Missing Evidence In Slovenia

Summary

In Slovenia, under the ZUP, administrative authorities must have all relevant evidence before making decisions. Missing evidence, such as export customs declarations, can lead to an incomplete factual situation, potentially affecting rights or obligations. While stating missing attachments is significant, providing contrary evidence can strengthen your position. The principle of free assessment of evidence requires comprehensive evaluation. If decisions are based on incomplete evidence, they may be annulled or revised. Consider discussing how this issue impacts your rights or obligations with a legal expert.

Full Conversation

Is it sufficient to state that attachments (e.g. export customs declarations) are missing, or must the content of the OLAF report be challenged with contrary evidence? According to Article * of the ZUP, the administrative authority must establish the true factual situation. According to Article * of the ZUP, the principle of free assessment of evidence applies – the authority is not bound by individual evidence and must assess all evidence comprehensively.
In Slovenia, under the ZUP (General Administrative Procedure Act), stating that attachments are missing can be significant in challenging a decision if these documents are crucial to the evidentiary assessment. However, providing contrary evidence could strengthen your position.
- The administrative authority must establish a true factual situation.
- Missing evidence could lead to an incomplete factual situation.
- Challenging the OLAF report with additional evidence may be beneficial.
Would you like to discuss how this issue is impacting your rights or obligations further?
Yes
It sounds like you're dealing with a complex issue involving missing evidence in an administrative procedure under the ZUP in Slovenia. This could potentially affect your rights or obligations if the decision was based on incomplete or improperly assessed evidence.
Could you explain more about the specific rights or obligations being impacted by this evidentiary issue?