Search

Upravni in pravdni postopek sta dva bistveno različna postopka. Upravni poteka v okviru javne uprave in ga izvajajo »organi«, s katerimi so mišljeni organi državne uprave in drugi državni organi, organi samoupravnih lokalnih skupnosti, pa tudi pristojni nosilci javnih pooblastil. Bistvo upravnega postopka je odločanje o pravici, obveznosti ali pravni koristi posameznika v konkretni upravni zadevi. Po drugi strani civilni pravdni postopek poteka znotraj sodne veje oblasti, v njegovem okviru pa redna sodišča razrešujejo civilne spore, to je odločajo o spornih pravnih razmerjih oziroma o spornih civilnih pravicah. Temeljne značilnosti obeh postopkov, pa tudi upravnega spora, sem povzel v II. poglavju naloge. V obeh postopkih je (poleg organa oziroma sodišča) nujni subjekt stranka, v upravnem postopku najmanj ena (aktivna ali pasivna), v pravdnem pa vsaj dve (aktivna in pasivna). Poleg strank(e) se lahko tako enega kot drugega postopka udeležujejo tudi stranski udeleženci. Stranski udeleženec upravnega postopka pridobi položaj stranke, ne pa tudi lastnosti stranke. V pravdnem postopku pa je intervencija lahko dveh vrst, navadna ali enostavna in sosporniška. Pri sosporniški intervenciji intervenient dobi položaj enotnega sospornika (in s tem položaj stranke), stranski intervenient pa z vstopom v postopek postane pomočnik stranke, za katere uspeh v pravdi je pravno zainteresiran – ne pridobi pa položaja stranke. Prav razmerjem na relaciji stranka – stranski udeleženec/intervenient – sosporniški intervenient – enotni sospornik – nujni sospornik je posvečena vsebina te diplomske naloge, s tem, da je osrednja pozornost namenjena stranski udeležbi v obeh postopkih. V III. poglavju naloge (podpoglavja 1. – 6.) sem stransko udeležbo v obeh postopkih proučil predvsem z naslednjih vidikov: • Opredelitev stranske udeležbe. • Namen stranske udeležbe. • Procesne in materialne predpostavke stranske udeležbe. • Vstop stranskega udeleženca v postopek. • Pravni položaj stranskega udeleženca v postopku ter njegovo pravno razmerje s stranko, kateri se je v postopku pridružil, oziroma za katere uspeh v pravdi je pravno zainteresan. • Specifične značilnosti posameznega postopka. Na področju upravnega postopka sem bolj podrobno prikazal tudi pravna sredstva stranskega udeleženca ter stroške stranske udeležbe. Na podlagi ugotovljenih značilnosti stranske udeležbe v obeh postopkih sem nato v 7. podpoglavju analiziral podobnosti in razlike stranske udeležbe v obeh postopkih ter opravil krajšo primerjavo med stransko udeležbo v slovenskem in nemškem upravnem in pravdnem postopku. V IV. poglavju sem povzel ugotovitve predhodnih poglavij naloge ter se osredotočil na razloge ugotovljenih podobnosti in razlik stranske udeležbe, pri čemer sem izhajal predvsem iz ciljev, ki jih zasledujeta Zakon o splošnem upravnem postopku in Zakon o pravdnem postopku, iz temeljnih načel obeh postopkov, pa tudi iz načel Ustave, povezanih z obravnavanima postopkoma. Dotaknil pa sem se tudi vprašanj, ki v zvezi s stransko udeležbo ostajajo odprta v strokovni javnosti. Menim, da sem cilje naloge, navedene v »Opredelitvi problema«, dosegel, saj so se v okviru njene vsebine dovolj jasno pokazali odgovori na vprašanja, ki sem si jih zastavil kot problem naloge. An administrative and a civil procedure are two substantially different procedures. An administrative procedure takes place within public administration and is carried out by »administrative authorities« which apply to state administration bodies and other state bodies, authorities of self-government local communities, as well as to competent institutions which are bearers of public authorities. The very essence of an administrative procedure is the determination of the right, obligations or legal entitlement of a natural or legal person in a specific administrative procedure. On the other hand a civil procedure is carried out within the framework of judicial power and within this procedure ordinary courts of law settle civil disputes, that is, they settle either legal relations in dispute or disputed civil rights. I have summarised the basic characteristics of both procedures and of the administrative dispute in section II. of my thesis. In both procedures a party is a necessary entity, besides an authority or a court. In an administrative procedure there is at least one party (an active or passive), in a civil procedure there are at least two parties (an active and passive). In addition to a party/parties intervenors can take part in any of the two procedures. An intervenor of an administrative procedure obtains a status of a party but not a characteristic of a party. In a civil procedure there can be two kinds of interventions, a simple intervention and a joinder intervention. The position of an indispensible party, which obtains the status of a proper party, is characteristic of a joinder intervention, and an intervenor at entering a procedure becomes an assistant of a party and is de jure interested in the success of a law suit but the intervenor does not obtain the status of a party. The content of my thesis is dedicated to the very relations between a party – an intervenor – an additional party – an indispensible party - a necessary party by focusing on intervention in both procedures. In subsections from 1 to 6 of the section III. of my thesis I have examined the intervention in both procedures particularly from the following points of view: • Definition of an intervention. • Purpose of an intervention. • Process and material assumptions of an intervention. • Entering of an intervenor into a procedure. • Legal status of an intervenor in a procedure and their legal relationship with a party which the intervenor joined in the procedure and who is de jure interested in the success of a law suit. • Specific characteristics of an individual procedure. In respect of an administrative procedure I have presented also legal means of an intervenor and the costs of an intervention more in detail. On the basis of identified characteristics of an intervention in both procedures I have then analysed similarities and differences of an intervention in either procedure and I have made a short comparison between an intervention in Slovenian and in German legislative regulations in the subsection 7. In section IV. I have summarised observations of preceding sections of my thesis and I have focused on the reasons for observed similarities and differences of an intervention. I have based my observations particularly on objectives that are regulated by the General Administrative Procedure Act and by the Civil Procedure Act, on basic principles of both procedures, and also on the principles in the Constitution that are connected with the relevant procedures. I have also touched on the questions in connection with an intervention that stay unsolved in expert public. I mean that the objectives of my thesis quoted in the subsection »Definition of the problem« have been achieved, for the answers to the questions that I had raised as a problem in my thesis have shown up sufficiently clear within its contents.