Source: http://www.zdolsek.com/news/
Timestamp: 2019-09-18 02:55:32+00:00

Document:
Evropsko sodišče za človekove pravice (ESČP) je v torek, 23. 10. 2018, razsodilo o tožbi medijske hiše proti Sloveniji in s svojo odločbo pritrdilo pritožbi podjetja.
Spor v zadevi se je začel leta 2012, ko je takratni Urad za varstvo konkurence podjetju naložil globo, ker naj mu ta ne bi fizično omogočil izvedbe inšpekcije svojih prostorov. Medijska hiša je vložila zahtevo za začasno odredbo zoper izrečeno globo in sprožila tožbo pred Vrhovnim sodiščem RS, v kateri je zatrjevala, da se inšpektorji niso ustrezno predstavili, ob tem pa naj bi skušali nasilno vdreti v prostore podjetja. Podjetje je zanikalo kakršnokoli oviranje inšpekcije, od Vrhovnega sodišča pa je zahtevalo, da o spornih okoliščinah inšpekcije izvede dokazni postopek.
Po zavrnilnem sklepu Vrhovnega sodišča in zavrženi ustavni pritožbi se je podjetje za sodno varstvo obrnilo na ESČP. Slednje je pri postopku v zvezi z globo ugotovilo kršitev pravice medijske hiše do poštenega sojenja po 1. odstavku 6. člena Evropske konvencije o človekovih pravicah (EKČP) in izpostavilo, da bi moralo Vrhovno sodišče kot prvi sodni odločevalec v zadevi preučiti tudi dejstvena vprašanja. S tem ko se je Vrhovno sodišče omejilo na pravno presojo in zavrnilo pravno sredstvo pritožnika s sklicem na 57. člen Zakona o preprečevanju omejevanja konkurence,[1] je kršilo pravico podjetja do sodne presoje dejstvene plati upravne odločbe.
Sodišče je v skladu z 41. členom EKČP pritožniku dodelilo tudi 52.500 EUR odškodnine na podlagi tega, da Zakon o upravnem postopku ne omogoča obnove postopka v primeru odločbe ESČP, s katero je ugotovljena kršitev 6. člena Konvencije.
[1] »Tožnik v postopku sodnega varstva ne more navajati novih dejstev in predlagati novih dokazov.«
On Tuesday, October 23rd 2018, The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) issued a judgment in the case of a media company versus Slovenia, ruling in favour of the applicant company.
The dispute began in 2012 when the Competition Protection Office fined the applicant company for allegedly not making the inspection of its premises physically possible. The media company filed an application for an interim measure against the fine order and an action before the Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia, claiming that the officers had not properly introduced themselves and had tried to enter the premises in an aggressive manner. The company denied preventing the inspection and demanded that the Supreme Court examine evidence concerning the contentious circumstances of the inspection.
Following the dismissal by the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court’s refusal to accept their constitutional complaint, the company lodged an application to the ECHR. The European Court found that the review process in regards to the fine did not meet the requirements, set by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. It called attention to the fact that the Supreme Court was the first and only tribunal to examine the company’s case and was as such obliged to examine not only the legal aspects of the case but to review the facts as well. By narrowing its inquiry to questions of law and dismissing the applicant’s action on the basis of Article 57 of the Competition Act[1], the Supreme Court deprived the applicant company of its right to subject the factual aspects of the administrative decision to judicial review.
In accordance with Article 41 of the Convention, the Court afforded satisfaction to the applicant in view of the national Administrative Disputes Act not providing for the reopening of the proceedings on the basis of a judgment, pronouncing a violation of Article 6.
[1] “In judicial review proceedings the complainant may not introduce new facts or present new evidence.”
Ustavno sodišče je razveljavilo 57. člen Zakona o odvzemu premoženja nezakonitega izvora, po katerem se je zakon uporabljal retroaktivno za zadeve, v katerih se je predkazenski ali kazenski postopek začel pred uveljavitvijo zakona, torej pred 29. novembrom 2011 in po 1. januarju 1990.
Ustavno sodišče je v sodbi izpostavilo, da 155. člen Ustave, ki prepoveduje povraten učinek pravnih aktov, sicer dopušča izjeme, vendar le, če to zahteva javna korist in če se s tem ne posega v pridobljene pravice. Zakonodajalec po mnenju ustavnih sodnikov javne koristi, ki bi utemeljevala povratno učinkovanje zakonskih določb o odvzemu premoženja in nezmožnost doseganja zasledovanega cilja brez retroaktivnosti, ni izkazal.
Za tista kazniva dejanja, ki so bila storjena pred dnevom uveljavitve zakona, je skladno s kazensko zakonodajo mogoče odvzeti protipravno premoženjsko korist, ki izhaja neposredno iz konkretnega kaznivega dejanja. Po razveljavitvi 57. člena pa ni mogoče odvzeti premoženja domnevnih storilcev kaznivih dejanj storjenih pred dnevom uveljavitve zakona, zgolj zaradi tega, ker je njihovo premoženje nesorazmerno z njihovimi dohodki, zmanjšanimi za davke in prispevke, oziroma zaradi nedokazanosti zakonitega izvora premoženja.
Povezava do besedila ustavne odločbe: http://www.us-rs.si/media/u-i-6-15.up-33-15.up-1003-15.pdf
The Constitutional Court annulled part of Confiscation of Proceeds of Crime Act
The Constitutional Court annulled Article 57 of Confiscation of Proceeds of Crime Act that enabled retroactive application of the Act to cases in which the pre-criminal or criminal proceedings started before its entry into force, i.e. before 29 November 2011 and after 1 January 1990.
In the judgment, the Constitutional Court pointed out that Article 155 of Constitution prohibits the retroactive effect of legal acts, but allows exceptions, if public interest requires so and without interference to the acquired rights. In the opinion of the constitutional court judges, the legislature did not show that public interest justifies retroactivity of legal provisions on confiscation of proceeds of crime and that achieving the pursued goal without retroactivity would not be possible.
For crimes that were committed before the entry into force of the Confiscation of Proceeds of Crime Act, only the unlawful material proceeds derived directly from a specific crime can be confiscated in accordance with criminal law. However, after annulment of the Constitutional court, it is not possible to confiscate the assets of alleged criminals for crimes that were committed before the entry into force of the Act, solely because their assets were disproportionate to their income, reduced by taxes and contributions, or because of the lack of evidence of the legal origin of property.

References: sodišče 
 sodišče 
 sodišče 

Sodišče 
 § 1
 sodišče 
 sodišče