Povzetek: Kazniva dejanja zoper premoženje, opredeljena v 23. poglavju Kazenskega zakonika, kot svojo temeljno dobrino varujejo premoženje države, pravne osebe ali posameznika kot skupek lastninskih pravic na premičnih in nepremičnih stvareh, varstvo pa zajema tudi stvarne pravice na tuji stvari, obligacijske pravice, pravice intelektualne lastnine in korporacijske pravice. Premoženjski delikti so v primerjalni zakonodaji urejeni izredno pestro, medtem ko je varstvo v našem KZ-1 zastavljeno zelo tradicionalno, posledica tega pa je, da številnih nepravnih posegov v premoženje, ki nepravnostno kličejo po kaznivosti, ni mogoče subsumirati pod nobeno kaznivo dejanje v naši kazenski zakonodaji. Po problematiki izstopa prilastitveni namen pri premoženjskih deliktih, predvsem pri kaznivem dejanju tatvine po 204. členu KZ-1, ki iz dosega inkriminacije izloča vse protipravne posege v oblast nad stvarjo, ki niso izvršeni z namenom prilastitve (neupravičena uporaba tuje stvari, poškodovanje tuje stvari in podobno). V prispevku se avtor ukvarja tudi z razmerjem med tatvino in neupravičeno uporabo tuje stvari (oziroma tatvino rabe), ki je v naši kazenski zakonodaji neustrezno urejeno, ter s skrajno nenavadnim neobstojem inkriminacije tatvine storitve.

Ključne besede: prilastitev, tatvina, kaznivo dejanje, kazenski zakonik, premoženjski delikt

Title: Appropriation as the Bottleneck of the Slovenian Property Criminal Law

Abstract: Criminal offences against property, as defined in Chapter 23 of the Criminal Code, protect the property of the State, a legal person or an individual as a set of property rights, as well as rights of obligations, intellectual property rights, and corporate rights. Property offences are exceptionally diversified in comparative law, while protection in the Slovenian Criminal Code is very traditional, with the result that a number of unlawful interventions in property cannot be subsumed under any of the criminal offences in Slovenian criminal legislation. A major problem presents the appropriation purpose defined in the criminal offence of theft under Article 204 of the Criminal Code, which excludes from the scope of criminalisation all unlawful interference into the property of another that has not been committed for the purpose of confiscation or appropriation. We will also present problematic relationship between the criminal offence of theft and the unjustified use of property belonging to another (theft of usage), which is inadequately regulated in our criminal law, and the extremely unusual absence of incrimination of the theft of services of another.

Keywords: appropriation, theft, criminal offence, Criminal Code, property offence