi se združita v vprašanju, ali je pri kaznovanju zaradi žalitve sodišča prekršena pravica do nepristranskega sojenja, če o kaznovanju odloči tisti sodnik, na katerega se žalitev tudi nanaša. Na podlagi sodne prakse je predstavljeno, kako se je v času stališče, ki nam daje odgovor na to vprašanje, spremenilo, ter v nadaljevanju tudi različna mnenja akademikov in problemi, ki jih nova ureditev kaznovanja zaradi žalitve sodišča odpira. Ne nazadnje je predstavljena tudi izločitev sodnika kot institut, namenjen varovanju pravice do nepristranskega sojenja. Magistrsko delo se konča s sklepom, ki zaokroži celotno tematiko. The master’s thesis subject matter is introduced by presenting the legal basis of the right to an impartial trial, namely Articles 23 and 22 of the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights are presented in greater detail. In the case law, the right to an impartial trial is subjected to a double subjective-objective test, so the following part of the master’s thesis discusses this topic. The development of a double subjective-objective test is presented as well as the case law regarding the right to an impartial trial by both the ECtHR and the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia. A presentation of the institute of punishment for contempt of court follows. The legal basis is described, namely Articles 109 and 304 of the Slovenian Contentious Civil Procedure Act. Then the master’s thesis discusses the issue of the past regulation of Article 11 of the Contentious Civil Procedure Act, more precisely the question of whether the past regulation of rendering punishment for contempt of court was essentially a decision on a criminal charge and not a mere disciplinary measure. Then the master’s thesis examines the core question. It brings us to the intertwining of the right to an impartial trial and the institute of punishment for contempt of court. The two matters coalesce into the question of whether the right to an impartial trial has been infringed upon when the punishment for contempt of court was rendered by the same judge who had been a target of the contempt of court. Proceeding from the case law, the author demonstrates how the position that provides us with the answer to this question evolved, as well as the different opinions of academics and the problems that the new regime of punishment for contempt of court raise. Last but not least, the recusal of a judge is presented as an institute aimed at safeguarding the right to an impartial trial. The master’s thesis winds up with a conclusion that completes the entire subject matter. |
