UNIVERZA V MARIBORU

PRAVNA FAKULTETA

MAGISTRSKA NALOGA

KAZENSKOPRAVNO VARSTVO OKOLJA - ANALIZA UREDITVE PO KAZENSKEM ZAKONIKU KZ-1 (PO NOVELI KZ-1C) IN

DIREKTIVI 2008/99/ES EVROPSKEGA PARLAMENTA IN SVETA TER ANALIZA UINKOVITOSTI KAZENSKOPRAVNEGA

VARSTVA OKOLJA

Avtorica: Karmen Krajnc Mentor: prof. dr. Damjan Koroec Somentor: prof. dr. Rajko Knez Maribor, maj 2016

II

ZAHVALA

Zahvaljujem se mentorjema prof. dr. Damjanu Korocu in prof. dr. Rajku Knezu za

strokovno pomo in nasvete pri izdelavi magistrske naloge.

Zahvaljujem se tudi moji druini za spodbudo pri tudiju in potrpljenje v asu pisanja

magistrske naloge.

III

POVZETEK

Varstvo okolja v okviru upravnega prava ni prepreilo kodljivih posegov v okolje in ni

prineslo priakovanih rezultatov v obliki zmanjanja onesnaevanja okolja. Kot zadnje in

skrajno sredstvo za varovanje okolja se tako sprejemamo predpisi, ki teje, za okolje

kodljive posege v okolje, opredeljujejo kot kazniva dejanja.

Medtem, ko na iri mednarodni ravni (e) ni pravno zavezujoega predpisa, ki bi izrecno

narekoval kazenskopravno varstvo okolja, v Evropski uniji (EU) e nekaj let obstajajo

pravno zavezujoa pravila, ki dravam lanicam nalagajo tovrstni nain varstva okolja. V

okviru EU na primarni pravni ravni podlaga za kazenskopravno varstvo okolja izhaja iz

drugega odstavka 83. lena Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije (PDEU), na sekundarni

ravni pa iz dveh direktiv. Prva direktiva, Direktiva t. 2008/99/ES Evropskega parlamenta

in Sveta z dne 19.11.2008 o kazenskopravnem varstvu okolja se nanaa na

kazenskopravno varstvo zraka, zemlje, vode, ivali in rastlin. Druga direktiva, Direktiva

2009/123/ES o spremembah Direktive 2005/35/ES o onesnaevanju morja z ladij in o

uvedbi kazni za kritve dravam lanicam EU narekuje uvedbo kazenskopravnega

varstva morja pred onesnaevanjem z morskih plovil. Obe omenjeni direktivi zahtevata le

minimalno harmonizacijo in tako dopuata doloene razlike v kazenskopravnem varstvu

okolja med dravami lanicami. Nobena od omenjenih direktiv tudi ne zahteva uvedbe

kazenske odgovornosti pravnih oseb v dravah lanicah, ki tovrstne odgovornosti pravnih

oseb ne poznajo. Ena od znailnosti predvsem Direktive 2008/99/ES je poleg blanketne

zakonodajne tehnike tudi vsebnost tevilnih blanketnih izpolnitvenih pojmov, kar poleg

e omenjenih znailnosti direktiv lahko vpliva na uinkovitost kazenskopravnega varstva

okolja na ravni celotne EU.

IV

V slovenskem Kazenskem zakoniku (KZ-1) je varstvo okolja opredeljeno v 32. poglavju

z naslovom Kazniva dejanja zoper okolje, prostor in naravne dobrine. Opisi doloenih

kaznivih dejanj iz tega poglavja so povzeti po e omenjenih direktivah skupaj s

posameznimi znailnostmi, ki lahko predstavljajo ovire pri uporabi zakonskih dolob.

Tako opisi posameznih kaznivih dejanj vsebujejo blanketne izpolnitvene pojme, doloeni

opisi kaznivih dejanj so zapisani v blanketni zakonski tehniki. Opise kaznivih dejanj v

zadnje omenjenih primerih dopolnjujejo blanketne izpolnitvene norme upravnega prava,

ki niso zapisane jasno in nedvoumno. Vse te okoliine in tudi nizke kazni, ki se izrekajo

storilcem tovrstnih kaznivih dejanj vplivajo na dejstvo, da je kljub nezadostnemu

preventivnemu uinku upravnih sankcij, upravno pravo e vedno vodilno pri varstvu

okolja.

V

ABSTRACT

Environmental protection in the context of administrative law has not prevented harmful

activities affecting the environment and has not brought the expected results in a form of

reduced environmental pollution. Thus regulations which define severe harmful activities

affecting the environment as criminal offences shall be adopted as the last and extreme

measure of environmental protection.

While on a broader international level there is (yet) no legally binding regulation that

would expressly dictate the environmental protection through criminal law, in the

European Union (EU) legally binding rules that impose such type of environmental

protection on the Member States already exist for some years now. In the context of the

EU at the primary legal level the basis for environmental protection through criminal law

arises from Article 83(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

(TFEU), and on the secondary level of the two directives. The first directive, Directive

2008/99/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on the

protection of the environment through criminal law refers to criminal law protection of

air, soil, water, animals and plants. The second directive, Directive 2009/123/EC

amending Directive 2005/35/EC on ship-source pollution and on the introduction of

penalties for infringements imposes the introduction of marine protection through

criminal law against ship-source pollution on EU Member States. Both mentioned

directives require only minimum harmonisation and thus allow specific differences in the

environmental protection through criminal law between the Member States. None of the

two mentioned directives also require the introduction of criminal liability of legal

entities in the Member States which are unfamiliar with this type of liability of legal

entities. One of the characteristics, in particular of the Directive 2008/99/EC in addition

to blanket legislative technique, is also the content of numerous blanket implementation

concepts, which in addition to the already aforementioned characteristics of directive may

VI

affect the efficacy of the environmental protection through criminal law at the level of the

entire EU.

The Slovenian Criminal Code (KZ-1) defines the environmental protection in Chapter 32

titled Criminal Offences against the Environment, Space and Natural Resources. The

descriptions of specific criminal offences set out in this Chapter are summarized from the

above mentioned directives together with individual characteristics that may pose

obstacles in applying statutory provisions. Thus, the descriptions of individual criminal

offences include blanket implementation concepts, and specific descriptions of criminal

offences are written in a blanket statutory technique. The descriptions of criminal

offences in the last-mentioned cases are completed with blanket implementation

standards of the administrative law which are not written clearly and unambiguously. All

these circumstances and also low penalties which are imposed on the perpetrators of such

criminal offences have an impact on the fact that despite the insufficient precautionary

effect of administrative sanctions, the administrative law still leads in the environmental

protection.

VII

KAZALO

1. Uvod ................................................................................................................................................. 11.1. Kazenskopravno varstvo okolja ............................................................................................... 11.2. Socioloki vidik kazenskopravnega varstva okolja (zakaj se kae potreba po normativnem urejanju tega podroja in zakaj se uveljavlja tako pozno) ........................................ 41.3. Zakaj se poleg upravnega in civilnega prava kae potreba po kazenskopravnem varstvu okolja in korelacije med njimi v Republiki Sloveniji ......................................................... 81.4. Oris obravnavane problematike in predstavitev ciljev magistrske naloge ............................. 121.5. Metode dela ............................................................................................................................ 13

2. Pravna naela, pomembna za kazenskopravno varstvo okolja ...................................................... 152.1. Naela kazenskega prava ....................................................................................................... 16

2.1.1. Naelo legitimnosti in omejenosti represije ................................................................... 162.1.2. Naelo zakonitosti .......................................................................................................... 162.1.3. Naelo humanosti ........................................................................................................... 172.1.4. Naelo subjektivne ali krivdne odgovornosti ................................................................. 172.1.5. Naelo individualizacije kazenskih sankcij .................................................................... 18

2.2. Naela, ki se nanaajo na okoliino, da je del suverenosti s podroja varstva okolja prenesen na EU, t.j. naela razmejitve pristojnosti na podroju okoljskega prava med EU in dravami lanicami oziroma naela, ki opredeljujejo meje pristojnosti EU na podroju varstva okolja ............................................................................................................ 18

2.2.1. Naelo prenosa pristojnosti ............................................................................................ 182.2.2. Naelo subsidiarnosti in sorazmernosti (proporcionalnosti) .......................................... 192.2.3. Naelo integracije .........................................................................................................