Presjek prekršajne i kaznene odgovornosti u slovenskim općinama

Numerous legal procedures have been introduced into the Slovenian legal system to suppress unlawful conduct, such as the powers of the municipal warden service. The activities of the Slovenian municipal warden service could have an impact on the criminal procedure. After a brief introduction to the legal position of the municipal warden service, the author discusses the relevant powers of the Slovenian municipal warden service which could affect criminal procedures. It also focuses on the constitutional aspects of the municipal warden service’s powers and on the issue of the constitutional admissibility of such evidence in a criminal procedure. The article concludes with findings as to whether and under what conditions evidence is admissible in criminal procedure in Slovenia when obtained by the municipal warden service, and with proposals for legal and constitutionally conformant actions in practice.Novim Zakonom o komunalnom redarstvu (Zakon o občinskem redarstvu) lokalne jedinice komunalnog redarstva u Sloveniji stekle su ovlasti slične onima koje ima policija. Iako se njihovo djelovanje u prvom redu odnosi na prekršaje, djelovanje prometnih redara može izravno utjecati i na kazneni postupak; na primjer, može rezultirati prikupljanjem dokaza relevantnih za kazneni postupak. Prema čl. 18. slovenskog Zakona o kaznenom postupku sud ne može temeljiti svoju odluku na dokazima koji su pribavljeni kršenjem ljudskih prava i temeljnih sloboda zajamčenih Ustavom, dokazima koji su pribavljeni protivno odredbama Zakona o kaznenom postupku za koje je predviđeno da se ne smiju uporabiti kod donošenja sudske odluke te onim dokazima za koje se doznalo na temelju nezakonitih dokaza. To pravilo treba uzeti u obzir i prilikom prosuđivanja dopustivosti dokaza koje je pribavilo komunalno redarstvo. Stoga neće biti dopušteni dokazi koji su pribavljeni kršenjem ljudskih prava i temeljnih sloboda zajamčenih Ustavom. Također, sud ne smije temeljiti svoju odluku na dokazima koji su pribavljeni protivno odredbama Zakona o kaznenom postupku i za koje je predviđeno da se ne smiju uporabiti kod donošenja sudske odluke. To, međutim, ne treba tumačiti tako da komunalno redarstvo prilikom prikupljanja dokaza treba slijediti odredbe Zakona o kaznenom postupku, već bi bilo dovoljno da su dokazi pribavljeni u skladu sa zakonom koji uređuje odnosnu materiju kao lex specialis. Nadalje, komunalno redarstvo ne bi se smjelo koristiti svojim ovlastima malae fidei, tj. s namjerom pronalaska dokaza kaznenog djela. Svi ti zahtjevi mogu se pronaći u odlukama Ustavnog suda Republike Slovenije te Vrhovnog suda. Posebno relevantna u pogledu neizravnog utjecaja komunalnog redarstva na kazneni postupak jest i doktrina o “plodovima otrovne voćke”. Gledajući s poredbenog aspekta, pojedine zemlje imaju dugu i bogatu tradiciju lokalnog i/ili dobrovoljnog redarstva (Njemačka), dok su druge (Hrvatska) tek nedavno uvele komunalno redarstvo s ograničenim ovlastima. U svim slučajevima, međutim, uporaba tih ovlasti može rezultirati prikupljanjem dokaza koji mogu biti izravno ili neizravno relevantni za kazneni postupak. Kao i u Sloveniji, i u tim zemljama dopustivost takvih dokaza u kaznenom postupku ovisi o tome jesu li prikupljeni u skladu s ustavnim pravima, a ne prema strogo određenim standardima kaznenog postupka koji bi bili primjenljivi u tim parakaznenim postupcima. U skladu sa svim navedenim, temeljna teza rada može biti potvrđena. Stroža zakonska pravila Zakona o kaznenom postupku ne moraju biti ispunjena u pogledu dopustivosti u kaznenom postupku dokaza koje je pribavilo komunalno redarstvo, međutim oni moraju biti prikupljeni u skladu s ustavnim pravima te posebnim zakonskim odredbama kojima je uređeno djelovanje tih tijela

Uloga laboratorija u suvremenoj mljekari

Uloga laboratorija u zaštiti zdravlja potrošača mlijeka i mliječnih proizvoda očituje se u svagdašnjem bakteriološkom ispitivanju mlijeka, mliječnih proizvoda, postrojenja, u pregledu osoblja, koje rukuje mlijekom, pa u kontroliranju jačine detergentnih tekućina

The Coexistence of Fiscal Sovereignties: The Post‐Pandemic European Union in Comparative Perspective

Thanks to the recovery fund Next Generation EU, the EU considerably increased the size of its fiscal capacity by increasing its borrowing power. Yet, the post-pandemic EU has left the key issue of how to distribute fiscal sovereignty across the EU and the member states unsolved. Departing from influential concepts in the political science literature, this article argues that we still lack a thorough analytical framework to operationalise the coexistence of two fiscal sovereignties - the fiscal sovereignty of the centre (here, the EU) and the fiscal sovereignty of the units (here, the member states). By resorting to comparative federalism, the article first operationalises fiscal sovereignty as the power to collect, administer, and spend resources. A level of government (the centre or the units) is fiscally sovereign if it can decide on its revenues, the administration of its resources, and its expenditures alone or together with the other level of government (what I call "fiscal self- or co-determination"). The coexistence of fiscal sovereignties becomes impossible if one level systematically and unilaterally encroaches upon the other ("fiscal out-determination"), as is still the case with the post-pandemic EU. On the contrary, in a union of states by aggregation like the EU - namely, Switzerland - the centre (Confederation) has its own fiscal powers, while the units (cantons) retain most of their fiscal sovereignty: The coexistence of fiscal sovereignties is thus possible. The article concludes by outlining which "fiscal features" of the Swiss system could not work in the EU and which could instead potentially work

Saga o akademski avtonomiji v Sloveniji (1919–1999)

This article examines the concept of academic autonomy within the \u27Yugoslav model\u27 of higher education as a peripheral system characterised by an eclectic mix of elements from different systems, resulting in mutations with unique features during its development. The hitherto under-researched history of this higher education model has by no means been uniform or linear; because of this complexity, the focus here is limited to the case of Slovenia but considers the broader context. The focus is on the understanding, legislation, and (non-)implementation of academic autonomy as articulated between 1945 and 1991. The concept was inherited: it was never used in the legislation of federal socialist Yugoslavia yet was used in political and public debates. The analysis relates these debates to the rapidly changing legislation and the broader socio-political context. Although the \u27Yugoslav model\u27 has vanished, its traces and ashes, including old contradictions and dilemmas, remain partly present in the higher education systems of independent states that emerged on the territory of the former federation. The principle that knowledge of the past is the key to understanding the present and approaching the future is confirmed in this case as well. (DIPF/Orig.