K POSTAVENIU SVEDKA V SPRÁVNOM KONANÍ (JE MOŽNÉ V PRIESTUPKOVOM KONANÍ POUŽIŤ AKO DÔKAZNÝ PROSTRIEDOK SVEDECKÚ VÝPOVEĎ POLICAJTA, KTORÝ OBJASŇOVAL PRIESTUPOK?)
Status of witness in administrative proceedings (The possibility to use the testimony of a policeman, who clarifies the offense in the procedure on misdemeanour, as evidence)
Languages of publication
The article is focused on a witness in administrative proceedings and in generally it deals with the basic principles of the activities of public authorities and in particular the principles and rules of the activities of public administration authorities, carried out by misdemeanour procedure. The theoretical part is based on the characteristics of the rule of law, the principles and rules of the right to good administration and right to a fair trial as well. On this basis, at the very first place, the article is focused on some procedural provisions related to the proceeding on misdemeanours, especially on the documents for a decision, evidences and procedural standing of witnesses. The legislature which encompasses such an administrative offences is represented by the Misdemeanours Act No. 372/1990 Coll. (Act on Misdemeanours) and by Act No. 71/1967 on Administrative Proceedings. The aim of the article is to provide the theoretical analysis of the part of decision-making activities of administrative authorities as well as case law which, in the default of evidence, prefer instead of the rule in dubio pro reo, the use of non-objective evidences. The author pronounced opposition to the conclusions and approaches that are expressed in a large part of administrative decisions and the court decisions, in applying the principle of material truth and the free evaluation of evidence, and points the negative trend in breach of the principle of legality. The reasoning described in the article is also based on the analysis of sub-issues such as non-precise use of terms of law, bias of administration employees, evaluation of evidence and so on. The focus of argumentation to the detriment of using the testimony of a policeman, who clarifies offense, is a crosscutting principle of legality.
116 – 137
Publication order reference