Repository of colleges and higher education institutions

Show document
A+ | A- | Help | SLO | ENG

Title:Kolikokrat in zakaj ne soglašajo sodniki na slovenskem ustavnem sodišču? : magistrsko delo
Authors:ID Šerbel, Marko (Author)
ID Avbelj, Matej (Mentor) More about this mentor... New window
Files:.pdf RAZ_Serbel_Marko_i2021.pdf (1,47 MB)
MD5: 475448EBE241599E8D02436D0C5286CC
 
Language:Slovenian
Work type:Master's thesis/paper
Typology:2.09 - Master's Thesis
Organization:EVRO-PF - Nova Univerza - European Faculty of Law
Abstract:Magistrsko delo v uvodnem delu predstavi metodologijo dosedanjih tujih raziskav in metodologijo raziskovalne skupine za raziskovanje ideologije na slovenskem ustavnem sodišču. Nato se usmeri v poglobljeno analizo pritrdilnih in odklonilnih ločenih mnenj vseh sestav slovenskega ustavnega sodišča za obdobje od osamosvojitve Republike Slovenije leta 1991 pa vse do leta 2016. Največ, 44,3 % nesoglasnih odločb, je bilo v prvem raziskovalnem obdobju, od leta 1993 do leta 1997. V tem obdobju so ustavni sodniki najmanj enotni pri svojih odločitvah. Razlog zato lahko najdemo v tem, da je to obdobje tik po osamosvojitvi Slovenije; ustavno sodišče se je reorganiziralo in postavilo na novo, kar je imelo zagotovo posledice tudi v sami strukturi odločanja ustavnih sodnikov. Drugo opazovano obdobje med leti 2002 in 2006 pokaže že malce drugačen slog odločanja ustavnih sodnikov. Izmed 860 odločitev, ki smo jih analizirali, se ustavni sodniki v tisti sestavi niso strinjali v 21,2 % primerov. V zadnjem opazovanem obdobju, med leti 2011 in 2016, smo v našem vzorcu analize odločb pregledali 417 odločitev, v katerih se ustavni sodniki niso strinjali v 29 % primerov. Tako lahko zaključimo, da se je krivulja nestrinjanj v prvem obdobju najprej dvigala, v drugem obdobju se je pričela spuščati, saj je bilo nestrinjanj manj, v zadnjem obdobju pa se je spet začela dvigati. Pritrdilna in odklonilna ločena mnenja natančno pokažejo ideološko usmerjenost posameznega ustavnega sodnika. Z ločenimi mnenji je ustavnim sodnikom omogočeno, da lahko še dodatno izrazijo strinjanje ali pa nestrinjanje z določeno odločbo ustavnega sodišča oz. posameznim stališčem, ki ga je v dotični zadevi zavzela večina ustavnih sodnikov.
Keywords:ustavni sodniki, ideologija, sodniška ideologija, ustavno sodišče, sodstvo, raziskava ideologije
Place of publishing:Ljubljana
Place of performance:Ljubljana
Publisher:[M. Šerbel]
Year of publishing:2021
Year of performance:2021
Number of pages:1 spletni vir (1 datoteka PDF (93 str.))
PID:20.500.12556/ReVIS-8676 New window
COBISS.SI-ID:96104963 New window
UDC:342.565.2(497.4)(043.2)
Note:Mag. delo 2. stopnje bolonjskega študija; Nasl. z nasl. zaslona; Opis vira z dne 2. 2. 2022;
Publication date in ReVIS:04.02.2022
Views:1150
Downloads:71
Metadata:XML DC-XML DC-RDF
:
Copy citation
  
Share:Bookmark and Share


Hover the mouse pointer over a document title to show the abstract or click on the title to get all document metadata.

Secondary language

Language:English
Abstract:Following the introduction, where the methodology of previous foreign researches and the methodology of the research group for researching ideology at the Slovenian Constitutional Court were presented, the in-depth analysis focuses on the positive and negative separate opinions of all Slovenian Constitutional Courts during the period since Slovenia's independence in 1991 until 2016. The highest number, 44.3 % of dissenting opinions, was recorded during the first research period, from 1993 to 1997. During this time, constitutional judges were found to have been the least unanimous in their decisions. This can be attributed to the fact that this period immediately follows the independence of Slovenia; the Constitutional Court had been reorganized and re-established, which certainly impacted the very structure of constitutional judges decision-making. In the second observed period, between 2002 and 2006, constitutional judges exhibit a slightly different style of decision-making. Of the 860 decisions that were analyzed, that composition of constitutional judges disagreed in 21.2 % of cases. In the last observed period, between 2011 and 2016, 417 decisions were reviewed in our sample analysis of decisions, according to which constitutional judges disagreed in 29 % of cases. Thus, it is possible to conclude that the curve of disagreement initially rose in the first period; this was followed by a fall in the second period due to a decreased number of disagreements; in the last period, the curve began to rise again. The affirmative and negative separate opinions of constitutional judges show, in great detail, the ideological orientation of a particular constitutional judge. Separate opinions enable constitutional judges to further express their agreement or disagreement with a certain decision of the Constitutional Court or an individual stance adopted by the majority of the constitutional judges regarding the case in question.


Back