POVZETEK

V raziskovalnem delu smo na osnovi metodologije iz študije »Evalvacija zadovoljstva s šolo: Metodološki in vsebinski izzivi« (Trnavčevič et al., 2008) pripravili visoko strukturirane ankete, s katerimi smo merili zadovoljstvo treh pomembnih deležnikov šole: dijakov, učiteljev in staršev. Kot izhodišče za postavljanje raziskovalnih hipotez smo uporabili model Storitvene verige dobička, s tem da so nas zanimale samo zveze med zadovoljstvom zaposlenih in zadovoljstvom odjemalcev (dijakov in staršev). Z metodo bivariatne korelacije smo potrdili zveze med zadovoljstvom dijakov in zadovoljstvom staršev, nismo pa potrdili zveze med zadovoljstvom učiteljev in zadovoljstvom dijakov in zadovoljstvom staršev. S prepoznavanjem storitvene vrzeli smo identificirali kritične dejavnike zadovoljstva, ki so zanesljiva informacijska osnova za ukrepanje na področju zagotavljanja kakovosti.

Ključne besede:
zadovoljstvo s šolo, storitvena veriga dobička, analiza kritičnih dejavnikov zadovoljstva, zveza med zadovoljstvom učiteljev in dijakov, staršev

ABSTRACT

The empirical section of the paper, which is based on the methodology from the study »Evalvacija zadovoljstva s šolo: Metodološki in vsebinski izzivi« / »School Satisfaction Evaluation: Methodological and content challenges« (Trnavčevič et al., 2008), presents a highly structured survey prepared for measuring the satisfaction of three important school stakeholders: students, teachers and parents. Research hypotheses have been set on the basis of the model »The Service Profit Chain«, but we have been interested only in the relationship among employee satisfaction and customer satisfaction (students and parents). With the method of bivariate correlation, the link between students' satisfaction and parents' satisfaction has been confirmed, but the links between teachers' satisfaction and students' satisfaction and parents' satisfaction has not been confirmed. By recognising service gap, we have identified the critical factors of satisfaction, which are the base for improvements in quality of educations.

Key words:
satisfaction with school, service profit chain, analysis of critical satisfaction factors, correlation between teacher and pupils, as well as parents

Povzetek
Predstavil bom dokazno breme v kazenskem postopku in podrobneje predstavil. kdo ga nosi v posameznih fazah postopka. Osredotočil se bom predvsem na sedaj veljavni slovenski pravni red, vendar pa je potrebno za celovito razumenje predstaviti tudi nekaj kazenskih postopkov, ki so se razvijali skozi zgodovino in jih danes v njihovi čisti obliki praktično ne najdemo nikjer več, najdemo le nekatere njihove posamezne elemente. Torej začenši z zgodovinskim pregledom kazenskih postopkov je potrebno izpostaviti akuzatorni oziroma adversarni postopek, ter inkvizitorni, ki je akuzatornemu popolno nasprotje. Sledi del o tem, kdo v slovenskem pravnem redu nosi dokazno breme. Najpogosteje je to državni tožilec, ki opravlja funkcijo pregona, redkeje pa tudi oškodovanec in sicer tedaj, ko je Kazenski zakonik v posameznih členih izrecno določil, da se kaznivo dejanje preganja na zasebno tožbo (primer kazniva dejanja zoper čast in dobro ime) in v primeru, da državni tožilec iz različnih razlogov odstopi od pregona in pregon v točno določen času nadaljuje oškodovanec. Za tem govorim še na splošno o dokaznem bremenu, v katerih pravnih virih je to urejeno, torej tako v Zakonu o kazenskem postopku (ZKP), kot tudi v Ustavi RS. Na koncu pa sledi še pregled celotnega postopka v slovenskem pravnem redu, pregled posameznih faz in višina dokaznega bremena oziroma dokaznih standardov v posameznih delih kazenskega postopka.

Ključne besede: kazensko procesno pravo, dokazno breme, državni tožilec, kazenski postopek...

Abstract:
I will present a burden of proof in criminal proceeding and  who bears it in individual stages of proceeding in more detail. I will mostly focus on Slovenian legislation which is in force these days. However, to be entirety understandable I also need to introduce some criminal proceedings, developing through history which nowadays are not to be found anywhere as a whole but only partially  in inforce legislation. Therefore, beginning with the historical overview of criminal proceedings we need to emphasize an adversary and an inquest proceeding which are a total opposite to the adversary one. Then follows the part where I present who bears the burden of proof in Slovenian criminal proceeding. Most frequently this is a public procecutor who has a prosecution function with a few exceptions. Hardly ever does the burden of proof bear the injured party and this is when the Criminal code (KZ-1) explicitly defines that a criminal act is persecuted by private prosecution (for example, criminal acts against honour and a good name) and in case when a public prosecutor withdraws from the prosecution of a criminal proceeding with a reason (for example, lack of evidence) and the criminal proceeding is continued by the injured party. Later on I will explain the burden of proof in general and what legislation it is defined by, that is the Criminal procedure act (ZKP) as well as the Constitution of Republic of Slovenia. To conclude, I will present a short overview of the whole process of Slovenian criminal proceeding and the amount of the  burden of proof  or standards of proof  in individual stages of criminal proceeding.

Keywords: criminal procedural law, burden of proof, public prosecutor, criminal proceeding...