{"?xml":{"@version":"1.0"},"edm:RDF":{"@xmlns:dc":"http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/","@xmlns:edm":"http://www.europeana.eu/schemas/edm/","@xmlns:wgs84_pos":"http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos","@xmlns:foaf":"http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/","@xmlns:rdaGr2":"http://rdvocab.info/ElementsGr2","@xmlns:oai":"http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/","@xmlns:owl":"http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#","@xmlns:rdf":"http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#","@xmlns:ore":"http://www.openarchives.org/ore/terms/","@xmlns:skos":"http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#","@xmlns:dcterms":"http://purl.org/dc/terms/","edm:WebResource":[{"@rdf:about":"http://www.dlib.si/stream/URN:NBN:SI:doc-08RI9L0Y/bdb0-c71cc8ab4-f4fd0129-87c13e124e6-/PDF","dcterms:extent":"146 KB"},{"@rdf:about":"http://www.dlib.si/stream/URN:NBN:SI:doc-08RI9L0Y/ece22e70-f0bb-4749-8b44-c04b4ea57f04/TEXT","dcterms:extent":"33 KB"}],"edm:TimeSpan":{"@rdf:about":"2013-2025","edm:begin":{"@xml:lang":"en","#text":"2013"},"edm:end":{"@xml:lang":"en","#text":"2025"}},"edm:ProvidedCHO":{"@rdf:about":"URN:NBN:SI:doc-08RI9L0Y","dcterms:isPartOf":[{"@rdf:resource":"https://www.dlib.si/details/URN:NBN:SI:spr-2XUGOISV"},{"@xml:lang":"sl","#text":"Podjetje in delo"}],"dcterms:issued":"2020","dc:creator":"Pucelj Vidović, Tanja","dc:format":[{"@xml:lang":"sl","#text":"letnik:46"},{"@xml:lang":"sl","#text":"številka:6/7"},{"@xml:lang":"sl","#text":"str. 990-1000"}],"dc:identifier":["ISSN:0353-6521","COBISSID_HOST:44108035","URN:URN:NBN:SI:doc-08RI9L0Y"],"dc:language":"sl","dc:publisher":{"@xml:lang":"sl","#text":"Lexpera"},"dcterms:temporal":{"@rdf:resource":"2013-2025"},"dc:title":{"@xml:lang":"sl","#text":"Sodno varstvo zoper prostorske izvedbene akte|"},"dc:description":[{"@xml:lang":"sl","#text":"The article focuses on the legal protection against provisions of spatial planning (\"zoning\") acts, as regulated in the Spatial Planning Act (ZUreP-2). As it is always the case, also this novelty triggers many dilemmas. This article therefore includes a discussion on whether it is constitutionally permissible to determine the jurisdiction of the Administrative Court and discusses the issue of whether there is an (un)satisfactory division of competences between the Administrative and the Constitutional Court. It includes a short discussion on standing and the scope of judicial control. It presents the consequences of such lawsuit and discusses the distinction between the suspension of the implementation and suspension of the enforcement of the zoning act. It argues that the pleas that can lead to a successful action should be regulated at least partly differently to a lawsuit against an individual act. Concerns are expressed about the possibility of challenging the provisions of the DPN Regulation and certain shortcomings of the procedure are highlighted. The author expresses an opinion that, in such disputes, the court is not allowed to decide in the dispute of full jurisdiction. The author also holds the opinion that a requirement for the court to determine the manner in which its judgment is to be enforced is contrary to the purpose of spatial planning and the principle of separation of powers, it disrupts the original competence of the municipality, and should therefore be abandoned or changed. The author believes that Article 58 needs to be improved, but advocates that the solution it introduces should as a principle be preserved"},{"@xml:lang":"sl","#text":"Prispevek se osredotoča na pravno varstvo zoper določbe prostorskih izvedbenih aktov (PIA), kot ga ureja ZUreP-2. Kot vsaka novost tudi ta odpira številne dileme. Zato prispevek vsebuje razpravo o tem, ali je ustavno dopustno določiti, da je zakonitost PIA pristojno presojati Upravno sodišče, ter vprašanje (ne)zadovoljive razmejitve pristojnosti z Ustavnim sodiščem. Namenjen je razpravi o aktivni legitimaciji in obsegu nadzora. Vključuje predstavitev posledic tovrstne tožbe in razlikovanja med začasnim zadržanjem izvajanja ter izvrševanja PIA. Podana so razmišljanja o tem, da bi bilo smiselno tožbene razloge, s katerimi je mogoče uspeti v tovrstnem sporu, vsaj delno urediti drugače. Izražen je pomislek glede možnosti izpodbijanja določb Uredbe o DPN in izpostavljene določene pomanjkljivosti postopka. Predstavljeno je stališče avtorice, da v sporu zoper PIA sodišče ni pristojno odločiti v sporu polne jurisdikcije, in stališče, da je zahteva, da sodišče določi način izvršitve svoje sodbe, v nasprotju z namenom prostorskega načrtovanja in načelom delitve oblasti ter v primeru izpodbijanja občinskih PIA posega nesorazmerno v lokalno samoupravo, zaradi česar bi jo bilo treba spremeniti. Avtorica meni, da je treba 58. člen ZUreP-2 izboljšati, a se zavzema za to, da se načeloma ohrani ideja upravnega spora, ki jo prinaša"}],"edm:type":"TEXT","dc:type":[{"@xml:lang":"sl","#text":"znanstveno časopisje"},{"@xml:lang":"en","#text":"journals"},{"@rdf:resource":"http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q361785"}]},"ore:Aggregation":{"@rdf:about":"http://www.dlib.si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:doc-08RI9L0Y","edm:aggregatedCHO":{"@rdf:resource":"URN:NBN:SI:doc-08RI9L0Y"},"edm:isShownBy":{"@rdf:resource":"http://www.dlib.si/stream/URN:NBN:SI:doc-08RI9L0Y/bdb0-c71cc8ab4-f4fd0129-87c13e124e6-/PDF"},"edm:rights":{"@rdf:resource":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"},"edm:provider":"Slovenian National E-content Aggregator","edm:dataProvider":{"@xml:lang":"en","#text":"National and University Library of Slovenia"},"edm:object":{"@rdf:resource":"http://www.dlib.si/streamdb/URN:NBN:SI:doc-08RI9L0Y/maxi/edm"},"edm:isShownAt":{"@rdf:resource":"http://www.dlib.si/details/URN:NBN:SI:doc-08RI9L0Y"}}}}