{"?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-B7J59KLS/8584ea1e-bc75-45e4-bf27-cefc4d5428a1/PDF","dcterms:extent":"1680 KB"},{"@rdf:about":"http://www.dlib.si/stream/URN:NBN:SI:doc-B7J59KLS/9f61433a-752c-4e5c-a40a-7c75662a6a09/TEXT","dcterms:extent":"82 KB"}],"edm:TimeSpan":{"@rdf:about":"2013-2024","edm:begin":{"@xml:lang":"en","#text":"2013"},"edm:end":{"@xml:lang":"en","#text":"2024"}},"edm:ProvidedCHO":{"@rdf:about":"URN:NBN:SI:doc-B7J59KLS","dcterms:isPartOf":[{"@rdf:resource":"https://www.dlib.si/details/URN:NBN:SI:spr-CFT6PFGK"},{"@xml:lang":"sl","#text":"Pravnik"}],"dcterms:issued":"2013","dc:creator":"Hribar, Maša","dc:format":[{"@xml:lang":"sl","#text":"številka:11/12"},{"@xml:lang":"sl","#text":"letnik:68"},{"@xml:lang":"sl","#text":"str. 835-865, 937-938"}],"dc:identifier":["ISSN:0032-6976","COBISSID:13526609","URN:URN:NBN:SI:doc-B7J59KLS"],"dc:language":"sl","dc:publisher":{"@xml:lang":"sl","#text":"Zveza društev pravnikov Slovenije"},"dc:subject":[{"@xml:lang":"en","#text":"criminal law"},{"@xml:lang":"sl","#text":"dokazi"},{"@xml:lang":"sl","#text":"kazenski postopek"},{"@xml:lang":"sl","#text":"kazensko pravo"},{"@xml:lang":"en","#text":"Slovenia"},{"@xml:lang":"sl","#text":"Slovenija"},{"@xml:lang":"sl","#text":"sodna praksa"}],"dcterms:temporal":{"@rdf:resource":"2013-2024"},"dc:title":{"@xml:lang":"sl","#text":"Vnaprejšnja dokazna ocena v slovenskem kazenskem postopku|"},"dc:description":[{"@xml:lang":"sl","#text":"In the article, the author discusses the position of anticipated evaluation of evidence in the Slovenian criminal procedure. Because of the close connection of this subject matter with the proof process, the author first presents the principle disjunction of two phases of this process, namely the hearing of evidence and the evaluation of evidence. She then focuses on the institute of the anticipated evaluation of evidence. Through the review of the jurisprudence, she first assesses, whether the anticipated evaluation of evidence in our criminal procedure is prohibited or not, and afterwards she investigates the meaning of its potential prohibition. Lastly, the author concentrates on the options of our courts to deny the motion to present evidence because the fact to be proven has already been proven or because the facts of the case are already clear, and questions the adequacy of denial on such ground. Due to conflicting opinions in the jurisprudence, the discussion is concluded in finding, that the position of the anticipated evaluation of evidence in the Slovenian criminal procedure is not clear and that the precise analysis of judicial decisions suggests a complex problem of the existing regulation. Because of the design of our criminal procedure, the author at the end concludes that we cannot completely avoid the anticipated evaluation of evidence as a result of the judges main role in the proof process"},{"@xml:lang":"sl","#text":"Avtorica v prispevku obravnava položaj vnaprejšnje dokazne ocene v slovenskem kazenskem postopku. Zaradi tesne povezanosti instituta s postopkom dokazovanja najprej predstavi načelno ločenost dveh faz tega postopka, in sicer faze izvajanja dokazov in faze dokazne ocene. V nadaljevanju se nato osredotoči na institut vnaprejšnje dokazne ocene. Najprej skozi pregled sodne prakse ugotavlja, ali je vnaprejšnja dokazna ocena v našem kazenskem postopku prepovedana ali ne, nato pa razišče tudi smisel njene morebitne prepovedi. Nazadnje se posveti možnosti naših sodišč, da zavrnejo dokazni predlog iz razloga, ker je dejstvo, ki se želi dokazati, že dokazano oziroma ker je dejansko stanje že dovolj razjasnjeno, ter se sprašuje, ali je tak zavrnitveni razlog ustrezen. Zaradi nasprotujočih si mnenj, ki jih je mogoče najti v sodni praksi, se razprava sklene z ugotovitvijo, da položaj vnaprejšnje dokazne ocene v slovenskem kazenskem postopku ni jasen, natančna analiza sodnih odločitev pa nakazuje na večplasten problem obstoječe ureditve. Avtorica ob koncu sklene, da se zaradi zasnove našega kazenskega postopka vnaprejšnji dokazni oceni kot posledici sodnikove glavne besede v postopku dokazovanja ne moremo popolnoma izogniti"}],"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-B7J59KLS","edm:aggregatedCHO":{"@rdf:resource":"URN:NBN:SI:doc-B7J59KLS"},"edm:isShownBy":{"@rdf:resource":"http://www.dlib.si/stream/URN:NBN:SI:doc-B7J59KLS/8584ea1e-bc75-45e4-bf27-cefc4d5428a1/PDF"},"edm:rights":{"@rdf:resource":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"},"edm:provider":"Slovenian National E-content Aggregator","edm:intermediateProvider":{"@xml:lang":"en","#text":"National and University Library of Slovenia"},"edm:dataProvider":{"@xml:lang":"sl","#text":"Univerza v Ljubljani, Pravna fakulteta"},"edm:object":{"@rdf:resource":"http://www.dlib.si/streamdb/URN:NBN:SI:doc-B7J59KLS/maxi/edm"},"edm:isShownAt":{"@rdf:resource":"http://www.dlib.si/details/URN:NBN:SI:doc-B7J59KLS"}}}}