Constitutional Aspects of Leave to Appeal in the Republic of Slovenia

Vrhovni sud ne može istodobno i u jednaku opsegu osiguravati individualni i javni interes. Iskustva pokazuju kako su nužna ograničenja pristupa Vrhovnom sudu jer hiperprodukcija sudske prakse, kada i njezin tvorac već gubi pamćenje, vodi u normativni kaos. Slovenski zakonodavac zato se odlučio za uvođenje sustava dopuštene revizije koji Vrhovnom sudu daje ulogu precedentnog suda. Za ostvarivanje te uloge ključno je, između ostalog, da Vrhovni sud ne mora obrazlagati rješenja o nedopuštenosti revizije. Kada je odbio prijedlog za ocjenu ustavnosti odredbe koja Vrhovnom sudu omogućuje izostanak obrazloženja takvih rješenja, Ustavni je sud obranio sustav dopuštene revizije. I istodobno naveo – manje je više. Za potpuno ostvarenje precedentne uloge Vrhovnog suda još će ipak biti potrebni daljnji normativni, organizacijski i metanormativni koraci.It is not possible for the Supreme Court to serve simultaneously, and to the same extent, both the private and the public purpose of adjudication. As practice has shown, restrictions of access to the Supreme Court are inevitable, since hyperproduction of its case law (when even the Court which starts showing signs of memory loss), leads to a normative chaos. For this reason the Slovenian legislature decided to adopt the „leave to appeal system”, which in facts transforms the role of the Supreme Court to that of creating precedents. What is necessary to ensure that role is the possibility that the Supreme Court is not obliged to provide a reasoning in orders denying the leave to appeal. The Constitutional Court rejected the petition challenging the legal provision providing for the omission of reasoning in decisions denying leave to appeal, and hence preserved the „leave to appeal system”, clearly stating: Less is more. For a full-fledged precedential role of the Supreme Court to develop, however, further steps might be necessary – steps of a normative, organizational and meta-normative nature