{"?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-KEHIA8QO/fd68-3f2860f3-24a-d45c84e3e-f3328999/PDF","dcterms:extent":"388 KB"},{"@rdf:about":"http://www.dlib.si/stream/URN:NBN:SI:doc-KEHIA8QO/abcf096f-ccf7-4e51-a325-802cd5f360b1/TEXT","dcterms:extent":"39 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-KEHIA8QO","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":"Knez, Rajko","dc:format":[{"@xml:lang":"sl","#text":"letnik:46"},{"@xml:lang":"sl","#text":"številka:6/7"},{"@xml:lang":"sl","#text":"str. 1096-1107"}],"dc:identifier":["ISSN:0353-6521","COBISSID_HOST:42572547","URN:URN:NBN:SI:doc-KEHIA8QO"],"dc:language":"sl","dc:publisher":{"@xml:lang":"sl","#text":"Lexpera"},"dc:subject":[{"@xml:lang":"sl","#text":"160. člen Ustave RS"},{"@xml:lang":"en","#text":"a constitutional complaint"},{"@xml:lang":"en","#text":"a request for review of the constitutionality"},{"@xml:lang":"en","#text":"Art. 156 of the Constitution"},{"@xml:lang":"en","#text":"Constitutional Court"},{"@xml:lang":"sl","#text":"državno odvetništvo"},{"@xml:lang":"en","#text":"European Court of Human Rights"},{"@xml:lang":"sl","#text":"Evropsko sodišče za človekove pravice"},{"@xml:lang":"en","#text":"exhaustion of legal remedies"},{"@xml:lang":"sl","#text":"izčrpanje pravnih sredstev"},{"@xml:lang":"en","#text":"judicial dialogue"},{"@xml:lang":"sl","#text":"redna sodišča"},{"@xml:lang":"en","#text":"regular courts"},{"@xml:lang":"en","#text":"Schumann`s formula"},{"@xml:lang":"sl","#text":"Schumannova formula"},{"@xml:lang":"sl","#text":"sodniški dialog"},{"@xml:lang":"en","#text":"state attorney"},{"@xml:lang":"sl","#text":"ustavne pritožbe"},{"@xml:lang":"sl","#text":"Ustavno sodišče"},{"@xml:lang":"sl","#text":"zahteve za oceno ustavnosti"}],"dcterms:temporal":{"@rdf:resource":"2013-2025"},"dc:title":{"@xml:lang":"sl","#text":"Sodstvo in Ustavno sodišče RS|"},"dc:description":[{"@xml:lang":"sl","#text":"The article focuses on two procedures before the Constitutional Court, in which a judicial dialogue between the so-called regular courts and the Constitutional Court exists. The first one, a request for review of the constitutionality, is based on the loyal cooperation among the courts and entails an abstract review. The subjectivity (parties) of the dispute is not in foreground. The second one, the constitutional complaint procedure, entails a review of reasons used by the regular courts from the constitutional level. The article does not pore over the rules that regulate both procedures, but rather focuses on some subtopics. Firstly, it discusses the so-called need for judicial protection in procedures for the abstract review. With regard to the constitutional complaint procedure, two subtopics are emphasised: the subtleness of the substantive exhaustion of legal remedies and the quality of the reproaches, which can lead, in connection with the absence of the reasons on which the judgements are based, to different substantive decisions by the ECtHR. A topic regarding the increasingly frequent judicial dialogue with the first and second level regular courts is also added"},{"@xml:lang":"sl","#text":"Prispevek se osredotoča na dva postopka pred Ustavnim sodiščem RS, v katerih prihaja do sodniškega dialoga med rednimi sodišči in Ustavnim sodiščem. V prvem postopku, pri zahtevi za oceno ustavnosti zakonov, je v ospredju lojalno sodelovanje med sodišči in je presoja abstraktna, medtem ko subjektivnost spora ni odločilna; v drugem postopku, to je pri ustavnih pritožbah, pa gre za nadzor Ustavnega sodišča nad (ustavno)pravnimi stališči rednih sodišč. Prispevek se ne poglablja v omenjena postopka z vidika pravil, ki ju urejajo, ampak poskuša postaviti v ospredje posamezne podteme. Najprej glede potrebe po doslednem spoštovanju t. i. pravovarstvene potrebe pri zahtevah za oceno ustavnosti, pri ustavnih pritožbah pa glede dveh tem: subtilnosti materialnega izčrpanja in kakovosti očitkov, ki v povezavi z odsotnostjo vsebinske obrazložitve pri presoji tako predlogov za revizije kot tudi ustavne pritožbe lahko pripelje do drugačne vsebinske presoje na ESČP. Dodana pa je tudi tema vse pogostejšega sodniškega dialoga Ustavnega sodišča s prvo- in drugostopenjskimi rednimi sodišči"}],"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-KEHIA8QO","edm:aggregatedCHO":{"@rdf:resource":"URN:NBN:SI:doc-KEHIA8QO"},"edm:isShownBy":{"@rdf:resource":"http://www.dlib.si/stream/URN:NBN:SI:doc-KEHIA8QO/fd68-3f2860f3-24a-d45c84e3e-f3328999/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-KEHIA8QO/maxi/edm"},"edm:isShownAt":{"@rdf:resource":"http://www.dlib.si/details/URN:NBN:SI:doc-KEHIA8QO"}}}}