321 KB71 KB201120252024Vavken, Lukaštevilka:letn. 84str. 65-86, 341-342DOI:10.51940/2024.1.65-86ISSN:1854-3839COBISSID_HOST:225089283URN:URN:NBN:SI:doc-VE33JNY2slPravna fakultetaZbornik znanstvenih razprav (Pravna fakulteta. 1991)enoosebna družba z omejeno odgovornostjofair trial guaranteesjamstva poštenega postopkalegal personliability of legal persons for criminal offencesliability of legal persons for minor offenceslimited accessory liabilitylimitirana akcesorna odgovornostodgovornost pravnih oseb za kazniva dejanjaodgovornost pravnih oseb za prekrškepravna osebaprivilege against self-incriminationprivilegij zoper samoobtožbosingle-member limited liability company(Ne)priznavanje privilegija zoper samoobtožbo pravnim osebam s poudarkom na enoosebni gospodarski družbi|The aticle analyses whether, in punitive proceedings, the right to the privilege against self-incrimination should be granted not only to natural but also to legal persons. Since the prosecution of criminal and minor offences involving legal persons depends more on material (i.e. non-verbal) evidence than does the prosecution of natural persons, the introductory sections of the discussion address the scope of the privilege against self-incrimination. In contemporary legal dogmatics and case law, this privilege does not cover only testimonial evidence but also material or documentary evidence over which the suspect has control. Because, due to the system of limited accessory liability of legal persons, the punitive allegation against the natural (responsible) individual within the legal entity is generally substantively intertwined with the allegation against the legal person, the privilege against self-incrimination enjoyed by the alleged perpetrator of a criminal or minor offence often simultaneously protects the legal person from testifying and submitting documentary material to its detriment. However, this is not always the case. The author argues that, in such situations, legal persons should themselves be granted an independent right to the privilege against self-incrimination. This is particularly so when the suspected or accused entity is a single-member company, in which case granting the privilege against self-incrimination effectively protects its "owner" - the sole shareholder - from testifying (acting) to their own detrimentPrispevek analizira vprašanje, ali je treba v kaznovalnih postopkih priznati pravico do privilegija zoper samoobtožbo ne le fizičnim, temveč tudi pravnim osebam. Ker pregon kaznivih dejanj oziroma prekrškov, v katerem nastopajo pravne osebe, bolj kot pregon fizičnih oseb temelji na materialnih, torej neverbalnih dokazih, uvodni deli razprave obravnavajo vprašanje dometa privilegija zoper samoobtožbo. Ta v sodobni pravni dogmatiki in sodni praksi ne zajema le testimonialnih dokazov, temveč tudi materialne dokaze oziroma dokumentarno gradivo, nad katerim ima osumljenec kontrolo. Ker je kaznovalni očitek - zaradi sistema limitirane akcesorne odgovornosti pravnih oseb - fizični (odgovorni) osebi pravne osebe praviloma vsebinsko prepleten z očitkom pravni osebi, privilegij zoper samoobtožbo, ki ga uživa domnevni storilec kaznivega dejanja oziroma prekrška, pogosto hkrati varuje pred izpovedovanjem in izročanjem dokumentarnega gradiva v svojo škodo tudi pravno osebo. Ne pa vselej! Avtor zavzema stališče, da bi bilo treba v slednjem primeru pravnim osebam priznati samostojno pravico do privilegija zoper samoobtožbo. Še zlasti, kadar je osumljena oziroma obdolžena enoosebna gospodarska družba, pri kateri se s podelitvijo privilegija zoper samoobtožbo dejansko varuje pred izpovedovanjem (ravnanjem) v svojo škodo njenega "lastnika" – edinega družbenikaTEXTznanstveno časopisjejournalsSlovenian National E-content AggregatorNational and University Library of SloveniaUniverza v Ljubljani, Pravna fakulteta