Pozdravljeni,
kako je letos z izpitom APT glede na to, da so predavanja v zimskem semestru, po programu pa bi naj bil ta predmet spredavan v poletnem semestru? Na vpisu je bilo rečeno, da so predavanja izjemoma sedaj, ker potem ni profesorja. Kako pa je z izpitom? Lahko pišemo že na januarskem roku ali še le na majkem??
Hvala in lp.
Izpit
Moderatorji: Zmaj, bajna, Jure
-
Obi-Wan Kenobi
- Prispevkov: 9
- Pridružen: 29. Jul 2014 19:56
Re: Izpit
Če se ne motim je rekel 5. januar.
Re: Izpit
31.8.2017 - pisni del:
1.vprašanje: nekdo je delal v nekem podjetju in je rekel, da se bo upokojil. Podjetje je mu je obljubilo, da mu bo letno plačevalo neko vsoto denarja, potem mu je nekaj časa plačevalo, nato pa nehalo - odvetnik mu je svetoval, naj vloži tožbo - povej argumente obeh strani in katero je po tvojem mnenju pravilno
2. vprašanje - kako naj ravna sodišče v primeru oziroma kaj se zgodi, če je nacionalno pravo v nasprotju s pravom EU + povej primer
3. prevod enega izmed izsekov iz sodbe Brown v Board of Education
1.vprašanje: nekdo je delal v nekem podjetju in je rekel, da se bo upokojil. Podjetje je mu je obljubilo, da mu bo letno plačevalo neko vsoto denarja, potem mu je nekaj časa plačevalo, nato pa nehalo - odvetnik mu je svetoval, naj vloži tožbo - povej argumente obeh strani in katero je po tvojem mnenju pravilno
2. vprašanje - kako naj ravna sodišče v primeru oziroma kaj se zgodi, če je nacionalno pravo v nasprotju s pravom EU + povej primer
3. prevod enega izmed izsekov iz sodbe Brown v Board of Education
Re: Izpit
Ustni del: najprej je pregledal izpit, povedal kako si pisal, potem pa vprašal več al manj mal bol podrobno iz izpita; glede na prvo nalogo v izpitu - kaj je tist delavec sploh lahko pričakoval, potem je vprašal še iz prevajanja dve besedi, ki sta bli napačno napisani (case action lawsuit = skupinske tožbe in denial = zanikanje al nekaj tazga), potem pa še vprašanje iz primera Brown v Board of Education - je pa bil zlo korekten in prijazen 
tako da srečno ostalim
tako da srečno ostalim -
katja.live
- Prispevkov: 26
- Pridružen: 19. Sep 2017 13:02
Re: Izpit
IZPIT ANGLEŠČINA junij 2018
1.Teorija: Stric obljubi 20 letnemu nečaku, da mu bo dal 10.000 dolarjev čez 5 let, če preneha piti in igrati igre na srečo Čez 5 let je nečak pisal stricu za denar, a je stric rekel da mu ne zaupa, da bo s to vsoto denarja razumno ravnal. Nečak se strinja s tem, da bo denar dobil čez nekaj let, ko dokaže svojo zrelost. Stric nato umre, nečak pa od upravitelja zapuščine (executor of estate) sodno zahteva denar.
What is the verdict?
Give the arguments for both sides
What are the legal issues?
With which side do you agre?
2. Esejsko vprašanje: Judical review. How does it go with principle of separation of th power. Also discuss it (in)compatibility with principle of democracy
3. Prevod: Odsek iz sodbe Cage v Louisana:
In construing the instruction, we consider how reasonable jurors could have
understood the charge as a whole. The
charge did at one point instruct that, to convict, guilt must be found beyond a
reasonable doubt; but it then equated a reasonable doubt with a "grave uncertainty"
and an "actual substantial doubt," and stated that what was required was a "moral certainty" that the defendant was guilty. It is plain to us that the words "substantial"
and "grave," as they are commonly understood, suggest a higher degree of doubt than is required for acquittal under the reasonable doubt standard. When those statements are then considered with the reference to "moral certainty," rather than evidentiary certainty, it becomes clear that a reasonable juror could have interpreted the
instruction to allow a finding of guilt based on a degree of proof below that required by
the Due Process Clause
1.Teorija: Stric obljubi 20 letnemu nečaku, da mu bo dal 10.000 dolarjev čez 5 let, če preneha piti in igrati igre na srečo Čez 5 let je nečak pisal stricu za denar, a je stric rekel da mu ne zaupa, da bo s to vsoto denarja razumno ravnal. Nečak se strinja s tem, da bo denar dobil čez nekaj let, ko dokaže svojo zrelost. Stric nato umre, nečak pa od upravitelja zapuščine (executor of estate) sodno zahteva denar.
What is the verdict?
Give the arguments for both sides
What are the legal issues?
With which side do you agre?
2. Esejsko vprašanje: Judical review. How does it go with principle of separation of th power. Also discuss it (in)compatibility with principle of democracy
3. Prevod: Odsek iz sodbe Cage v Louisana:
In construing the instruction, we consider how reasonable jurors could have
understood the charge as a whole. The
charge did at one point instruct that, to convict, guilt must be found beyond a
reasonable doubt; but it then equated a reasonable doubt with a "grave uncertainty"
and an "actual substantial doubt," and stated that what was required was a "moral certainty" that the defendant was guilty. It is plain to us that the words "substantial"
and "grave," as they are commonly understood, suggest a higher degree of doubt than is required for acquittal under the reasonable doubt standard. When those statements are then considered with the reference to "moral certainty," rather than evidentiary certainty, it becomes clear that a reasonable juror could have interpreted the
instruction to allow a finding of guilt based on a degree of proof below that required by
the Due Process Clause