Pravna fakulteta

AndrejMlakar3

The Faculty of LawU n i v e r z a v L j u b l j a n i

U n i v e r s i t y o f L j u b l j a n a

Without law as a set of rules governinghuman behaviour and actions, there can be no peaceful co-existence betweenpeople. Human society cannot survive without law.

Lawlessness is the worst kind

of social decay and signals the end

of organised interpersonal

relations.

P r o f J a n e z K r a n j c

Lawis an indispensable

featureof every

human society.

Brez pra va v smi slupra vil ve de nja inrav na nja si splohni mo goče za mi sli timir ne ga sožitjamed lju dmi. Člo veška družbaza to brez pra va ne mo re ob sta ti.

Brez prav je je naj hujša sto pnja

družbe ne ga raz kro ja in po me ni

ko nec ure je nihmedčlo veških

odno sov.

p r o f . d r . J a n e z K r a n j c

Pra voje ne po grešljiv

sprem lje va lecsleherne

človeške družbe.

P r a v n i Š T U D I Jv L j u b l j a n i

•

Law Studies in Ljubljanaprof. dr. Janez Kranjc

e jan ska vlo ga pra va v do ločenidružbi je re zul tat šte vil nih de jav ni kov. Po leg ka ko vo sti in vse bi ne splošnih prav -nih pra vil vpli va na de jan sko ve lja vo pra va tu di vre dno stni si stem po sa me zni kovv družbi, ki lah ko prav ne vre dno te, še po se bej odnos do ide a la pra vično sti, spre -je ma jo kot svo je ali pa jih od kla nja jo. The actual role played by law in a givensociety is a result of various factors. In addition to the quality and content of gen-eral legal rules, the factual validity of law is also influenced by the value systemas it is accepted by individuals. The latter can either accept legal principles (andespecially attitudes towards the ideal of justice) as their own, or renounce them.

D

Bi stven po goj za do bro de lo va nje prav ne ga re da pa

so tu di do bri prav ni ki. Prav na pra vi la si cer spre je ma

za ko no da ja lec, ven dar je vlo ga prav ni ka pri nji ho vi

upo ra bi bi stve na, saj je na va dno prav nik ti sti, ki lah ko

za go to vi nji ho vo bolj ali manj smo tr no ra zla go ozi ro ma

bolj ali manj živ ljenj sko upo ra bo. Pri tem igra ta ena ko

po mem bno vlo go prav ni ko vo stro kov no zna nje ter nje -

go va za ve za nost ide a lo ma pra vično sti in hu ma no sti.

že od an ti ke na prej je prav ni po klic po ve zan s si ste -

ma tičnim prav nim štu di jem. Sa mo na ta način se da

za go to vi ti ti sto te melj no zna nje, s po močjo ka te re ga je

mo goče začeti s prak tičnim prav nim de lom. Izraz

“učeni prav nik”, ki so ga upo ra blja li od an ti ke na prej,

je za to sa mo po na zar jal po tre bo po prav nem štu di ju, s

po močjo ka te re ga je tre ba nad gra di ti pri ro je ni prav ni

občutek.

Good lawyers are among the principal conditions for

a well-functioning legal system. Although the legal

rules are created by the legislator, the crucial role in

their application is played by lawyers able to guaran-

tee their more or less appropriate interpretation and

more or less justified application. In the pursuit of that

goal, lawyers’ expert knowledge and their commitment

to the ideals of justice and humanity are of equal

importance. Ever since antiquity the legal profession

has been tied to the systematic study of law. Only in

such a manner can the basic legal knowledge required

for the commencement of practical legal duties be

guaranteed. The expression a learned lawyer, used

since antiquity, only mirrors the recognised need for

a study of law with which to build upon naturally

acquired legal sensibilities.

V stavbi Deželnega dvorca je gostovala Pravna fakultetado svoje selitve v letu 2000. Zgoraj je načrt, s katerim je nanatečaju zmagal arhitekt Hrasky, spodaj pa načrt arhitektaJosipa Hudetza, po katerih je bila stavba zgrajena.

Prior to 2000 the Faculty of Law was located in the formerregional parliament building. Above, the winning project byarchitect Hrasky; below, the plan by architect Josip Hudetz, to which the building was eventually constructed.

Načrti za zgradbo Katoliške tiskarne, po katerih jo je v letih1907-08 zgradilo podjetje Gustava Tönniesa.

Plans for the Catholic Printworks, constructed in 1907–08 bythe construction company of Gustav Tönnies.

The modern study of law is linked tothe creation of universities. Since thefoundation of the first university inBologna, the study of law has by andlarge been possible only at university.The topic has not been thoroughlyresearched in Slovenia but it is mostplausible that schooled lawyers begancoming to the territory of present-daySlovenia in larger numbers at thebeginning of the 16th century. Sincethere were no universities in Slovenia,lawyers pursued their studies abroad.Individually or in groups, their namescan be found in the annals of variousEuropean universities, particularly inCentral Europe and Italy. Until the firstSlovenian university was founded atthe end of the First World War, themajority presumably studied at univer-sities in Vienna and Graz.

Although both these universitieswere undoubtedly among the betterones in Europe and the education ofSlovenian lawyers was therefore objec-tively good, an essential quality wasmissing – a professional legal languagein Slovene. Initiatives for the introduc-tion of Slovene as an official languagewere thus hindered not only by oppo-sition on the grounds of political unac-ceptability but also by an inadequatelydeveloped Slovenian legal terminology;the problem lay in the lack of knowl-edge and an established professionthat could shape and then nurture it. Itwas for that reason that, after theMarch revolution, an initiative to founda Slovenian university emerged amongSlovenian lawyers. At such a universitythe Slovenian legal language could, asDr Danilo Majaron, one of the foundingfathers of the Slovenian university,once said, be “scientifically appraisedand accomplished”.

The founding of the Universityof Ljubljana, and with it the Faculty ofLaw, thus constituted a new era in thedevelopment of the law in Slovenia.An institution had been founded thatcould nurture a comprehensive legalscience and educate young lawyersaccordingly. Although lectures in canonlaw are documented as having beengiven as early as 1704 (and possiblyeven before then), the founding of amodern university and a faculty of lawsignified a new qualitative type bymeans of which a Slovenian legal cul-ture could be shaped.

So do ben prav ni štu dij je po ve zan zzačet kom uni verz. Od usta no vi tve pr veuni ver ze v Bo lo gni pa vse do da nes jemo goče pra vo štu di ra ti pra vi lo ma lena uni ver zi. Čeprav za območje da -našnje Slo ve ni je za de va ni po dro bne jera zi ska na, se zdi naj bolj ver je tno, daso se šola ni prav ni ki v večjem šte vi lupo ja vi li na našem se da njem ozem ljuna pre lo mu med 15. in 16. sto le tjem.Ker v pre te klo sti na Slo ven skem ni bi -lo uni ver ze, so se prav ni ki z območjada našnje Slo ve ni je izo braževa li na tu -jem. Po sa mič ali v sku pi nah jihsrečuje mo v ma tri kah ra zličnih ev rop -skih uni verz, zla sti v Sre dnji Ev ro pi inIta li ji. Pri tem jih je do usta no vi tveslo ven ske uni ver ze ob kon cu pr ve sve -tov ne voj ne večina ver je tno štu di ra lana uni ver zah na Du na ju in v Grad cu.

Čeprav sta bi li obe uni ver zi go -to vo med boljšimi v Ev ro pi in je bi laizo braz ba slo ven skih prav ni kov objek -tiv no do bra, ji je manj ka la bi stve na pr -vi na – slo ven ski stro kov ni prav ni je zik.Pri za de vanj za uve ljav lja nje slo -venščine kot ura dne ga je zi ka za to niovi ra lo le nas pro to va nje na rav ni po li -tične do pu stno sti, mar več tu di ne za do -stno ra zvi to slo ven sko prav no izra zje;pro blem je bil v zna nju in stro ki, ki biga lah ko načrtno in tvor no obli ko va later go ji la. Med slo ven ski mi prav ni ki jeza to v času po marčni re vo lu ci ji opa zi tinačrtna pri za de va nja za usta no vi tevuni ver ze. Na njej bi bi lo mo goče slo -ven ski prav ni je zik, kot je de jal edenod očetov slo ven ske uni ver ze dr. Da ni -lo Ma ja ron, “znan stve no pre so di ti indovršiti”.

Usta no vi tev Uni ver ze v Lju blja niin z njo Prav ne fa kul te te je za to po me -ni la no vo ob do bje v ra zvo ju pra va naSlo ven skem. Usta nov lje na je bi la in sti -tu ci ja, ki je go ji la ce lo vi to prav no zna -nost in skla dno s spo zna nji prav nezna no sti izo braževa la mla de prav ni ke.Pre da va nja s po dročja ka non ske gapra va so si cer v Lju blja ni do ku men ti ra -na že za le to 1704 (ver je tno pa je, daso bi la tu di že pred tem), ven dar jeusta no vi tev so do bne uni ver ze in prav -ne fa kul te te po me ni la pov sem no voka ko vost, ki je bi stve no obli ko va la slo -ven sko prav no kul tu ro.

R A Z M I Š L J A N J E V Č R T I I N S K I C II D E A S I N L I N E S A N D S K E T C H E S

Prav na fa kul te ta je ob svo ji usta no vi tvi le ta1919 do bi la pro sto re v Dežel nem dvor cu. Gle -de na ta kra tno šte vi lo štu den tov in učite ljevin gle de na na ra vo pe da goške ga pro ce sa soti pro sto ri spočet ka vsaj za si lo za doščali.Ven dar pa so se začeli kma lu po jav lja ti pro -stor ski pro ble mi. Ta ko so npr. fa kul te ti le ta1924 po nu di li knjižni co bivšega Dežel ne gaod bo ra. Pri prav lje na jo je bi la spre je ti le podpo go jem, da do bi za nje no na me sti tev tu diustre zne pro sto re in knjižne oma re. V ob sto -ječih pro sto rih nam reč knjižni ce ni bi lo mo -goče shra ni ti.1

Na Uni ver zi so ne ka te ri že ob usta no -vi tvi računa li z gra dnjo no ve stav be. Po slo pjeDežel ne ga dvor ca, ki naj bi bi lo pr ven stve nona me nje no po li tičnim pred stav niškim te le -som, so za to šte li sa mo za začasno bi va lišče.V opre de li tvi pro stor skih po treb Uni ver ze jeta ko so de lo va la tu di Prav na fa kul te ta. No -vem bra iste ga le ta je v do pi su rek tor ju opre -de li la svo je po tre be, da bi mo gla ne mo te noin v pol nem ob se gu de lo va ti.2 Med osta li miso v do pi su opre de lje ne tu di pro stor ske po -tre be. V no vem po slo pju uni ver ze, ki so ganačrto va li, naj bi fa kul te ta do bi la po eno so -bo za de ka na, taj ni ka, pro fe sor je (ta so ba bibi la hkra ti sej na), za pro fe sor sko knjižni co,so bo v izme ri med 120 in 150 kva dra tnih me -trov za skla dišče knjižni ce ter pet sob za fa -kul te tne se mi nar je in pet sob za nji ho ve vo -dje. Hkra ti bi fa kul te ta po tre bo va la ve li kopre da val ni co za 150 slušate ljev, dve sre dnjiza 80-100 in dve maj hni za 30-40 slušate ljev.De ka nat, pre da val ni ce in se mi nar ji bi ime li šepo eno so bo za, kot je rečeno v do pi su, slu -go vsa ke ga od teh sklo pov.

Ker pa so se na fa kul te ti očitno za ve -da li, da je no va stav ba uni ver ze še da leč, sov istem do pi su na ve dli tu di svo je po tre be podo da tnih pro sto rih v Dežel nem dvor cu. Tamnaj bi jim Uni ver za do de li la še po eno pre da -val ni co, se mi nar sko so bo, so bo za kri mi no -loški inšti tut, so bo za knjižnične ga asi sten tain eno ve li ko so bo, ki bi bi la no va pro fe sor -ska so ba.

Kot ve mo, do gra dnje no ve ga po slo pjauni ver ze ni prišlo, pač pa je da la Uni ver zaPrav ni fa kul te ti od zah te va nih na vo ljo ennov pro stor, ki so ga upo ra bi li za knjižni co.3

Da si bo mo pro stor ske po tre be fa kul te te lažepo na zo ri li, ve lja ome ni ti, da je bi lo le ta 1925na fa kul te ti vpi sa nih sku paj 324 re dnih in 16izre dnih slušate ljev.4 Fe bru ar ja le ta 1926 jebi lo na fa kul te ti v zim skem se me stru vpi sa -nih 296, v po le tnem pa 338 štu den tov.5 Vistem času je bi lo na fa kul te ti dva najst pro fe -sor jev in do cen tov.6

Upon its foundation the Faculty of Law wasgiven premises in the former regional parlia-ment building. With the smaller number ofstudents and professors at the time, as wellas the nature of the educational process,these premises were initially sufficient – butnot for long. The lack of space soon becameapparent. In 1924 the Faculty of Law wasoffered the library of the former regionalcommittee. The faculty was willing to acceptit only on condition that it was also givenadditional space and bookshelves for stor-age; it was impossible to store the library inthe existing space alone.1

Some members of the university hadbeen counting on a new building since itsfoundation. The regional parliament building,primarily intended for political bodies, wasthus taken to be only a temporary residence.The Faculty of Law was accordingly includedin the determination of the university’s infra-structural needs. In November 1924 the facul-ty sent the university rector a letter detailingthe requirements that needed to be fulfilledin order for it to continue its work at fullcapacity.2 These included the need for morespace. In the new university building as itwas planned, the law faculty was to be givenone room each for the dean, the secretary,the professors (this room would also serveas the meeting room) and the professors’library, one (between 120 and 150 m2) forthe library repository, five for faculty semi-nars and five for seminar assistants. The fac-ulty would also require one large lecture hallfor 150 students, two medium-sized lecturehalls for 80–100 students, and two small lec-ture halls for 30–40 students. The dean’soffice, the lecture halls and the seminarrooms would each have an additional room,as the letter put it, for the servant to each ofthose three clusters.

However, since the faculty was obvi-ously aware that the new university buildingwould be built in the distant future, thesame letter also contained a request foradditional space in the regional parliamentbuilding. There the university was additional-ly to assign to the faculty one lecture hall,one seminar room, one room for the crimi-nology institute, one room for the libraryassistant, and one large room to serve as anew room for professors.

As we know, the construction of a newuniversity building never took place but theuniversity did assign one additional room tothe faculty; this was used by the library.3 Inorder to put the infrastructure demands of

Č A S M E D O B E M A V O J N A M AT h e P e r i o d B e t w e e n t h e T w o W o r l d W a r s

...........................................................................................................................................................................................

Ven dar pa pro blempro sto rov ni bil sa mo v nji -ho vi ve li ko sti, mar več tu div nji ho vi pri mer no sti za de -lo, saj mno gi po zi mi splohni so bi li kur je ni. Se ve da papro stor ski pro ble mi ni so bi -li naj po mem bnejši. Pr va de -se tle tja ob sto ja slo ven skeuni ver ze označuje jo nam rečtu di ra zlične po bu de za nje -no uki ni tev. Za to je ra zum -lji vo, da vprašanje pro sto -rov ni bi lo ve dno v os pre -dju fa kul te tnih pri za de vanj.

Le ta 1927 je prišlodo zah te ve, da se fa kul te tazačasno iz se li iz Dežel ne gadvor ca in svo je pro sto reod sto pi obla stni skupščini včasu nje ne ga za se da nja.7

Ob tem je pred se dnik obla -stne ga od bo ra dr. Na tlačenrek tor ju za go to vil, da bo dože na sle dnje le to začeli zi -da ti no vo uni ver zi te tno po -slo pje, in si cer s sred stvilju bljan ske in ma ri bor skeobla stne skupščine, če de -nar ja ne bi za go to vi la cen -tral na vla da.8 že v raz pra vio začasni iz se li tvi so prišlina dan po mi sle ki fa kul te tepro ti se li tvi iz Dežel ne gadvor ca in hkra ti dvom otem, da bo v re sni ci prišlodo gra dnje no ve uni ver zi te -tne stav be in kakšna bo.

Kot ve mo, ni prišlone do ene ga ne do dru ge -ga, in v za pi sni kih sej fa -kul te tne ga sve ta srečuje moobčasno raz pra ve o po -manj ka nju pro sto rov in onji ho vi op ti mal ni raz po re di -tvi.9 Se ve da je osta lo šte vi -lo pro sto rov v Dežel nemdvor cu nes pre me nje no, stem pa tu di sti ska prav nein dru gih fa kul tet, ki so vnjem de lo va le. Sta nje se jespre me ni lo s se li tvi jo Fi lo -zof ske fa kul te te v pro sto re

Uni ver zi te tne knjižni ce le ta1941. Ta krat je Prav na fa -kul te ta na slo vi la na rek tor jado pis, v ka te rem je opre de -li la svo je mi ni mal ne po tre -be po no vih pro sto rih.10 Fa -kul te tni svet je zah te val šti -ri pre da val ni ce, med nji mizbor nično dvo ra no, eno iz -praševal no dvo ra no, enoso bo za de ka nat, dve so biza knjižni co, pet se mi nar -skih čital nic za 18 fa kul te -tnih se mi nar jev in pet sobza uprav ni ke se mi nar jev.Kakšno je bi lo tu di si cerma te ri al no sta nje fa kul te te,med dru gim kaže po zivuprav ni ka se mi nar ja za me -dna ro dno za se bno pra vo, kise “po nov no pri po roča zakakšno sta ro oma ro.”11 Za -ni mi vo je, da je bi lo v temčasu (ver je tno tu di za ra divoj ne) šte vi lo štu den tovbolj ali manj nes pre me nje -no. Le ta 1943 je bi lo na fa -kul te ti vpi sa nih 295 štu den -tov.12

1 Za pi snik se je sve ta ju ri dične fa -kul te te z dne 16. ok to bra 1924.

2 Sklep sve ta ju ri dične fa kul te te zdne 7. no vem bra 1924.

3 Za pi snik se je fa kul te tne ga sve ta2. ju li ja 1925.

4 Za pi snik 2. re dne se je sve ta ju ri -dične fa kul te te z dne 22. ok to -bra 1925.

5 Za pi snik 8. re dne se je sve ta ju ri -dične fa kul te te z dne 27. fe bru -ar ja 1926.

6 Fa kul te ta v tem času še ni ime laasi sten tov. Pro fe sor ji so pri ha ja lina fa kul te to iz pra kse.

7 Do tlej je obla stna skupščina za -se da la na ma gi stra tu.

8 Za pi snik 1. izre dne se je fa kul te -tne ga sve ta ju ri dične fa kul te te27. ok to bra 1927.

9 Za pi snik 8. re dne se je fa kul te -tne ga sve ta z dne 9. ju ni ja1928.

10 Za pi snik sve ta ju ri dične fa kul te -te z dne 30. ju ni ja 1941.

11 Za pi snik sve ta ju ri dične fa kul te tez dne 30. ju ni ja 1941.

12 Za pi snik sve ta ju ri dične fa kul te -te z dne 10. no vem bra 1943. Iziste ga za pi sni ka raz be re mo, daje bi lo ta krat na me di cin ski fa -kul te ti vpi sa nih 370, na fi lo zof -ski 366, na te o loški 130 in nate hnični 529 štu den tov.

the faculty into perspective,it may be worth mentioningthat there were 324 regularand 16 part time studentsenrolled at the faculty in1925.4 The numbers fromFebruary 1926 show that inthe winter term there were296 and in the spring term338 students enrolled.5 Atthat time there were 12professors at the faculty.6

The problem with therooms was not only relatedto their size but also to theworking conditions withinthem, with many of themhaving no heating in thewintertime. However, ashortage of rooms was notthe most significant prob-lem faced by the university.The first few decades of itsexistence were marked byvarious initiatives to abol-ish it. It is therefore under-standable that the issue ofadequate working spacewas not always at the fore-front of faculty concerns.

In 1927 the facultyreceived an order to tem-porarily vacate the regionalparliament building andgive its rooms over to thegoverning assembly overthe course of its session.7

This was accompanied by aguarantee given to the rec-tor by the president of theassembly, Dr Natlačen, thatwork on the new universitybuilding would commencethe following year and thatfunds for it would be pro-vided by the Ljubljana andMaribor governing assem-blies, if not by central gov-ernment.8 During thedebate on temporary relo-cation, arguments againstthe faculty leaving theregional parliament buildingwere expressed, accompa-nied by doubts as towhether a new universitybuilding was really going tobe built and, if so, whatshape it would take.

As we now know, nei-ther of the above happened.In Faculty Council minutesone occasionally finds a ref-erence to the shortage ofrooms and a debate on thebest way to apportionthem.9 Naturally the numberof rooms in the regional

parliament building was leftunchanged, a fate shared byall the faculties residingthere. The situation changedwhen the Faculty of Artsrelocated to the UniversityLibrary in 1941. At that timethe Faculty of Law sent therector a letter in which itlisted the very least it wouldneed in terms of space.10

The Faculty Council askedfor four lecture rooms, oneof them the aula magna,one examination hall, oneroom for the dean’s office,two rooms for the library,five seminar reading roomsfor 18 faculty seminars, andfive rooms for seminar assis-tants. The material condi-tions of the faculty are illus-trated by a note from themanager of the seminar onprivate international law,who “would eagerly acceptan old wardrobe or two”.11 Itis interesting to note thatat that time (possibly alsodue to war), the number ofstudents was more or lessfixed. In 1943, 295 studentswere enrolled at thefaculty.12

1 See the minutes of the meetingof the Council of the JuridicalFaculty, 16 October 1924.

2 Decision of the Council of theJuridical Faculty, 7 November1924.

3 See the Faculty Council minutesof 2 July 1925.

4 See the minutes of the 2nd regu-lar session of the Council of theJuridical Faculty, 22 October1925.

5 See the minutes of the 8th regularsession of the Council of theJuridical Faculty, 27 February1925.

6 At the time the faculty had noassistants; professors came to thefaculty direct from legal practice.

7 Until then the assembly met inthe town hall.

8 See the minutes of the 1st

extraordinary session of theCouncil of the Juridical Faculty,27 October 1927.

9 See for example the minutes ofthe 8th regular session of theFaculty Council, 9 June 1928.

10 See the minutes of the Councilof the Juridical Faculty, 30 June1941.

11 Ibid.12 See the minutes of the Council

of the Juridical Faculty, 10November 1943. According tothe same minutes the Faculty ofMedicine had 370 students, theFaculty of Arts 366, the Facultyof Theology 130 and theTechnical Faculty 529.

Po kon cu voj ne so ožive le ide je o gra dnjino vih stavb za po tre be Uni ver ze. Mi ni sterpro sve te je de ka nu Te hnične fa kul te te na -ročil, da naj iz de la načrt za nje. Kot pro stor jebil pre dvi den Ce ki nov grad, špor tno igriščeIli ri ja in ve le se jem ski pro stor. Prav na fa kul te -ta naj bi tam do bi la svo jo stav bo v izme ri 80krat 30 me trov s pro stor ni no 8.000 ku bičnihme trov. Fa kul te tni svet je spre jel okvir na iz -ho dišča za raz po re di tev pro sto rov v no vistav bi.13 V pri tličju naj bi bi la knjižni ca, štu -dent ska in pro fe sor ska čital ni ca ter tri pi sar -ne. V pr vem nad stro pju naj bi bil de ka nat (5sob) in pre da val ni ce. Pre dvi de li so dve ve li kipre da val ni ci za 500 ozi ro ma 300 oseb, dvedvo ra ni po 150 oseb, dve manjši pre da val ni ciza dok tor ske tečaje, dve iz praševal ni ci inpro fe sor sko so bo. V dru gem nad stro pju sonačrto va li šest se mi nar skih sob, dvaj set de -lov nih sob za pro fe sor je, tri pro sto re za kri -mi no loški inšti tut in kri mi no loški mu zej, enoso bo za asi sten ta se mi nar jev ter dve so bi zaDruštvo slušate ljev ju ri dične fa kul te te. Fa kul -te tni svet ra zum lji vo ni na ve del no be nih kva -dra tur za po sa me zne pro sto re.

Čeprav je Prav na fa kul te ta re sno raču-na la z no vo stav bo, je mo ra la de lo va ti v ob -sto ječih pro sto rih. Nje ni pred stav ni ki so si narav ni uni ver ze ves čas pri za de va li pri do bi tine kaj no vih pro sto rov, ozi ro ma vsaj ohra ni tiob sto ječe pro sto re, ki so jih za se zah te va ledru ge fa kul te te. Ve lik pro blem je bi lo ogre-vanje. Ker ne ka te rih pro sto rov po zi mi ni soogrevali, so bi li v mra zu ne u po ra bni, za ra dira zličnih slo ve sno sti pa večkrat tu di ni bi lomo goče upo ra blja ti zbor nične dvo ra ne.14 Fa -kul te tni svet je za ra di vse ga sku paj svo je gapred stav ni ka v uni ver zi te tnem sve tu po o bla -stil, da “ener gično za sto pa in te re se fa kul te -te” v pro stor ski ko mi si ji.

Ju ni ja 1946 je ta ko Prav na fa kul te ta obse li tvi Te hnične fa kul te te v no ve pro store zah -te va la do de li tev ene pre da val ni ce, šti rih se mi -nar skih čital nic in šti rih se mi nar skih sob.15

De cem bra 1946 je fa kul te tni svet zno -va raz prav ljal o no vi stav bi. V skla du z nje -go vi mi skle pi je bi lo iz de la no “Po ročilo ostav bnem pro gra mu ju ri dične fa kul te te v Lju -blja ni za pri ho dnjih dvaj set let.”16 V njem fa -kul te tni svet ugo tav lja, da so se ra zme re bi -stve no spre me ni le za ra di uved be no vih pre -dme tov, po večanja ob se ga prak tične ga de lav va jah in pre dvi de ne ga po večanja šte vi laštu den tov, ki naj bi pri ha ja li tu di iz dru gih ju -go slo van skih re pu blik in iz Al ba ni je. Ce lo tnepro stor ske po tre be fa kul te te bi po izračunu,ki je te me ljil na skle pih fa kul te tne ga sve ta,znašale 11.519 m2. Od te ga so na me ni li zaknjižni co 900 m2, za pre da val ni ce pa 1230 m2.

Ideas for building new university premisesresurfaced after the war. The education min-ister instructed the dean of the technical fac-ulty to draw up appropriate plans. The areaintended for the new buildings includedCekin castle, the Ilirija playing fields and theLjubljana tradefair area. The Faculty of Lawwas to be given its own building, 80 x 30 mand approximately 8,000 cubic metres. TheFaculty Council passed general guidelines forthe division of space in the new building.13

The ground floor was to host the library, areading room for students and one for pro-fessors, and three offices. The first floor wasto host the dean’s office (five rooms) andthe lecture halls. On the second floor, sixseminar rooms, 20 working rooms for profes-sors, three rooms for the Institute ofCriminology and a Museum of Criminology,one room for the seminar assistant and tworooms for the Juridical Faculty’s students’society were planned. For understandablereasons the Faculty Council specified no pre-cise sizes for individual rooms.

While the Faculty of Law was awaitinga new building, work had to continue onthe old premises. Faculty representativesstill tried to acquire new rooms from theuniversity and keep existing ones in theface of demands made by the other facul-ties. One of the major problems was heat-ing. Since some of the rooms were notheated in the winter, they were useless dur-ing times of severe cold. Due to the largenumber of ceremonies, the aula magna alsooften could not be used.14 For these rea-sons the Faculty Council authorised its rep-resentative on the University Council to“represent the interests of the faculty ener-getically” to the university commission incharge of problems related to space.

In June 1946, when the TechnicalFaculty was relocating from the regional par-liament building to new premises, the Facultyof Law requested one lecture hall, four semi-nar reading rooms and four seminar rooms.15

In December 1946 the Faculty Councilagain discussed the new building. On thebasis of its decisions, a “Report on thebuilding plan of the Juridical Faculty ofLjubljana for the next twenty years” wasdrawn up.16 In the report the Faculty Councildetermined that circumstances had changedradically due to the introduction of newcourses, the expansion of the scope of prac-tical work and the anticipated increase in thenumber of students, including those comingto Ljubljana from the other Yugoslav republicsand from Albania. The full requirements of

ČAS PO DRUGI SVETOVNI VOJNIT h e P e r i o d A f t e r t h e S e c o n d W o r l d W a r

..............................................................................................................................................................................................

Pre dvi de li so tri ve li ke pre -da val ni ce s po 200 se dežiozi ro ma 200 m2¸ dve sre dnjipre da val ni ci s po 100 se dežiozi ro ma 100 m2, šti ri manjšepre da val ni ce s po 45 m2 in40 se deži ter pet iz pi tnihsob po 50 m2. Kot za ni mi -vost ve lja ome ni ti, da so vno vi stav bi pre dvi de li tu dišti ri sta no va nja, ve li ka med50 in 80 m2, in si cer zavra tar ja, kur jača, snažil ko instroj ni ka. Pre dvi de na ce nano ve stav be je znašala price ni 4000 din za kva dra tnime ter ne kaj več kot 46 mi -li jo nov.

Fa kul te ta je pričako -va la iz gra dnjo no ve stav be,kot so za pi sa li, šele v četr tipe tlet ki, to rej v dvaj se tihle tih. V po ročilu be re mo, dafa kul te ta “uvi de va izre dnotežav ni po ložaj dru gih fa -kul tet in in sti tu tov in nji ho -vo ta kojšnjo po tre bo pono vih po slo pjih”. Po goj zato uvi dev nost do dru gih jebil, da bi fa kul te ti do de li liti ste pro sto re v Dežel nemdvor cu, ki bi se iz pra zni lipo iz se li tvi dru gih fa kul -tet.17 S tem pa smo sesrečali s te melj no po te zoPrav ne fa kul te te, ki se je vglav nem spri ja zni la z mi sli -jo, da osta ne v stav biDežel ne ga dvor ca in pre vza -me pro sto re ti stih fa kul tet,ki bi se iz nje ga iz se li le. Sta ko rešitvi jo pro stor skihpro ble mov fa kul te te se jeočitno stri nja lo tu di vod -stvo Uni ver ze. Rek tor je vopo ročilo za le to 1954-55npr. izre cno pra vi: “Prav niod de lek Prav no-eko nom skefa kul te te se sti ska se daj vte snih pro sto rih glav ne gauni ver zi te tne ga po slo pja inbo mo glo zažive ti šele te -daj, ko bo do dru gi od del ki

vsaj de lo ma iz pra zni li topo slo pje”.18 Ta ka rešitev jebi la po eni stra ni po sle di cane a gre siv no sti in mor da pa -siv no sti fa kul te te, po dru gistra ni pa se ve da tu displošne ga po me na, ki soga v ti stem času odločujočide jav ni ki pri pi so va li prav ne -mu štu di ju in pra vu na -sploh. Pri tem ni no be ne gadvo ma, da so si po sa me znefa kul te te žele le no ve stav beozi ro ma se li tev iz glav ne gauni ver zi te tne ga po slo pja inda je bi la no va ozi ro ma la -stna stav ba del nji ho ve gapre stiža.

Pro stor ska sti skaPrav ne fa kul te te pa se nizmanjševa la le za ra di po -sto pnih se li tev dru gih fa kul -tet iz Dežel ne ga dvor ca,mar več – vsaj začasno – tu -di za ra di pa da nja šte vi lavpi sa nih štu den tov, do ka -te re ga je prišlo v šest de se -tih le tih. Po začetnem na -raščanju, do ka te re ga jeprišlo v le tih po kon cu voj -ne, je začelo šte vi lo štu den -tov po le tu 1962, ko je na -ra slo na 978, po sto po maupa da ti.

Naj nižjo točko je do -se glo v štu dij skem le tu1966/67, ko je bi lo na fa -kul te ti vpi sa nih sku paj 657štu den tov. V na sle dnjem le -tu je bil vpi san eden več,na to pa je začelo nji ho vošte vi lo zno va ena ko mer nona raščati. V štu dij skem le tu1970/71 je bi lo vpi sa nih ne -kaj manj kot 1000 štu den -tov, na sle dnje le to pa jesku pno šte vi lo štu den tovpr vič pre se glo šte vi lo ti soč.V štu dij skem le tu 1973/74je bi lo vpi sa nih 1465 štu -den tov, le to ka sne je pa1358 in v le tu 1975/761212.19

Na raščanje šte vi laštu den tov je zno va za o stri -lo pro stor ski pro blem fa kul -te te. Ide ja o no vo gra dnji jepo sta la zno va ak tu al na. Pri tem je Cen ter za ra zvojuni ver ze, ki je pri prav ljal

the faculty would, accordingto the calculation arrived aton the basis of Councildecisions, amount to 11,519m2. Of this, 900 m2 wasintended for the library and1,230 m2 for lecture halls.They anticipated three largelecture halls with 200 seatsand 200 m2 in size, twomedium-sized lecture halls(100 seats, 100 m2), foursmaller lecture halls (40seats, 40 m2) and fiveexamination rooms (each50 m2). It may be interest-ing to add that they alsoenvisaged four apartments,between 50 and 80 m2,intended for the doorman,the person in charge of theheating, the cleaning ladyand the engineer. The costof the new building, at4,000 dinars per squaremetre, was estimated at alittle over 46 million dinars.

The faculty statedthat it expected the newbuilding to be finished in20 years. As the reportsays, the faculty was“aware of the tremendouslydifficult position of theother faculties and insti-tutes, and understandstheir immediate need fornew building space”. Thecondition for such consider-ation for the other facultieswas a guarantee that thelaw faculty was to beassigned the rooms vacatedonce the other faculties hadleft the premises of theregional parliament build-ing.17 This illustrates a fun-damental strategy on thepart of the law faculty – toaccept the fate of staying inthe regional parliamentbuilding indefinitely, aslong as it could take overthe rooms of the other fac-ulties as they relocated totheir new buildings. Itappears that the manage-ment of the universityagreed. The rector’s reportof for 1954/55 for exampleexplicitly states: “TheDepartment of Law of theLaw-Economics Faculty isnow crowded into the smallpremises of the main uni-versity building and willonly be able to breathe

more freely once the otherdepartments at least partlyvacate this building.”18 Thissolution was partly a con-sequence of a rather non-aggressive approach (per-haps even passivity) of thefaculty, but it was also dueto the lack of generalimportance given to lawstudies and the law itself atthe time. There is no doubthowever that the other fac-ulties also wanted to relo-cate from the main univer-sity building to new build-ings of their own, and thathaving a new or at leastone’s own building wasalso a matter of prestige.

There was anotherfactor that alleviated thefaculty’s problems of space,quite apart from the grad-ual departure of other fac-ulties from the regional par-liament building: thedecline (a temporary one)in the number of enrolledstudents which occurred inthe 1960s. After the initialincrease, occurring in thefirst years following the endof the Second World War,the number of enrolled stu-dents reached its peak of978 in 1962 and then slow-ly began to fall. The lowestenrolment numbers wereseen in the 1966/67 aca-demic year, when therewere only 657 students atthe faculty. The followingyear the number increasedby one student, whereupona sustained increase in thenumber of enrolled stu-dents returned. In the1970/71 academic yearthere were a little less than1,000 students enrolled; thefollowing year the totalnumber of students sur-passed 1,000 for the firsttime. In the 1973/74 aca-demic year there were1,465 enrolled students, thefollowing year 1,358 and in

......................................................................................................................................................................................................................

1

3 42

2 3

5

7

8

6

PritličjeGround floor1 Kapiteljska ulica

Kapiteljska Street2 knjižnica

Library 3 predavalnica

Lecture room4 zgradba Kanarček

The Canary5 atrij

Atrium 6 kuhinja in jedilnica

Kitchen and restaurant7 dekanat

Dean's office8 Poljanski nasip

Poljanski Embankment

NadstropjeFirst floor1 Kapiteljska ulica

Kapiteljska Street2 knjižnica

Library 3 predavalnica

Lecture room4 zgradba Kanarček

The Canary5 hall v etaži

Hall 6 svetlobnik

Light shaft7 atrij

Atrium 8 kabineti

Offices 9 Poljanski nasip

Poljanski Embankment

1

3

8

9

42

6 5

3

7

3

Obe zgradbi fakultete in povezovalni steklenjak ustvarjajonotranje dvorišče – atrij, proti kateremu so obrnjene predavalnice in študentska jedilnica.

Both faculty buildings and the linking conservatory createan internal courtyard or atrium flanked by the lecturerooms and the student restaurant.

S K O Z I O K N A S E V E R N E F A S A D E S E Z L I V A T A N O T R A N J O S T I N Z U N A N J O S T Z G R A D B ETHE BUILDING'S INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR MERGE THROUGH THE WINDOWS OF THE NORTHERN FACADE

pro stor ske rešitve za ce lo tno uni ver zo, pre dla gal zaPrav no fa kul te to lo ka ci jo na ju gu me sta. Pe da goško-znan stve ni svet fa kul te te se je s tem stri njal, izra zilpa je tu di in te res za lo ka ci jo na se ve ru, t. j. zaBežigra dom.20

Za kaj do no vo gra dnje ni prišlo, ni pov sem ja sno.Po eni stra ni se je za ta kni lo pri sred stvih, ki jih fa kul -te ti ni us pe lo zbra ti, po dru gi stra ni pa so se po ja vi leide je za ustre zno adap ta ci jo stav be Dežel ne ga dvor caozi ro ma za se li tev v po slo pje nek da nje re al ke na Ve go -vi uli ci. Pa tu di si cer fa kul te ta ni ka za la po se bne ganav dušenja za se li tev iz Dežel ne ga dvor ca na obro bjeme sta.

Skla dno s tem je Fa kul te ta za ar hi tek tu ro iz de la latri štu di je za rešitev pro stor ske pro ble ma ti ke Prav ne fa -kul te te. Fa kul te tne mu pe da goško-znan stve ne mu zbo rujih je pre dložila le ta 1987.21 V štu di jah so ob de la li trimožno sti: no vo gra dnjo za Bežigra dom, adap ta ci jo stav -be sre dnje elek tro te hnične šole (bivše re al ke) na Ve go viuli ci in adap ta ci jo ob sto ječega po slo pja Dežel ne gadvor ca. Po mne nju pri prav ljal cev štu dij bi bi la naj ce -nejša in naj bolj ra ci o nal na za dnja od ome nje nih va ri ant.

Osnu tek no vo gra dnje, ki ga je iz de lal Mar ko Ko -govšek pod men tor stvom pro fe sor ja Jožeta Koželja, jepre dvi de val net to površino 5060 m2. Od te ga bi od pa -dlo na učil ni ce 1860 m2, na knjižni co 1700 m2, na ka -bi ne te pa 900 m2. Po tem načrtu bi do bi la fa kul te tapet pre da val nic v sku pni izme ri 1030 m2 in se mi nar je vsku pni izme ri 830 m2.

1975/76, 1,212.19 The increase in the number of enrolledstudents again brought to the forefront the problem ofshortage of classroom space. The idea of a new facultybuilding regained popularity. The Centre for UniversityDevelopment, preparing urban planning solutions forthe entire university, proposed a location for the lawfaculty in the southern part of the city. The faculty’sEducation and Science Council accepted the proposal,but also stated its own preference for a location in thenorth, i.e. the Bežigrad area.20

It is not entirely clear why construction nevertook place. On the one hand there were financial con-straints as the faculty was not able to raise sufficientfunds; on the other, alternative ideas emerged for theappropriate adaptation of the regional parliamentbuilding or for relocation to the building of the formerRealgymnasium on Vegova Street. On top of that thefaculty itself showed little enthusiasm for relocationfrom the regional parliament building to the outskirtsof the city.

Accordingly the Faculty of Architecture preparedthree studies of possible solutions. These were submit-ted to the faculty’s Education and Science Council in1987.21 Three options were analysed: a new building inBežigrad; the adaptation of the former Realgymnasiumbuilding; and the adaptation of the existing regionalparliament building. According to the authors of thestudies, the cheapest and most cost-effective optionwas the third one.

............................................................................................

Fasade“Slepa” vzhodna fasada proti stanovanjskim objektom.Okna južne fasade so v globini, pred njimi so senčila.Na severni strani so okna v ravnini fasade.

FacadesThe “blind” eastern facade facing the residential buildings.Receding windows of the southern facade, concealed by sun shields.The northern side – the windows are on the same level as the facade.

re iz kus vsta vi tve pro gra ma Prav -ne fa kul te te v ob sto ječi vo lu -men re al ke na Ve go vi ce sti”, kiga je pod vod stvom pro fe sor jaMi loša Bonče iz de la la Mi ra Stan -tič, je pre dvi de val net to površi-no 3987 m2. Fa kul te ta bi meddru gim do bi la eno pre da val ni coza 300 štu den tov, tri pre da val ni -ce za 200 štu den tov, de set se -mi nar jev za 42 štu den tov, 42ka bi ne tov in pro sto re za de ka -nat ter po možne pro sto re. Pritem bi bi la ve li ka pre da val ni ca vdo te da nji te lo va dni ci na dvo -rišču, osta le pa po ena v vsa -kem nad stro pju. Za knjižni co bibi lo na vo ljo 362 m2.

Pro gram ska za sno va zaadap ta ci jo stav be Dežel ne ga

Fa kul te ta se je naj boljogre va la za adap ta ci jo Dežel ne -ga dvor ca, čeprav so pre li mi nar -ne štu di je in ugo to vi tve opo zar -ja le na pro blem po tre sne sa na -ci je, pro blem do tra ja ne gaostrešja ipd. Pro blem vseh trehpre dlo gov je bil tu di v pre maj -hni kva dra tu ri pro sto rov, ta koda po nu je ne rešitve ne bi mo -gle bi ti traj ne. Ko so v začet kude vet de se tih let na dvo riščuglav ne stav be uni ver ze zgra di listolp za dvi ga la in s tem one -mo gočili in ter po la ci jo prečne gatrak ta, je možnost adap ta ci jeDežel ne ga dvor ca za po tre bePrav ne fa kul te te prak tično od -pa dla. Tre ba je bi lo iska ti no vorešitev.

dvor ca, ki jo je iz de lal do centČrto mir Mi helj, je ime la več va ri -ant, po ka te rih bi ime la fa kul te -ta po adap ta ci ji med 3529 in4383 m2 površine. Naj več bi pri -do bi la po pre dlo gu C3, ki je po -leg adap ta ci je pod strešja obGos po ski in Ve go vi uli ci pre dvi -de val tu di in ter po la ci jo no ve gaprečne ga kri la v atri ju Dežel ne gadvor ca, v ka te rem bi ure di li ka -bi ne te. Po tem pre dlo gu bi do -bi la fa kul te ta eno pre da val ni coza 250 štu den tov, dve pre da val -ni ci za 200 štu den tov in enopre da val ni co za 80 štu den tov, 8se mi nar jev za 72 štu den tov, 9pi sar niških pro sto rov ter 69 ka -bi ne tov. Knjižni ca bi ime la potem pre dlo gu površino 328 m2.

13 Za pi snik se je sve ta ju ri dične fa kul te te,ki je bi la 20. ju ni ja 1945.

14 Za pi snik 4. se je fa kul te tne ga sve ta, kije bi la 15. ma ja 1946.

15 Za pi snik 2. izre dne se je fa kul te tne gasve ta, ki je bi la 4. ju ni ja 1946.

16 Po ročilo je pri lo ga za pi sni ka se je fa -kul te tne ga sve ta, ki je bi la 6. de cem -bra 1946.

17 Gl. ibid.18 Uni ver za v Lju blja ni, Rek tor je vo po -

ročilo za le to 1954-55, str. 44. Rek torprof. dr. An ton Ku helj ga je pod pi sal18. ok to bra 1955.

19 Za pi snik se je fa kul te tne ga sve ta, ki jebi la 5. fe bru ar ja 1976. Te melj naznačil nost vpi sa v tem času je bil ve -lik osip, saj je bi lo v le tu 1975/76 vpr vem le tni ku 516, v dru gem pa le219 vpi sa nih.

20 Za pi snik 4. se je pe da goško-znan stve -ne ga sve ta, ki je bi la 1. apri la 1974.

21 Za pi snik 9. se je pe da goško-znan stve -ne ga zbo ra, ki je bi la 19. ma ja 1987.

P“

PrereziVzdolžni prerez – široko stopnišče povezuje spodnji hall in predavalnice v nadstropju.Prečni prerez – predavalniceVzdolžni prerez – evakuacijska stopnišča

SectionsLongitudinal section – broad stairway connecting the downstairs hall and lecture rooms on the first floor.Cross–section – lecture roomsLongitudinal section – fire escapes

he draft of a new building, pre-pared by Marko Kogovšek underthe guidance of Prof Jože Koželj,anticipated a net surface area of5,060 m2. Of this, 1,860 m2

would be taken by classrooms,1,700 m2 by the library and 900m2 by offices. According to theplan the faculty would receivefive lecture halls (totalling 1,030m2) and several seminar rooms(830 m2). The “Evaluation of theplacement of the law faculty’sprogramme into the existingbuilding volume of theRealgymnasium on VegovaStreet”, drawn up by MiraStantič under the guidance ofProf Miloš Bonča, anticipated anet surface area of 3,987 m2.This would include one lecturehall for 300 students, three lec-ture halls for 200 students, tenseminar rooms each for 42 stu-dents, 42 offices for professors,rooms for the dean’s office, andauxiliary rooms. The large lec-ture hall was to be built in lieuof an existing gym in the court-yard, and the others were to beplaced one on each of thefloors of the main building. Thelibrary was to cover 362 m2.

A planning concept forthe adaptation of the existingregional parliament building,prepared by Črtomir Mihelj, con-sisted of several options,according to which the faculty

was to be given between 3,529and 4,383 m2 once adaptationwas complete. It would gain themost space under plan C3,which proposed not only anadaptation of the top flooralongside Gosposka and VegovaStreets but also the insertion ofa new wing into the courtyardof the regional parliament build-ing, where the offices would beset up. According to this pro-posal the faculty would receiveone lecture hall for 250 stu-dents, two lecture halls eachholding 200 students, and onelecture hall for 80 students, aswell as eight seminar roomseach holding 72 students, nineadministration office rooms and69 offices for professors. Thelibrary would cover an area of328 m2.

The faculty was mostinterested in the adaptation ofthe regional parliament building,although the preliminary studiesand conclusions pointed to anumber of problems related tothe building’s earthquake safetystandards and the antiquatedroof structure. A common faultin all the proposals was alsothe fact that the anticipated sur-face area was not adequate inany of them; none of theaccepted proposals were there-fore able to offer a permanentsolution. When a lift shaft wasbuilt in the courtyard of themain university building at thebeginning of the 1990s, thusprecluding the need for theinsertion of an extra wing, thepossibility of adaptation of theregional parliament building forthe use of the law faculty wasmade impractical. A new solu-tion had to be sought.

13 See the minutes of the Council of theJuridical Faculty, 20 June 1945.

14 See the minutes of the 4th session ofthe Faculty Council, 15 May 1946.

15 See the minutes of the 2nd extraordi-nary session of the Faculty Council, 4June 1946.

16 See the report as annexed to theminutes of a session of the FacultyCouncil, 6 December 1946.

17 Ibid.18 See rector’s report for 1954/55, p.44.

The rector, Prof Anton Kuhelj, signedit on 18 October 1955.

19 See the minutes of the session of theFaculty Council of 5 February 1976. Afundamental feature of enrolment atthe time was a highly selectiveprocess of study advancement; in the1975/76 academic year for examplethere were 516 students enrolled inthe first year of study and only 219students in the second year.

20 See the minutes of the 4th session ofthe Educational-Scientific Council, 1April 1974.

21 See the minutes of the 9th session ofthe Educational-Scientific Council, 19May 1987.

T

o tre bo po čim prejšnji rešitvi so zah te va lepre dvsem spre me nje ne ra zme re v sa mo stoj nislo ven ski državi. V de vet de se tih le tih se jenam reč bi stve no po večalo za ni ma nje za štu dijpra va. To se ni odražalo to li ko v po večanem

vpi su kot pre dvsem v sa mi na ra vi štu di ja. Če je bil prejena od te melj nih značil no sti vpi sa na Prav no fa kul te tove lik osip med pr vim in dru gim le tni kom, sta po sta lika rak te ri sti ki de vet de se tih let večja na vzočnost štu den -tov na fa kul te ti in po sle dično ve lik po rast šte vi la di plo -man tov. Ta ko je npr. v štu dij skem le tu 1990/91 di plo -mi ra lo 146 štu den tov, v štu dij skem le tu 1996/97 pa244, čeprav se šte vi lo vpi sa nih v pr vi le tnik ni bi stve -no spre me ni lo. Ob seg t. i. sle pe ga vpi sa, t. j. vpi sa,kjer bi vpi sa ni ne imel re sne ga na me na štu di ra ti, se jezmanjšal na mi ni mum, te kmo val nost med štu den ti inželja čim prej končati štu dij pa sta se močno po večali.Po sle di ca te ga so bi le pre pol ne pre da val ni ce, ne mo -goče ra zme re za iz praševa nje in dru ge obli ke pre ver ja -nja zna nja itd. Kot eden od večjih pro ble mov se je po -ka za lo tu di po manj ka nje pro sto ra za štu dij, saj fa kul te -tna knjižni ca, v ka te ri ni bi lo do volj pro sto ra ni ti zaknji ge, ni ime la čital ni ce. V bivši de po ni jiza pre mog, v ka te ri je fa kul te ta v začet kude vet de se tih let ure di la del knjižni ce vpro stem pri sto pu, je bi lo ne kaj za sil nih se -dežev, ki so bi li bolj kot štu di ju na me nje nipre gle do va nju no ve li te ra tu re.

Po večano šte vi lo lju di na fa kul te tipa je iz po sta vi lo tu di ne mo goče sa ni tar nera zme re. V pre na tr pa nih pre da val ni cah nibi lo zra ka, hkra ti pa je bi lo odločno pre -ma lo to a le tnih pro sto rov. Dežel ni dvo recpač ni bil gra jen za takšne množice lju di,ki bi v njem de la li po ves dan. Za to je bi lonuj no tre ba naj ti rešitev, ki bi bi la obe nem hi tra indol go ročno učin ko vi ta.

Ko sem v le tu 1995 pre vzel funk ci jo de ka na,sem se te ga pro ble ma v pol ni me ri za ve dal. Ker so vti stem času načrto va li širi tev uni ver zi te tnih po slo pij nase ver ni lo ka ci ji, je bi la ena od op cij, ki je pri ha ja la vpoštev za Prav no fa kul te to, še ve dno no vo gra dnja zaBežigra dom. Ven dar pa bi se po naj bolj op ti mi stičnihna po ve dih gra dnja lah ko začela šele po le tu 2001. ZaPrav no fa kul te to to ni pri ha ja lo v poštev, saj bi po me -ni lo po daljšanje ne mo gočih ra zmer vsaj za ne kaj let.Pa tu di si cer ne med učite lji ne med štu den ti ni bi lopo se bne ga nav dušenja za se li tev na se ver. Na ra vaprav ne ga štu di ja in ra zi sko va nja je pač ta ka, da je te -sno po ve za na ta ko s pra vo so djem kot tu di z za ko no -daj no ve jo obla sti.

Ob iska nju boljše in pre dvsem hi trejše rešitveod no vo gra dnje na se ve ru se je pov sem po na ključjupo ka za la možnost adap ta ci je stav be bivše Ti skar neLjud ske pra vi ce, ki je bi la prav ta krat na pro daj. Učite -lji in so de lav ci fa kul te te so si stav bo ogle da li in se natfa kul te te je na izre dni se ji 9. apri la 1996 so gla snospre jel sklep, po ka te rem “vi di v pri do bi tvi in pre no vi

se ce sij ske ga de la stav be Ti skar ne Ljud ske pra vi ce traj -no možnost rešitve svo je pro stor ske sti ske”.22 Se nat jeza pro sil Mi ni str stvo za šol stvo in šport, da za go to viustre zna fi nančna sred stva za pri do bi tev in pre no vo testav be za po tre be Prav ne fa kul te te. Se nat je hkra ti po -o bla stil de ka na, da opra vi po tre bne raz go vo re in dapri do bi tu di od rek tor ja pi smo o pod po ri tem pri za de -va njem Prav ne fa kul te te.

Mi ni str stvo za šol stvo in šport in še po se bej mi -ni ster dr. Slav ko Ga ber ter sve to va lec vla de g. Ni kožibret so po začetnih po mi sle kih spre je li sta lišče Prav nefa kul te te in se de jav no vključili v težav no za go tav lja njesred stev za na kup in obno vo stav be bivše ti skar ne.

Vla da Re pu bli ke Slo ve ni je je že 15. ma ja 1996 vzve zi s tem spre je la svoj pr vi sklep.23 Skle ni la je, dase za Prav no fa kul te to za ra di pro stor ske sti ske pri do bi -jo no vi pro sto ri, ter ime no va la tričlan sko ko mi si jo, kinaj bi pri pra vi la pre dlog ra zrešitve pro stor ske sti skePrav ne fa kul te te in jo pre dložila Vla di RS.24

Na po dla gi po ročila te ko mi si je je vla da 20. ju ni -ja 1996 v zve zi s pro stor sko pro ble ma ti ko Prav ne fa -kul te te spre je la svoj dru gi sklep.25 Skle ni la je, da se

pro stor ska sti ska Prav ne fa kul te te Uni ver -ze v Lju blja ni ra zreši z na ku pom objek taTi skar ne Ljud ske pra vi ce in da mo ra ku pecpred pod pi som po god be pri do bi ti eks per -tno mne nje po o blaščene in sti tu ci je o pri -mer no sti objek ta za izva ja nje izo braževal -ne in ra zi sko val ne de jav no sti. Vla da jehkra ti do ločila, da sme ku pni na znašatinaj več 1.620.000.000 to lar jev.

Na se ji 1. av gu sta 1996 je vla daspre je la tre tji sklep, s ka te rim je pre dvsemza dolžila Mi ni str stvo za šol stvo in šport,da sku paj s Službo Vla de Re pu bli ke Slo ve -

ni je za za ko no da jo do pri ho dnje se je vla de pri pra vipred po god bo o na ku pu stav be Ti skar ne Ljud ske pra vi -ce ozi ro ma pri pra vi način fi nančne ga po kri tja obve zno -sti, hkra ti pa je po o bla sti la ta kra tne ga rek tor ja Uni ver -ze v Lju blja ni akad. prof. dr. Aloj za Kra lja, da pod pišeku pno po god bo.26

Ker se je pri izva ja nju teh skle pov ne ko li ko za ta -kni lo, je vla da 17. ok to bra 1996 po nov no da la so gla sjek na ku pu stav be Ti skar ne Ljud ske pra vi ce in zno va po -o bla sti la rek tor ja Kra lja, da pod piše po god bo. Ker jebi lo ja sno, da ku pni ne ne bo mo goče za go to vi ti ta koj,so bi le po tem skle pu vla de v ce no vključene tu diobre sti do 31. mar ca 1997, ta ko da je ce lo tna ce naznašala 1.750.000.000 to lar jev.27

S tem je bil stor jen odločil ni ko rak. 16. de cem -bra sta di rek tor pro da jal ca, t. j. Cen tra za gos po dar skosve to va nje, mag. Mi lan Lov renčič in rek tor Uni ver ze vLju blja ni akad. prof. dr. Alojz Kralj pod pi sa la po god boo na ku pu stav be bivše Ti skar ne Ljud ske pra vi ce za po -tre be Prav ne fa kul te te Uni ver ze v Lju blja ni. Ker se jeza ti ka lo pri plačilu, je fa kul te ta stav bo de jan sko pre -vze la šele 11. no vem bra 1997, ne kaj manj kot le to dnipo pod pi su po god be.

OSAMOSVOJITEVČ a s p o r a z g l a s i t v i s a m o s t o j n o s t i i n s e l i t e v P r a v n e f a k u l t e t e

.........................................................................

P.....................................................................

he need for a speedy solution was intensifiedby the changed circumstances brought aboutby Slovenian independence. The study of lawbecame increasingly popular in the 1990s. Thiswas not just reflected in the number of

enrolled students but above all in the nature of thestudy process. The earlier feature of a large decline inthe number of students between the first and secondyears was replaced by increased involvement of law fac-ulty students and the consequent high increase in thenumber of graduates. Between 1990/91 and 1995/96 thenumber of students graduating yearly rose from 146 to244, although the number of students enrolling in thefirst year did not change significantly. Incidences of so-called “blind enrolment”, where a student has no seri-ous intention of pursuing studies, dropped to a mini-mum while competitiveness between students and thedesire to finish studies as soon as possible rose dramat-ically. The consequences were overflowing classroomsand impossible examination conditions, to name buttwo. One of the larger problems that became evidentwas the lack of study space, since the faculty library, toocrowded even to hold all the books, had noreading room space. A few stools wereplaced in the former coal depository, wherethe faculty organised the open access partof the library, in the 1990s, but these stoolswere intended for the examination of newlyarrived literature rather than serious study.

The increase in the number of peo-ple at the faculty also brought to the fore-front the impossible sanitary conditions.The overcrowded lecture halls weredrained of all fresh air, there was a seri-ous shortage of lavatories, and so on. Theregional parliament building was not intended to bepeopled by such large numbers on a daily basis. Itwas therefore imperative to find a solution that wouldbe both speedy and permanently effective.

When I took over the duties of dean in 1995, Iwas acutely aware of this problem. As a new expan-sion of the university was planned in the northern partof the city, one of the options for the law facultyremained a new building in Bežigrad. However, evenunder the most favourable of projections the construc-tion could start only after 2001. This was not a viableoption for the faculty since it would prolong theunbearable conditions for several more years. In anycase there was little enthusiasm for relocation to thenorth among the professors and students: the natureof law study and research as such ties it closely toboth the judiciary and the legislative branch of govern-ment, warranting a location in the centre of the city.

The faculty therefore searched for a better andabove all speedier solution to that of waiting for a newbuilding in the northern part of the city. By coincidencethe possibility emerged of adapting the building thatused to house the Ljudska Pravica Printing House,

which was up for sale. Professors and other facultyemployees inspected the building and the FacultySenate passed a resolution at an extraordinary sessionon 9 April 1996 to the effect that it “viewed the acquisi-tion and renovation of the Secessionist part of thebuilding of the Ljudska Pravica Printing House as a per-manent option for the solution of its infrastructure diffi-culties”.22 The senate requested that the Ministry ofEducation and Sport provide the appropriate financialresources for the acquisition and the renovation of thisbuilding for the Faculty of Law. At the same time thesenate authorised the dean to carry out the necessaryinterviews and obtain a letter of support for these lawfaculty initiatives from the university rector. After someinitial reservations and hesitation, the ministry, especial-ly Minister Slavko Gaber and government adviser Nikožibret, accepted the law faculty’s arguments and activelycontributed to the difficult process of raising sufficientfunds for the purchase and renovation of the building.

The Slovenian government passed its first deci-sion on the matter on 15 May 1996.23 It decided toacquire new premises for the law faculty, and appoint-

ed a three-member commission to drawup a proposal and present it to the gov-ernment.24

On the basis of the commission’sreport, the government passed its seconddecision on 20 June 1996.25 It decided thatthe problems of space encountered by thelaw faculty were to be solved by the acqui-sition of the building formerly occupied bythe Ljudska Pravica Printing House andthat, prior to purchase, the buyer shouldobtain an expert opinion from an authorisedinstitution on the suitability of the building

for the performance of educational and research activi-ties. The government also stipulated that the purchaseprice could be no higher than SIT 1,620,000,000.

At a session on 1 August 1996 the governmentpassed a third decision in which it entrusted theMinistry of Education and Sport with the task ofpreparing, in collaboration with the Government Officefor Legislation, a pre-contract agreement for the pur-chase of the Ljudska Pravica Printing House building,i.e. arranging the manner of handling the financialcommitments arising from the purchase. At the sametime it authorised the rector, Prof Alojz Kralj, to signthe purchase contract.26

As the execution of these decisions met with anumber of obstacles along the way, the governmentissued a new agreement to the purchase of theLjudska Pravica Printing House building on 17 October1996, again authorising the rector Alojz Kralj to signthe contract. As it was evident that it would not bepossible to guarantee the purchase funds immediately,the government’s decision included interest until 31March 1997 so that the entire purchase price amount-ed to SIT 1,750,000,000.27

INDEPENDENCES l o v e n i a n I n d e p e n d e n c e a n d t h e R e l o c a t i o n o f t h e F a c u l t y

T.........................................................................

.....................................................................

D O B R O O S V E T L J E N A I N A K U S T I Č N A P R E D A V A L N I C AT H E W E L L – L I T L E C T U R E R O O M H A S G O O D A C O U S T I C S

Med tem so bi li oprav lje nipr vi jav ni raz pi si za nad zor,pro jek tan ta in izva jal ce. Se -ve da bi bi lo pre več, če biopi so va li vse težave in ovi -re, ki so sprem lja le pre no -vo. Kot so nas večkrat to -lažili iz kušeni prak ti ki, eno -stav ne gra dnje sploh ni; sole bolj ali manj kom pli ci ra -ne. Pri nas so bi le glav netežave fi nančne in časov nena ra ve. Kljub vse mu se jeadap ta ci ja končala re la tiv nohi tro in us pešno, za kar grevse ka kor za slu ga iz kušene -mu pro jek tan tu in požrtvo -val nim izva jal cem, ki sosvo je de lo v da nih ra zme -rah v ve li ki me ri opra vi li ze -lo us pešno.

Fa kul te ta se je v no -ve pro sto re pre se li la vzačet ku no vem bra 2000 inse v njih ta koj počuti la do -ma. Za to gre za slu ga pre d -vsem pro jek tan tu grad be nihdel ar hi tek tu An dre ju Mla -kar ju. Fa kul te ta ga je za toza pro jekt, ki ga je iz de lalsku paj s so de lav ci Fer domJor da nom, Ta tja no Ma ho vič,

Mar kom Ko govškom in pro jek -tiv nim po dje tjem LUZ, d. d.,pre dla ga la za na gra doJožeta Plečni ka.28 Čepravna gra de ni do bil, kažejopre nov lje na stav ba in pred -vsem po sa me zne rešitve nato, da bi jo v pol ni me rizaslužil, naše do bro počutjev no vi fa kul te ti pa je tu dipo sle di ca us pešne in bi va -nju ter očesu pri je tne ar hi -tek tu re.

Go to vo je, da po me -ni se li tev fa kul te te v no vepro sto re dol go ročno ko necnje nih pro stor skih težav.Upa ti pa je, da bo ime la tu -di po sre dne po zi tiv ne učin -ke. Pre dvsem da je jo no vipro sto ri možnost za te -snejšo po ve za vo slo ven skihprav ni kov. Eden te melj nihpro ble mov naše države jepo manj ka nje stro kov nja kovna mno gih po dročjih. Kljubre la tiv no ve li ke mu šte vi luprav ni kov so ne ka te ra spe -ci al nejša po dročja na va dnošib ko za sto pa na. Za to je bi -stve ne ga po me na, da se obpo mem bnejših pro jek tih

združi in ustre zno ko or di ni -ra širše prav no zna nje terta ko do seže no va ka ko vost.To pa je bi stve no lažje, čeob sta ja pro stor, ki da jemožno sti za de lo in zasproščen po go vor.

Slo ve ni ja po tre bu jete sno po ve za vo in ko or di -na ci jo ne le prav ne te o ri jein pra kse, mar več prav ne gazna nja nas ploh. Se li tevPrav ne fa kul te te v no ve inustre zne pro sto re pred stav -lja za to pri ložnost za obli -ko va nje stičišča prav ne gazna nja in kraj, kjer bi selah ko ustvar jal no srečeva lite o re ti ki in prak ti ki. Da vo -lja za kaj ta ke ga ob sta ja,so med dru gim po ka za lište vil ni prav ni ki, ki so pri -spe va li za obno vo naše le -po ti ce ob Lju blja ni ci. Za ve -da li so se, da ne pris pe va joza tu je zi do ve, mar več zano ve možno sti prav ne gaštu di ja in pra va na Slo ven -skem.

Prav na fa kul te ta skušaohra ni ti spo min na nje in navse ti ste, ki so za služni za

to, da je do bi la svo je la -stne in le pe pro sto re, z na -pi som v av li no ve stav be.Na njem so na ve de ni vsido na tor ji in glav ni pro ta go -ni sti obno ve.

22 Za pi snik izre dne se je se na taPrav ne fa kul te te v Lju blja ni, kije bi la dne 9. apri la 1996.

23 Sklep Vla de RS št. 360-04/93-4/10-8 o pri do bi tvi no vih pro sto -rov za Prav no fa kul te to Uni ver -ze v Lju blja ni.

24 V ko mi si jo so bi li ime no va ni Ni -ko žibret z MŠŠ, Val ter Reščič zMF in Va len tin Ger kman s Ser vi -sa sku pnih služb Vla de RS.

25 Sklep Vla de RS št. 360-04/93-4/11-8 o ra zrešitvi pro stor skesti ske Prav ne fa kul te te Uni ver zev Lju blja ni.

26 Sklep Vla de RS št. 360-04/93-4/13-8 o so gla sju k na ku pustav be Ti skar ne Ljud ske pra vi cev Lju blja ni za po tre be Prav nefa kul te te Uni ver ze v Lju blja ni.

27 Sklep Vla de RS št. 360-04/93-4/15-8 o so gla sju k na ku pustav be Ti skar ne Ljud ske pra vi cev Lju blja ni za po tre be Prav nefa kul te te Uni ver ze v Lju blja ni.

28 Do pis fa kul te te št. 68-20/01jk zdne 5. 3. 2001, na slov ljen naDruštvo ar hi tek tov Lju blja na,Sklad Jožeta Plečni ka.

The decisive steps had thusbeen taken. On 16 DecemberMilan Lovrenčič, director ofthe Business Advice Centre(which owned the building),and the rector, Alojz Kralj,signed the contract on thepurchase of the LjudskaPravica Printing Housebuilding for the use of thelaw faculty. Due to a num-ber of problems related topayment of the purchaseprice, the faculty eventuallytook possession of thebuilding only on 11November 1997, almost ayear after the contract wassigned.

In the meantime thefirst public procurementprocedures for the tasks ofsupervision, planning andreconstruction were under-taken. It would be far tooexhausting to list all theproblems and obstaclesencountered in the renova-tion process. As experi-enced practitioners wouldoften say by way of conso-lation, a simple process ofconstruction does not exist– one can only distinguishbetween more or less com-plicated ones. The mainproblems occurring hererelated to time and money.However, despite all thedifficulties, renovation wascompleted in a relativelyshort time and successfully,for which credit is definitelydue to the experiencedarchitect and hardworkingconstruction companieswho, under the given cir-cumstances, completed theirwork for the most part in avery successful manner.

The faculty relocatedto the new premises inNovember 2000 and imme-diately felt at home there.A great deal of credit forthis is again due to thearchitect who designed thebuilding, Andrej Mlakar. Thefaculty therefore nominatedhim and his team, FerdoJordan, Tatjana Mahovič,Marko Kogovšek and theLUZ company, for the JožePlečnik Award.28 Althoughhe did not receive theaward, the renovated build-ing and some of the archi-tectural solutions in particu-lar are proof enough of thequality of his work, whichwas certainly deserving ofthe prize. The high level ofsatisfaction with the work-ing conditions at the newbuilding is also the conse-quence of successful anduser-friendly architecturewhich is also pleasing tothe eye.

There is no doubtthat the relocation of thefaculty signifies a long-termsolution to its spatialissues. In addition onehopes that it will also haveother, indirect positiveeffects. Above all the newpremises offer possibilitiesfor closer co-operationbetween Slovenian lawyers.One of the fundamentalproblems faced by Sloveniais the shortage of expertsin many fields. Despite arelatively large number oflawyers, some of the morespecialised fields are usual-ly weakly represented. It istherefore of the utmostimportance that on impor-tant projects a wider poolof legal knowledge is gath-ered and new levels ofquality in legal workachieved. All this is mucheasier to accomplish if anenvironment exists thatpromotes opportunities forwork and relaxed discussion.

Slovenia needs close linksand coordination not onlyin legal theory and practicebut also in legal knowledgein general. The relocationof the Faculty of Law thussignifies an opportunity forthe creation of a focal pointfor legal knowledge and aplace where legal theoreti-cians and practitioners canmeet in creative endeav-ours. That there is enoughwill for such an enterprisewas shown, among others,by the numerous lawyerswho donated funds for therenovation of our new“beauty on the banks ofLjubljanica”. They wereaware of the fact that theywere not merely contribut-ing to “someone else’swalls” but also to newopportunities for law stud-ies and the law itself inSlovenia.

The Faculty of Law istrying to preserve theirmemory, as well as that ofall those who made it pos-sible for the faculty toacquire its own beautifulpremises, with a plaque inthe lobby of the new build-ing. It contains the namesof all the donors and mainplayers involved in the ren-ovation.

22 See the minutes of the extraor-dinary session of the Senate ofthe Faculty of Law, 9 April 1996.

23 See the decision of theSlovenian government no. 360-04/93-4/10-8 on the acquisitionof new premises for the Facultyof Law.

24 The commission consisted ofNiko žibret from the Ministry ofEducation and Sport, ValterReščič from the Ministry ofFinance, and Valentin Gerkmanfrom the Joint Services of theGovernment.

25 See the decision of theSlovenian government no. 360-04/93-4/11-8 on the alleviationof the infrastructure problems ofthe Faculty of Law.

26 See the decision of theSlovenian government no. 360-04/93-4/13-8 on the agreementto purchase the Ljudska PravicaPrinting House building for theuse of the law faculty.

27 See the decision of theSlovenian government no. 360-04/93-4/15-8 on the agreementto purchase the Ljudska PravicaPrinting House building for theuse of the law faculty.

28 See faculty letter no. 68-20/01jk,3 March 2001, addressed to theArchitects Society of Ljubljana(DAL), Jože Plečnik Fund.

V Z G R A D B I N O V E F A K U L T E T E J E P O S K R B L J E N O Z A D U Š E V N O I N T E L E S N O H R A N OT H E N E W F A C U L T Y B U I L D I N G P R O V I D E S C O M F O R T F O R T H E S O U L A N D B O D Y

•Andrej Hrausky

NovoŽ I V L J E N J E

STARE TISKARNE

Stav be preživi jo svo je in ve sti tor je. Četu di so za sno va ne za točno do ločen na men, jenji ho va živ ljenj ska do ba pra vi lo ma daljša od po treb, za ra di ka te rih so bi le zgra je -ne. Ta ko z le ti stav be po sta ne jo zgolj lu pi ne, v ka te rih se bolj ali manj us pešnoskušajo ume sti ti no ve vse bi ne. Nič dru gačna ni bi la na lo ga, s ka te ro se je soočil ar -hi tekt An drej Mla kar pri pro jek tu no ve prav ne fa kul te te. Mi ni str stvo za šol stvo jeime lo na vo ljo dve stav bi, ki sta bi li zgra je ni v ra zličnih ob do bjih in sta bi li del širše-ga kom ple ksa nek da nje za ložbe in Ti skar ne Ljud ska pra vi ca. Pr va stav ba izvi ra šeiz av stro-ogr ske mo nar hi je. V le tih 1907-08 jo je zgra di lo po dje tje Gu sta va Tönni e -sa za Ka to liško ti skov no društvo in je pred stav lja la del no ve ur ba ni stične po te ze odKre ko vega tr ga s stav bo no ve me stne hiše – Me stne ga do ma, prek Zmaj ske ga mo -stu in Re slje ve ce ste pro ti žele zniški po sta ji. Dru go stav bo so zgra di li v le tih 1958-61 po načrtih ar hi tek ta Edvar da Rav ni kar ja in je tvo ri la ce lo to z uprav no zgrad bonek da nje Ljud ske pra vi ce, ki so jo lju dje po ru me ni oblo gi fa sa de po i me no va li Ka -narček. Četu di sta bi la objek ta pr vo tno na me nje na isti de jav no sti – ti skar stvu in za -ložništvu, sta si bi la po za sno vi ze lo ra zlična ter kaj ma lo pri mer na za no vi na men.Stav bi s svo ji ma kon struk cij ski ma ra stro ma ni sta sa mo ome je va li no tra nje raz po re -di tve, am pak sta bi li tu di brez pra ve med se boj ne po ve za ve. Mi ni str stvu za šol stvoje nam reč us pe lo od ku pi ti le del ce lo tne ga kom ple ksa ti skar ne; od objek tov vzdolžKo pi tar je ve uli ce je ta ko raz po la ga lo le z de lom pri tličja v ve znem objek tu med Ka -narčkom in Ka to liško ti skar no (ki je bil zgra jen po načrtih Edvar da Rav ni kar ja v le -tih 1981-82). Da bi oba objek ta po ve zal v ce lo to, si je ar hi tekt An drej Mla kar za mi -slil ta ko ime no va no “štu dent sko os”. Ta ko je na sta la po kri ta uli ca s poljav nim pro -gra mom, ki po te ka od obrežja Lju blja ni ce vse do Plečni ko ve ga Pe gle zna in pred -stav lja hrb te ni co vse ga do ga ja nja. Na dvo rišču jo je ar hi tekt pre kril s ste kle noopno, ki de lu je kot zim ski vrt, in ob njej ure dil manjšo re stav ra ci jo z bi fe jem.

lav ni vhod z dvi gnje ne ploščadiob Lju blja ni ci označuje bro na stikip Pe gi u sa, slo ven ske ga prav ni -ka iz 15. sto le tja, ki ga je iz de lalaka dem ski ki par Mir sad Be giÊ.Ta je na hrb tno stran do pr sne gaki pa do dal še po do bo prav ni kaFran ce ta Prešer na, ki je za slu tilsa mo stoj no državo in ka te re ga200-le tni co roj stva smo pra zno -va li la ni.

Sta rejša stav ba je na zu -naj obli ko va na v slo gu, ki je bilza ti sto do bo v Lju blja niznačilen. Gre za pre hod iz hi sto -ri ci zma v se ce si jo, kjer sta ar hi -tekt in na ročnik ho te la bi ti so -do bna, obe nem pa se ven darni sta žele la pre več od da lji ti odtra di ci je. Po do bno ve lja tu di zakon struk ci jo. Za tra di ci o nal noopečno fa sa do se v no tra njo stiskri va pr va ar mi ra no be ton skaske le tna kon struk ci ja v Lju blja ni.V pre u re di tvi za po tre be Prav nefa kul te te je ar hi tekt An drej Mla -kar v stav bi ure dil pro sto re pro -fe sor jev: pi sar ne, sej no so bo intu di klub prav ni kov v nad stro -pju. Le klet je na me nje na pre da -val ni cam za se mi nar sko de lo.Ob sto ječi ra ster ar mi ra no be ton -ske ske le tne kon struk ci je ni bilop ti ma len za ure di tev pi sar -niških pro sto rov. Za to je ar hi -tekt no ve zi do ve ho dni ka za sno -val zu naj kon struk cij ske ga ra straste brov in s tem na stra ni pro tiLju blja ni ci omo gočil glo blje pi -sar ne. Za ra di te ga niz ste brov niskrit v zi du, am pak sto ji ob ro -bu ho dni ka in v pers pek ti vi ust-var ja za ni miv mo tiv. Sa ni ta ri jena kon cu ho dni ka so pov sodobli ko va ne kot po se ben blok, kije označen z dru gačno bar vo.Zra ven njih je na fa sa di na no vozgra je no požar no sto pnišče, ki zzu na nje stra ni tvo ri so do ben ar -hi tek tur ni ele ment dvo riščne fa -sa de. Da bi pri do bil po tre bnovišino na pod strešju, je ar hi tekt

ne ko li ko dvi gnil ve nec stav be inpre dvi del višja okna. Tu se jepri la go dil se ce sij ske mu slo gu inna vr hu ven ca do dal ba lu stre, kiso bi li pre dvi de ni v pr vo tnempro jek tu, ven dar ni so bi li izve -de ni. Na ta način zu na nja fa sa -da sta re stav be, ki na go var jase ce sij ski Zmaj ski most ar hi tek -ta Ju ri ja Za ni no viÊa iz le ta 1901,ohra nja svoj pr vo tni slog. Dagre za no vo vse bi no, na ka zu jele do da na nad strešni ca iz je klain ste kla, ven dar tu di iz bi ra ma -te ri a lov sle di se ce sij skim vzo -rom. Se ce si ja je ra da upo ra blja -la nad streške in izve ske iz ko va -ne ga žele za in ste kla, o čemerse lah ko pre pričamo pri bla gov -ni ci Cen tro mer kur (1903) naPrešer no vem tr gu in pri Me stnihra nil ni ci (1904) v Lju blja ni. PriPrav ni fa kul te ti nad strešek tvo ritu di nov por tal vho da, saj je bilpr vo tni vhod v stav bo etažonižje. Da nes je vhod v stav bo zdvi gnje ne ploščadi, pod ka te roso ener get ski objek ti, in je spe -ljan sko zi nek da nje okno v pr -vem nad stro pju.

Tu di no vejša stav ba nek -da nje Ti skar ne Ljud ske pra vi ce ssvo ji mi ve li ki mi površina mi, kijih opre de lju je kon struk cij ski ra -ster v raz po nu 6 me trov, ni bi lanaj bolj pri mer na za no vo upo ra -bo. Ve li ka glo bi na ni omo gočalana rav ne osve tli tve vseh pro sto -rov in ar hi tekt si je mo ral naveč me stih po ma ga ti s sve tlo -bni mi jaški. Po leg te ga so seste bri po ne kod po ja vi li sre dipre da val nic. Sta tik Mi ran Pez dircjih je ne kaj si cer lah ko od stra nil,kljub te mu pa je ra ster ste brovome je val no tra njo raz po re di tevin med dru gim do ločil širi no ho -dni kov in sto pnišč. S štu dent skeosi je v pri tličju do stop do dvehpre da val nic, pre ko sto pnišča paše do treh pre da val nic v nad -stro pju. Knjižni ca v pri tličju inIn sti tut za kri mi no lo gi jo, ki sta visti stav bi, ima ta do stop sko zisvoj vhod iz Ka pi telj ske uli ce. Vkle ti stav be so po kri te ga raže s106 par kir ni mi me sti, ki se raz -te za jo tu di v nek da nje gos po -dar sko dvo rišče; to je ar hi tektsko raj v ce lo ti pre kril s ploščo.Nek daj vi dno ske le tno kon struk -

ci jo iz be to na na fa sa di je oble -kel v ka men. S tem ni sa mopre kril sla bo ohra nje ne ga vi dne -ga be to na, am pak je fa sa do pri -la go dil po me nu no ve vse bi ne.Po do bno kot na dvo riščni fa sa dise ce sij ske stav be je ar hi tekt tu -di tu upo ra bil no vo požar no sto -pnišče kot po se ben ar hi tek tur niele ment.

Ar hi tekt An drej Mla kar jeiz de lal tu di načrte za no tra njoopre mo. Pri tem je upo ra bilobičaj ne ma te ri a le, kot sta ve za -na plošča ali ul tra pas, in s pre -pro stim, a ele gan tnim obli ko va -njem ustva ril prak tične in za ni -mi ve am bi en te. Skr bne je soobli ko va ne dvo ra ne, sej na so bav pri tličju, re stav ra ci ja in knjižni -ca, kjer vi di mo tu di do mi sel noobli ko va ne tri ko tne le sten ce.

Adap ta ci ja sta re ti skar nev pro sto re Prav ne fa kul te te var hi tek tur nem smi slu ni bi lapre pro sta na lo ga. Ni jih bi loma lo, ki so dvo mi li tu di v ume -stnost se li tve fa kul te te na robsta re ga me stne ga je dra. Ven darpred stav lja pro jekt v času, kose in ve sti ci je za ra di sla bih po -go jev v me stu se li jo na nje go voobro bje, sku paj s so se dnjim Ka -pi tljem ene ga red kih po se gov,ki v sta ro me sto vnašajo no voživ lje nje, za to je še to li ko po -mem bnejši.

G

D I A L O G Z A R H I T E K T U R O P L E Č N I K A I N R A V N I K A R J AI N D I A L O G U E W I T H T H E A R C H I T E C T U R E O F P L E Č N I K A N D R A V N I K A R

•Andrej Hrausky

NewL I F E

FOR THE OLD PRINTWORKS

Buildings outlive those who commission them. Even if they are designed for a spe-cific purpose, they usually outlast the needs for which they were built. Thus overtime buildings become mere shells and attempts are made to fill them with new con-tents – with varying degrees of success. This was precisely the task facing architectAndrej Mlakar in the new law faculty project. The Ministry of Education had twobuildings at its disposal, built in different periods and forming part of a wider com-plex constituting what was once the Ljudska pravica Printing and PublishingHouse. The first building dates from the period of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.Built in 1907–08 by the construction company of Gustav Tönnies for the CatholicPrinting Society, it represented part of the new urban axis running from Krekov Trgwith its new town hall building (Mestni Dom), over the Dragon Bridge and upResljeva Street towards the railway station. The second building was built in1958–61 to the plans of architect Edvard Ravnikar and formed a united whole withthe Ljudska pravica office building, popularly known as Kanarček (The Canary)because of its yellow faćade. Although the two buildings were originally conceivedfor the same activity – printing and publishing – they were of very different designand little suited to the new purpose. Not only did the grid structures around whichthey were built limit the options for converting their interiors, they lacked a properinterface. The Ministry of Education in fact only succeeded in purchasing part of theprintworks complex, and of the buildings along Kopitarjeva Street all it had at its dis-posal was part of the ground floor of the structure linking Kanarček to the CatholicPrinting Society printworks (built to Edvard Ravnikar’s plans in 1981–82). In orderto connect the two buildings to form an integrated whole, architect Andrej Mlakarcame up with the idea of a “students’ axis” which resulted in a covered street or mall,semi-public in function, running from the Ljubljanica embankment to Plečnik’sPeglezen (flat iron) building and representing the backbone of the whole project.

N A R A V N A S V E T L O B A P R O D I R A V N O T R A N J O S T P R O S T O R O V F A K U L T E T ET H E I N T E R I O R S P A C E S O F T H E F A C U L T Y A R E F L O O D E D W I T H N A T U R A L L I G H T

n the internal courtyard this wascovered by a glass membranefunctioning as a winter garden.Next to it the architect situateda small restaurant and snackbar. The main entrance, from araised platform on the side fac-ing the river, is marked by abronze statue of Pegius, a 15th-century Slovenian lawyer, byAcademy-trained sculptor MirsadBegiÊ. On the back of this bustthe sculptor added an image ofpoet and lawyer France Prešeren(1800–1849), who foresaw anindependent Slovenia andwhose bicentenary we celebrat-ed last year.

The exterior of the olderbuilding is in a style typical ofthe Ljubljana of the period inwhich it was built. It is a kindof transition from historicism tothe style of the ViennaSecession, where the architectand the client wanted to becontemporary but at the sametime did not want to depart toodramatically from tradition. Asimilar consideration applies tothe structure. Behind the tradi-tional brick facade hides thefirst reinforced concrete skeletonin Ljubljana. In converting thebuilding to the needs of the lawfaculty, Andrej Mlakar designedpremises for the teaching staff –offices, a conference room anda lawyers’ club – on the upperfloors, while the basement wasset aside for lecture rooms forseminar work. The existing gridof the reinforced concrete skele-ton was not ideal for thearrangement of the offices. Forthis reason the architectdesigned new corridor wallsoutside the structural gridformed by the pillars, thusenabling deeper offices on theside facing the Ljubljanica. As aresult, the row of pillars is nothidden in the wall but standson the edge of the corridor andin perspective creates an inter-esting motif. The washrooms atthe ends of the corridors aredesigned throughout as a spe-cial block, indicated by the useof a different colour. Next to

them is a new fire escape builtonto the facade, which from theoutside creates a modern archi-tectural element on the court-yard frontage. In order to obtainthe necessary height in the atticspace, the architect slightlyraised the cornice and plannedtaller windows. Here he adaptedhimself to the Vienna Secessionstyle and at the top of the cor-nice added the balusters envis-aged in the original project butnever realised. In this way theexternal facade of the old build-ing, which addresses the 1901Secessionist Dragon Bridge byarchitect Jurij Zaninovich, pre-serves its original style. Theonly indication of its new con-tent is the addition of a steel-and-glass porch, but even herethe choice of materials followsthe Secessionist model, whichfavoured wrought iron and glassfor porches and signs, as canbe seen from other examples inLjubljana such as theCentromerkur department store(1903) in Prešeren Square andthe City Savings Bank (1904). Inthe case of the law faculty theporch also creates a new mainentrance, since the originalentrance to the building wasone storey lower. Today thebuilding is entered from araised platform below which anelectricity substation is located.The entrance is through whatused to be a window on thefirst floor.

With its large surfacesdefined by a structural grid ofsix-metre intervals, the newerLjudska Pravica building waslikewise imperfectly suited to itsnew function. Its considerabledepth did not permit naturalillumination of all internalspaces and the architect wascompelled to use light shafts atseveral points. Moreover someof the pillars appeared in themiddle of lecture rooms.Structural engineer MiranPezdirc was able to removesome of them but even so thegrid of pillars limited the inter-nal layout options and amongother things determined thebreadth of corridors and stair-cases. The “students’ axis”gives access to two lecturerooms on the ground floor and,via the staircase, to three

upstairs lecture rooms. Thelibrary on the ground floor andthe criminology institute,housed in the same building,have their own entrance onKapiteljska Street. In the base-ment is a car park with spacefor 106 cars. The car park alsoextends into the former yard,which the architect has almostentirely covered with an apron.The once-visible concrete skele-ton on the faćade has beendressed in stone. Not only hasthis covered the poorly pre-served visible concrete, it hasadapted the facade to theimportance of the building’snew content. As on the court-yard frontage of theSecessionist building, the archi-tect has employed a new fireescape as a special architecturalelement.

Andrej Mlakar also drewup plans for interior fittings.Here he used standard materialssuch as ultrapas and laminatedboards, and with a simple butelegant design created practicaland interesting surroundings.More care went into the designof the hall, the conference roomon the ground floor, the restau-rant and the library (where wealso see imaginatively designedtriangular chandeliers).

The conversion of the oldprintworks into premises for thelaw faculty was not a simpletask in the architectural sense.Many also doubted the appro-priateness of moving the facultyto the edge of the old towncentre. Nevertheless, at a timewhen poor conditions in the citymean that investments are mov-ing to the outskirts of the city,this project, together with theneighbouring Kapitelj building,represents one of the few con-struction projects to havebrought new life to the old partof the city. And for this reasonit is all the more important.

I

O Ž I V L J E N I M A R T I N P E G I U Sprof. dr. Milček Komelj

ne ga pr vih zna me ni tih prav ni -kov slo ven ske ga ro du Mar ti naPe gi u sa je bil ki par Mir sad Be giÊ pri si ljen obli ko va ti le iz

la stne pred sta ve. Nje gov kip, ki obvla -du je ploščad pred pre nov lje no stav boPrav ne fa kul te te, ne po me ni t.i. re kon -struk ci je (kakršne so šte vil ne upo do bi -tve Prešer na, kjer so pred stav no in tu i -ci jo av tor jev za me je va li pi sno izročiloin ne za ne slji ve, ven dar v kul tur ni za ve -sti uve ljav lje ne li kov ne pre dlo ge), am -pak je ume tni ko va do mišlji ja lah koraz pr la kri la v ne o me je nem ra zma hu,ki ga je usme ri la le za vest o mi slečemumu, uje tem v izročilo hu ma ni stične ga16. sto le tja. Pri tem pa si av tor svo je -ga ju na ka ni za mi slil le kot splošen(pro to)tip, mar več ga je kot iz kušenpor tre tist re a li stično kon kre tno ustvar -jal no in di vi du a li zi ral. Za mi slil si je fi zi -o no mi jo, ki naj bi iz bre zna nek da njo -sti pri kli ca la ne vi de no, a za to nič manjživo in od slej na no vo oti plji vo obličje,ki naj bi z ose bno stno pre pričlji vo stjoizžare va lo pre dvsem učenja kov du hov -ni značaj in ve ličino.

Ki par je va pred stav na moč jeener gično ožive la v po du hov ljen sta -ro stni por tret ime ni tneža, ki je ne ko li -ko sključen le iz žive zve da vo sti, kotbi želel po zor no raz bra ti naš čas inra do ve dno pre mo tri ti da našnje pro fe -sor je in štu den te. Mo gočno bro na stopo pr sje je v po u dar ku svo je snov no -sti po ne kod sli ko vi to raz braz da no in zri tmično razčle ni tvi jo na ka zu je slo ve -sno dra pe ri jo z in si gni ja mi, iznadsrčaste ga ov ra tni ka pri ra sli su ge stiv niobraz pa že na pr vi po gled učin ku je zživo stjo du ha.

Ple me ni to ugla je ni mož je za jetv ka no ne re ne sančnih ki par skih in sli -kar skih por tre tov (ob nje go vih prežar -je no upa dlih raz po te gnje nih po te zahse nam npr. pre bu di jo v spo mi nu ElGre co va obličja) ter je vi de ti prav to li -ko fi lo zof ali ume tnik kot sve tnik alipre dan učenjak; vse ka kor pa je ari sto -krat du ha, skon cen tri ran z in ten ziv nimpo gle dom pod po zor no namrščenimučenjaškim čelom v ne zna nost, skri tov kon ste la ci jah zvezd, ki jih raz bi raastro lo gi ja, ter v ka o su ra zme rij me do -se bne ga sve ta, ki ga ra zrešuje prav nave da. Sko zi Be giÊev po gled se v svo jipla stični oti plji vo sti in du hov ni skriv -no sti pre ra ja kot hkra ti oster in blag,za mišljen in odločen, slo ve sno do sto -jan stven in vzvišeno raz košen in ven -dar po no tra nje no asket ski, v du hu re -ne sančnih por tre tov hkra ti odma knje nohi sto ričen in v živi ose bni izra zno sti, kise po se bej izri su je v nje go vem ostrempro fi lu, tu di ognje vi to pri o stren.

Učenja ko vo bra da to po pr sje jepre mišlje no na meščeno na pod sta vekne ko li ko po stra ni, da bi lah ko živa hnimož s pro dir nim po gle dom pri te gnilčim širši pro stor. Ker pa je s hrb tnostra njo obr njen na uli co, je ki par od pr -ti no začel ne pra zni ne, ki bi dru gačezviška ze va la v mi mo i doče, do mi sel noza pol nil z re li e fom pe sni ka Prešer na, kiga no si Pe gi us na svo ji dra go ce niopra vi po do bno, kot so no si li svečeni -ki na ško fov skih oblačilih izve ze ne po -do be sve tni kov. S tem pa je tu di na -ka zal, da je bil spo me nik po stav ljen vle tu pe sni ko ve ga ju bi le ja, ter spo mnilna oko liščino, da je bil naš pe sniškige nij po po kli cni izo braz bi prav nik.

Pre dvsem pa nam ki par je va ne -pre dvi dlji va in tu i ci ja pre bu ja spo zna -nje, da nam je po sta vil du hov ni državo -tvor ni te melj za da našnjo državo, za

ka te re ve ljav ni prav ni red naj bi skr be -lo pra vo, dr. Fran ce Prešeren. Tru bar -jev so do bnik Pe gi us, ki je pričel pi sa titu di v nemščini, da bi ga ra zu me li la -tinščine ne va je ni ro ja ki, te ga se ve da nimo gel slu ti ti, za to svo je ga Prešer na(vi dne ga s ce ste nad izvi rom vo de podpod stav kom), ki mu ga je opr ta la zgo -do vi na kot na po ved zanj še ne ra zvi -dne pri ho dno sti slo ven ske ga na ro da,iz ka te re ga je izšel in se nje go vih kra -jev tu di v sta ro sti spo mi njal, sam se -ve da ne vi di. Oba por tre ta pa se vočeh da našnje ga gle dal ca, ta ko kotobličja vseh go rečih, le v du hov ni zgo -do vi ni soočenih mi sle cev in ustvar jal -cev iz ra zličnih sto le tij, s svo jo med se -boj no po men lji vo stjo aso ci a tiv no po ve -zu je ta v apo kri fno sim bo lično, s po pol -no pre da no stjo zgo do vin ske mu po -slan stvu za pečate no spo ročilo.

Vse stran ski učenjak Mar tin Pe gi us je bilro jen v Pol ho vem Grad cu le ta 1508 ali 1523 inje umrl 1592 v Salz bur gu, kjer je bil spr va pi sarin na to knežji sve to va lec. 20 let je živel na Ba -var skem. Kot av tor prav nih spi sov je skušalslužiti dve ma do mo vi na ma: ro dni deželi in kra -jem, kjer se je izo bra zil. Nje go vo osre dnje prav -niško de lo raz prav lja o služno stih; na pi sal je šemnogo drugih pravnih del, ki so ga proslavilekot pravnega učitelja, ter pr vi pre ve del Ju sti ni ja -nov ko deks. Ukvar jal se je tu di z astro lo gi jo inokul ti zmom (v gr bu je imel ne to pir ja) in je bil,ob dolžen čarov ništva, sku paj z ženo v Nemčijipa hnjen v ječo; tam je umrl – brez procesa inobsodbe, kar jasno kaže na to, da so bileobtožbe proti njemu izmišljene.

E

M A R T I N P E G I U S R E V I V E DProf Milček Komelj

hile working on his por-trait of one of the firstfamous Slovenian lawyers,the sculptor Mirsad BegiÊ

could rely only on his own creativeimagination. His sculpture on the fore-court in front of the new Faculty ofLaw is not a reconstruction – unlikethe numerous portraits of Prešeren inwhich the imaginative intuition of theartists is restricted by literary heritageand by unreliable (though in culturegenerally acknowledged) artisticsources. The artist’s imagination couldspread its wings in complete freedomand was influenced only by the knowl-edge that the figure portrayed hadbeen a genius belonging to thehumanist tradition of the 16th century.The artist did not imagine Pegiusmerely as a generalised (proto) type:as an experienced portraitist, he triedto give him a concrete, individualisedappearance. He designed a physiogno-my that, from the depths of the past,draws unknown but still living andnewly palpable features which, throughconvincing individuality, radiate ascholar’s spirit and greatness.

The power of the sculptor’simagination came to life in a spiritualportrait of the aged dignitary, whoseshoulders stoop in keen curiosity asif he were trying to understand ourtime and observing today’s teachersand students with a measure ofcuriosity. In places the surface of themajestic bronze bust is pleasantlyrugged and, by means of a rhythmicdynamism, reveals ceremonial draperybearing insignia. The expressive facerising above the heart-shaped collarimmediately affects us with its vivaci-ty of spirit.

This noble refined man is por-trayed according to the maxims ofRenaissance portraits in sculpture andpainting; his radiant, elongated featuresremind us of faces painted by El Greco.He seems to be both a philosopher andan artist, a saint and a dedicated schol-ar. He is undoubtedly an aristocrat ofgreat spirit, his powerful gaze seatedbeneath a tentative, furrowed brow,focused on the unknown somewhere inthe stellar constellations studied byastrology and on the chaos of individualrelationships governed by the law.Through BegiÊ’s imagination, the por-trait, in its plastic palpability and spiri-tual mysteriousness, emerges as bothstern and kind; immersed in thought butdecisive; ceremonially dignified, lofty andsplendid. It is nevertheless asceticallyintroverted and, in the spirit ofRenaissance portraits, historically distant.Its lifelike personal expression is pas-sionately accentuated, which is particu-larly evident in the bust’s sharp profile.

The scholar’s bearded bust isdeliberately placed on the pedestal atan angle so that the gaze of this livelyman can take in as much as possible.But since his back is turned to thestreet, the sculptor skilfully filled thehole, which would otherwise gape atpassers-by, with a relief of the poetPrešeren. Pegius carries it on his splen-did cloak in the same way bishopsused to display embroidered images ofsaints on their vestments. With this thesculptor indicated that the monumentwas erected in the year that saw the200th anniversary of the poet’s birth,reminding us that the great poet wasalso a lawyer by profession.

More importantly however, thesculptor’s unpredictable intuitionreminds us that it was Dr FrancePrešeren who created the spiritual and

political foundation of the currentstate, whose legal order depends onits lawyers. Pegius, a contemporary ofTrubar, who wrote also in German sothat his fellow countrymen, whose earswere not used to Latin, could under-stand him, could not possibly haveknown this. For this reason he cannotsee the image of Prešeren, which isvisible from the street, above thefountain below the pedestal. Thisimage is placed there by history andrepresents, unknown to Pegius, a pre-diction of the future of the Sloveniannation, a nation to whom this greatscholar belonged and whose land hismemory often revisited in his old age.In the eyes of the present-day observ-er, both portraits, like the depictionsof all fervent philosophers and artistsfrom different centuries who meet onlyin cultural history, are connectedthrough the association of meaninginto an apocryphally symbolic messagesealed with their total devotion totheir historical mission.

Martin Pegius the scholar was born inPolhov Gradec in 1508 or 1523 and died in 1592in Salzburg, where he had begun his career as anotary and risen to the position of DucalCounsellor. He spent 20 years in Bavaria. In hislegal treatises, he tried to serve both home-lands: the land in which he was born and theland in which he was educated. His main legaltreatise also discusses many other legal works,strengthening his great fame as a legal scholar.He wrote about the legal aspect of servitudeand was the first to translate the Justinian Code.He was also interested in astrology andoccultism (his coat-of-arms featured a bat). Hewas accused of witchcraft and imprisonedtogether with his wife. He died in a Germanprison without having been tried and sentenced.This clearly shows that the accusations againsthim were unfounded.

W

Realizacije • Vrtec Rožna dolina,

Ljubljana, 1981

• Vodarna Medlog,Celje, 1984

• Tržnica Kamnik,Kamnik, 1989

• Stanovanjska soseska na Ledarski ulici,Ljubljana, 1995

• Bežigrajski dvor;stanovanjski bloki, 1995,garaže, 1995,zunanja ureditev, 1996

• Poslovno trgovski objektna Litijski cesti,Ljubljana, 1996–1998

• Poslovno stanovanjskiobjekti;med Metelkovo cestoin Kotnikovo ulico,poslovno stanovanjskiobjekt E, 1997,poslovno stanovanjski objekt D, 2000–2001,poslovni objekt P, 2000,Ljubljana, 1997–2001

• Pravna fakulteta,prenova Tiskarne Ljudskapravica,Ljubljana, 1997–2000

• Poslovno servisni objektVodovod-Kanalizacija,Ljubljana, 2001

• Enodružinska hiša na Škofljici,Ljubljana, 2001

Projects • Rožna Dolina nursery

school, Ljubljana, 1981

• Medlog water supply centre, Celje, 1984

• Kamnik market,Kamnik, 1989

• Residential neighbourhoodon Ledarska Street,Ljubljana, 1995

• Bežigrajski Dvor;blocks of flats, 1995,garages, 1995,landscaping, 1996

• Business and shoppingcentre on Litijska Street,Ljubljana, 1996–1998

• Business and residentialareas; between Metelkova andKontikova Streets, office and residentialbuilding E, 1997, office and residentialbuilding D, 2000–2001,office building P, 2000, Ljubljana, 1997–2001

• Faculty of Law,restoration of the LjudskaPravica Printing House,Ljubljana, 1997–2000

• Office and services building watersupply/sewage,Ljubljana, 2001

• Single family homein Škofljica,Ljubljana, 2001

Razstave• Trgi za naša mesta,

skupinska razstava,Beograd, Delft,Novi Sad, Skopje, 1982

• Razstava dobitnikov priznanj Zlata ptica,Novo mesto, 1982

• Nekatere nove tendencev novejši slovenskiarhitekturi,Piran, Rijeka, Beograd,1984

• Salon arhitekture,Beograd, 1986

• DAL, razstava Društvaarhitektov Ljubljane,Ljubljana, 1986, 1988,2001

• Razstava za nagradoPiranesi,Piran, 1997

Exhibitions• Squares for our cities,

Joint exhibition, Belgrade, Delft, Novi Sad, Skopje, 1982

• Exhibition of Golden Bird award winners,Novo mesto, 1982

• Some new trends inrecent Slovenian architecture,Piran, Rijeka, Belgrade,1984

• Architecture showroomBelgrade, 1986

• DAL, Exhibition of theArchitects’ Society ofLjubljana, 1986, 1988,2001

• Piranesi Award Exhibition,Piran, 1997

Andrej MlakarRojen/born on 13/9/1954.Diplomiral leta 1979 naFakulteti za arhitekturo vLjubljani.Graduated from the Facultyof Architecture in Ljubljanain 1979.

Poslovni naslovBusiness addressKROG d.o.o.Krakovski nasip 221000 Ljubljana, SlovenijaGSM 041/796 095Tel + fax: 01/426 57 61

Priznanja za arhitekturoZlata pticaLjubljana, 1982

Jugoslovansko mladinsko priznanje za arhitekturoZagreb, 1984

Priznanje za razstavljenodelo in postavitev razstave;DAL, razstava Društvaarhitektov Ljubljane,Ljubljana, 1988

Architecture awardsGolden Bird AwardLjubljana, 1982

Yugoslav Youth Award forArchitecture Zagreb, 1984

Award for exhibition work and exhibition lay-out; DAL, Exhibition of theArchitects’ Society ofLjubljana, 1988

Založila / Published by

Pravna fakulteta / The Faculty of LawUniverza v Ljubljani / University of Ljubljana

Poljanski nasip 21000 Ljubljana, Sloveniatel.: +386 (0) 1/420 31 00fax.: +386 (0) 1/420 31 15e-mail: pf-dekanat@uni-lj.si

Za Pravno fakulteto / For The Faculty of Lawprof. dr. Marko Ilešičprof. dr. Janez Kranjc

Arhitektura / ArchitectureAndrej Mlakar / KROG

Sodelavci arhitekture / Architectural teamFerdo Jordan

Tatjana MahovičMarko Kogovšek

Projektivni biro LUZ d.d.

Statika / StaticsMiran Pezdirc

Umetniško vodstvo in oblikovanje katalogaArt direction and design catalogue

Edi Berk / KROG

Besedilo / Textprof. dr. Janez Kranjc

Andrej Hrauskyprof. dr. Milček Komelj

Fotografije / PhotographyMiran Kambič

Lektura / EditingMaja Kraigher

Prevod / TranslationMatej Accetto in / and

Amidas, Ljubljana

Grafična priprava / Graphic pre-pressGrafika Paradoks, Ljubljana

Tisk / Printed byGorenjski tisk, Kranj

Realizacija / Produced byKROG, Ljubljana

2002

Pravna fakultetaThe Faculty of Law

U n i v e r z a v L j u b l j a n iU n i v e r s i t y o f L j u b l j a n a

•