BREZPLAČNA PRAVNA POMOČ S POUDARKOM NA PRESOJI OBJEKTIVNEGA POGOJA DODELITVE
Dostop do učinkovitega in enakopravnega pravnega varstva se pojavlja kot pomembna sodobna tema, tako v nacionalnem kot tudi v mednarodnem pravu. V Sloveniji je, v skladu z Zakonom o brezplačni pravni pomoči, fizičnim osebam, ki so šibkejšega socialnega položaja, na pomembnih pravnih področjih zagoto...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Other Authors: | |
| Format: | Master Thesis |
| Language: | Slovenian |
| Published: |
[B. Piperski]
2016
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://dk.um.si/IzpisGradiva.php?id=61195 https://dk.um.si/Dokument.php?id=106840&dn= http://www.cobiss.si/scripts/cobiss?command=DISPLAY&base=cobib&rid=5208619&fmt=11 |
| Summary: | Dostop do učinkovitega in enakopravnega pravnega varstva se pojavlja kot pomembna sodobna tema, tako v nacionalnem kot tudi v mednarodnem pravu. V Sloveniji je, v skladu z Zakonom o brezplačni pravni pomoči, fizičnim osebam, ki so šibkejšega socialnega položaja, na pomembnih pravnih področjih zagotovljena pravica do sodnega varstva in s tem je sistemski zakon združil načela pravne in socialne države ter načelo enakosti pred zakonom. Do ureditve enovitega sistema v letu 2001 je državo, poleg ustavnih načel in zahtev Evropske unije ter Evropske konvencije o človekovih pravicah, vodila smotrnost ureditve, saj brezplačna pravna pomoč (v nadaljevanju BPP) materialnopravno in procesno ni bila urejena, temveč so bila določila razkropljena v različnih zakonih. Za dodelitev BPP mora vlagatelj izpolnjevati kumulativno dva kriterija, in sicer subjektivni kriterij (finančno premoženjski kriterij) in objektivni kriterij, ki določa, da ima zadeva, v zvezi s katero se uveljavlja BPP, verjeten izgled za uspeh oziroma, da zadeva ni očitno nerazumna. Ob uspešnem izpolnjevanju pogojev se upravičencu zagotovi različna oblika BPP, in sicer plačilo stroškov sodnega postopka, kot so plačilo za sodnega izvedenca, tolmača, varščine, vendar BPP ne vključuje možnosti oprostitve plačila sodnih taks. Najpogosteje se upravičencu dodeli pravna pomoč v obliki pravnega svetovanja in zastopanja, ki se največkrat zaupa v izvajanje odvetniku, ki po opravljeni storitvi vrne napotnico v kateri priglasi nastale stroške, ki se mu povrnejo le po polovični vrednosti, ki jo predpisuje Odvetniška tarifa. Po koncu postopka mora upravičenec, v kolikor je v postopku uspel in s tem pridobil premoženje, stroške BPP povrniti, prav tako je dolžan v primeru delnega uspeha ali neuspeha povrniti pravdne stroške nasprotni stranki, saj slednji niso zajeti v stroške, ki jih krije BPP. Osrednja tema naloge je presoja objektivnega pogoja pri dodelitvi BPP, saj prihaja v izvajanju BPP do težav, ker so pojmi, ki jih je potrebno upoštevati, zapisani kot pravni standardi, ki pa so nedefinirani in tako lahko, ob diskrecijski pravici službe za BPP, prihaja do neenakega obravnavanja vlagateljev za BPP in s tem do kršitve načela enakosti pred zakonom. Tako se postavlja vprašanje kako daleč lahko seže vsebinska odločba BPP pri presoji vsebinskega pogoja, brez da bi se ob tem prejudicirala celotna zadeva oziroma, da v sami odločbi ni spisana že meritorna sodba, brez izvedbe dokaznega postopka. Nadalje se zastavlja vprašanje, zakaj se presoja objektivnega pogoja morda ne vključi tudi v Zakon o sodnih taksah, saj prosilec, ki mu je bila prošnja za BPP zavrnjena zaradi neizpolnjevanja vsebinskega pogoja, lahko vloži predlog za oprostitev plačila sodnih taks, kjer pa se presoja le premoženjsko stanje prosilca. V nalogi sem pojasnila kako se pravni standardi, kot npr. verjetnost izgleda za uspeh, zadeva življenjskega pomena za prosilca, pričakovanje v očitnem nasprotju z načeli pravičnosti in morale, izvajajo v praksi in kaj to pomeni za samega prosilca v luči pravice do enakega obravnavanja strank ter sorazmerne porabe javnih sredstev, saj gre navsezadnje za nezanemarljivo visoke stroške, ki bremenijo državni proračun. Prav tako so podani predlogi za izboljšane zakonske ureditve pri izvajanju BPP in primerjalno pravna ureditev brezplačne pravne pomoči z Avstrijo. The access to effective and equal legal protection is arising as an important modern issue in the national as well as in the international law. In the Republic of Slovenia, in accordance with the Legal Aid Act, the right to judicial protection on important legal fields is granted to the individuals of weaker social status. With this systemic statute principles of the rule of law, welfare state and principle of equality before the law have been joined. Before uniform legal regulation in year 2001 the State was guided, alongside with constitutional principles and demands of the European Union and the European Convention on Human Rights, by advisability of regulation as the free legal aid was not substantively nor procedurally regulated rather the provisions where dispersed among various statutes. For granting of free legal aid the applicant shall cumulatively fulfil two criteria, namely the subjective criterion (the financial criterion) and the objective criterion, determining that the case for which the free legal aid is requested has probable means for success or that the matter is not manifestly unreasonable. After successful fulfilment of requirements different scope of free legal aid is granted to the beneficiary, namely the payment of legal costs such as payment of an expertise, interpreter, bond (security) the free legal aid does not however include the possibility of exemption from payment of court fee. In most cases the beneficiary is granted the legal aid in the scope of legal consultation and representation mostly trusted to an attorney which after executed service returns the referral on which the incurred costs reimbursed only at the half of value determined by the Attorney Tariff are presented. After conclusion of the procedure the beneficiary is, if he has succeeded in the procedure and with that has acquired property, obliged to reimburse the expenses of free legal aid, as well as is obliged to reimburse legal costs of the other party as the latter are not included in the expenses covered by free legal aid. The central focus of the Thesis is the assessment of the objective criterion by allocation of free legal aid, since the implementation of free legal aid is problematic as the terms that have to be taken into consideration are written as legal standards which are not defined and thus may cause, together with the discretionary right of the Office for Free Legal Aid, unequal treatment of the applicants for free legal aid, leading to the breach of the principle of equal treatment before the law. The question therefore arises how far the substantive decision on free legal aid by assessment of the substantive criterion could reach without causing prejudice of the case as whole or that the decision itself does not represent the final judgment without the conduction of the evidentiary procedure. Further the issue also arises why the assessment of the objective criterion does not maybe also include the Court Fee Act as the applicant, to whom the request for free legal aid was dismissed as unfounded due to failure to comply with the substantive criterion, may submit the application for the exemption from payment of court fee, where only the applicant's property status is assessed. In the Thesis I have explained how legal standards, such as probable means for success, the matter of significant importance to the applicant, expectation manifestly contrary to the principle of justice and morality, are being implemented in practice and what this means for the applicant in the scope of the right to equal treatment and proportional use of public finance as it does nonetheless concerns significantly high expenses charging the budget. Additionally also the proposals for the improvement of statutory regulation by the implementation of free legal aid and comparison to the legal regulation of free legal aid in the Republic of Austria are given. |
|---|