Andrej Mlakar 3

Pravna fakulteta

The Faculty of Law

Univerza v Ljubljani University of Ljubljana

Andrej Mlakar

3

Law

is an indispensable feature of every

human society.

Without law as a set of rules governing human behaviour and actions, there can be no peaceful co-existence between people. Human society cannot survive without law.

Lawlessness is the worst kind of social decay and signals the end of organised interpersonal relations.

Prof Janez Kranjc

Pravo

je nepogrešljiv spremljevalec sleherne

človeške družbe.

Brez prava v smislu pravil vedenja in ravnanja si sploh ni mogoče zamisliti mirnega sožitja med ljudmi. Človeška družba zato brez prava ne more obstati.

Brezpravje je najhujša stopnja družbenega razkroja in pomeni konec urejenih medčloveških odnosov.

prof. dr. Janez Kranjc

P r a v n i v

Š T U D I J

L j u b l j a n i

•

Law Studies in Ljubljana prof. dr. Janez Kranjc

D

ejanska vloga prava v določeni družbi je rezultat številnih dejavnikov. Poleg kakovosti in vsebine splošnih pravnih pravil vpliva na dejansko veljavo prava tudi vrednostni sistem posameznikov v družbi, ki lahko pravne vrednote, še posebej odnos do ideala pravičnosti, sprejemajo kot svoje ali pa jih odklanjajo. The actual role played by law in a given society is a result of various factors. In addition to the quality and content of general legal rules, the factual validity of law is also influenced by the value system as it is accepted by individuals. The latter can either accept legal principles (and especially attitudes towards the ideal of justice) as their own, or renounce them.

Bistven pogoj za dobro delovanje pravnega reda pa so tudi dobri pravniki. Pravna pravila sicer sprejema

Good lawyers are among the principal conditions for

zakonodajalec, vendar je vloga pravnika pri njihovi a well-functioning legal system. Although the legal uporabi bistvena, saj je navadno pravnik tisti, ki lahko rules are created by the legislator, the crucial role in zagotovi njihovo bolj ali manj smotrno razlago oziroma their application is played by lawyers able to guaranbolj ali manj življenjsko uporabo. Pri tem igrata enako tee their more or less appropriate interpretation and pomembno vlogo pravnikovo strokovno znanje ter njemore or less justified application. In the pursuit of that gova zavezanost idealoma pravičnosti in humanosti. goal, lawyers’ expert knowledge and their commitment že od antike naprej je pravni poklic povezan s sisteto the ideals of justice and humanity are of equal matičnim pravnim študijem. Samo na ta način se da importance. Ever since antiquity the legal profession zagotoviti tisto temeljno znanje, s pomočjo katerega je has been tied to the systematic study of law. Only in mogoče začeti s praktičnim pravnim delom. Izraz such a manner can the basic legal knowledge required “učeni pravnik”, ki so ga uporabljali od antike naprej, for the commencement of practical legal duties be je zato samo ponazarjal potrebo po pravnem študiju, s guaranteed. The expression a learned lawyer, used pomočjo katerega je treba nadgraditi prirojeni pravni since antiquity, only mirrors the recognised need for občutek. a study of law with which to build upon naturally

acquired legal sensibilities.

V stavbi Deželnega dvorca je gostovala Pravna fakulteta do svoje selitve v letu 2000. Zgoraj je načrt, s katerim je na natečaju zmagal arhitekt Hrasky, spodaj pa načrt arhitekta Josipa Hudetza, po katerih je bila stavba zgrajena.

Prior to 2000 the Faculty of Law was located in the former regional parliament building. Above, the winning project by architect Hrasky; below, the plan by architect Josip Hudetz, to which the building was eventually constructed.

Načrti za zgradbo Katoliške tiskarne, po katerih jo je v letih 1907-08 zgradilo podjetje Gustava Tönniesa.

Plans for the Catholic Printworks, constructed in 1907–08 by the construction company of Gustav Tönnies.

Sodoben pravni študij je povezan z začetkom univerz. Od ustanovitve prve univerze v Bologni pa vse do danes je mogoče pravo študirati praviloma le na univerzi. Čeprav za območje današnje Slovenije zadeva ni podrobneje raziskana, se zdi najbolj verjetno, da so se šolani pravniki v večjem številu pojavili na našem sedanjem ozemlju na prelomu med 15. in 16. stoletjem.

Ker v preteklosti na Slovenskem ni bilo univerze, so se pravniki z območja današnje Slovenije izobraževali na tujem. Posamič ali v skupinah jih srečujemo v matrikah različnih evropskih univerz, zlasti v Srednji Evropi in Italiji. Pri tem jih je do ustanovitve slovenske univerze ob koncu prve svetovne vojne večina verjetno študirala na univerzah na Dunaju in v Gradcu. Čeprav sta bili obe univerzi gotovo med boljšimi v Evropi in je bila izobrazba slovenskih pravnikov objektivno dobra, ji je manjkala bistvena prvina – slovenski strokovni pravni jezik.

Prizadevanj za uveljavljanje slovenščine kot uradnega jezika zato ni oviralo le nasprotovanje na ravni politične dopustnosti, marveč tudi nezadostno razvito slovensko pravno izrazje; problem je bil v znanju in stroki, ki bi ga lahko načrtno in tvorno oblikovala ter gojila. Med slovenskimi pravniki je zato v času po marčni revoluciji opaziti načrtna prizadevanja za ustanovitev univerze. Na njej bi bilo mogoče slovenski pravni jezik, kot je dejal eden od očetov slovenske univerze dr. Danilo Majaron, “znanstveno presoditi in dovršiti”.

Ustanovitev Univerze v Ljubljani in z njo Pravne fakultete je zato pomenila novo obdobje v razvoju prava na Slovenskem. Ustanovljena je bila institucija, ki je gojila celovito pravno znanost in skladno s spoznanji pravne znanosti izobraževala mlade pravnike.

Predavanja s področja kanonskega prava so sicer v Ljubljani dokumentirana že za leto 1704 (verjetno pa je, da so bila tudi že pred tem), vendar je ustanovitev sodobne univerze in pravne fakultete pomenila povsem novo kakovost, ki je bistveno oblikovala slovensko pravno kulturo.

T

he modern study of law is linked to the creation of universities. Since the foundation of the first university in Bologna, the study of law has by and large been possible only at university.

The topic has not been thoroughly researched in Slovenia but it is most plausible that schooled lawyers began coming to the territory of present-day Slovenia in larger numbers at the beginning of the 16th century. Since there were no universities in Slovenia, lawyers pursued their studies abroad.

Individually or in groups, their names can be found in the annals of various European universities, particularly in Central Europe and Italy. Until the first Slovenian university was founded at the end of the First World War, the majority presumably studied at universities in Vienna and Graz.

Although both these universities were undoubtedly among the better ones in Europe and the education of Slovenian lawyers was therefore objectively good, an essential quality was missing – a professional legal language in Slovene. Initiatives for the introduction of Slovene as an official language were thus hindered not only by opposition on the grounds of political unacceptability but also by an inadequately developed Slovenian legal terminology; the problem lay in the lack of knowledge and an established profession that could shape and then nurture it. It was for that reason that, after the March revolution, an initiative to found a Slovenian university emerged among Slovenian lawyers. At such a university the Slovenian legal language could, as Dr Danilo Majaron, one of the founding fathers of the Slovenian university, once said, be “scientifically appraised and accomplished”.

The founding of the University of Ljubljana, and with it the Faculty of Law, thus constituted a new era in the development of the law in Slovenia.

An institution had been founded that could nurture a comprehensive legal science and educate young lawyers accordingly. Although lectures in canon law are documented as having been given as early as 1704 (and possibly even before then), the founding of a modern university and a faculty of law signified a new qualitative type by means of which a Slovenian legal culture could be shaped.

R I

A D

Z E

M A

I S

Š

L I

J N

A

N L

J I

E N

E

V S

Č A

R N

T I D

I S

N K

S E

T

K C

I H

C E

I S

ČAS MED OBEMA VOJNAMA T h e

P e r i o d

B e t w e e n

1919 dobila prostore v Deželnem dvorcu. Glede na takratno število študentov in učiteljev in glede na naravo pedagoškega procesa so ti prostori spočetka vsaj za silo zadoščali.

Vendar pa so se začeli kmalu pojavljati prostorski problemi. Tako so npr. fakulteti leta 1924 ponudili knjižnico bivšega Deželnega odbora. Pripravljena jo je bila sprejeti le pod pogojem, da dobi za njeno namestitev tudi ustrezne prostore in knjižne omare. V obstoječih prostorih namreč knjižnice ni bilo mogoče shraniti.1 Na Univerzi so nekateri že ob ustanovitvi računali z gradnjo nove stavbe. Poslopje Deželnega dvorca, ki naj bi bilo prvenstveno namenjeno političnim predstavniškim telesom, so zato šteli samo za začasno bivališče.

V opredelitvi prostorskih potreb Univerze je tako sodelovala tudi Pravna fakulteta. Novembra istega leta je v dopisu rektorju opredelila svoje potrebe, da bi mogla nemoteno in v polnem obsegu delovati.2 Med ostalimi so v dopisu opredeljene tudi prostorske potrebe. V novem poslopju univerze, ki so ga načrtovali, naj bi fakulteta dobila po eno sobo za dekana, tajnika, profesorje (ta soba bi bila hkrati sejna), za profesorsko knjižnico, sobo v izmeri med 120 in 150 kvadratnih metrov za skladišče knjižnice ter pet sob za fakultetne seminarje in pet sob za njihove vodje. Hkrati bi fakulteta potrebovala veliko predavalnico za 150 slušateljev, dve srednji za 80-100 in dve majhni za 30-40 slušateljev.

Dekanat, predavalnice in seminarji bi imeli še po eno sobo za, kot je rečeno v dopisu, slugo vsakega od teh sklopov.

Ker pa so se na fakulteti očitno zavedali, da je nova stavba univerze še daleč, so v istem dopisu navedli tudi svoje potrebe po dodatnih prostorih v Deželnem dvorcu. Tam naj bi jim Univerza dodelila še po eno predavalnico, seminarsko sobo, sobo za kriminološki inštitut, sobo za knjižničnega asistenta in eno veliko sobo, ki bi bila nova profesorska soba.

Kot vemo, do gradnje novega poslopja univerze ni prišlo, pač pa je dala Univerza Pravni fakulteti od zahtevanih na voljo en nov prostor, ki so ga uporabili za knjižnico.3 Da si bomo prostorske potrebe fakultete laže ponazorili, velja omeniti, da je bilo leta 1925 na fakulteti vpisanih skupaj 324 rednih in 16 izrednih slušateljev.4 Februarja leta 1926 je bilo na fakulteti v zimskem semestru vpisanih 296, v poletnem pa 338 študentov.5 V istem času je bilo na fakulteti dvanajst profesorjev in docentov.6

...........................................................................................................................................................................................

Pravna fakulteta je ob svoji ustanovitvi leta

t h e

U

T w o

W o r l d

pon its foundation the Faculty of Law was given premises in the former regional parliament building. With the smaller number of students and professors at the time, as well as the nature of the educational process, these premises were initially sufficient – but not for long. The lack of space soon became apparent. In 1924 the Faculty of Law was offered the library of the former regional committee. The faculty was willing to accept it only on condition that it was also given additional space and bookshelves for storage; it was impossible to store the library in the existing space alone.1 Some members of the university had been counting on a new building since its foundation. The regional parliament building, primarily intended for political bodies, was thus taken to be only a temporary residence.

The Faculty of Law was accordingly included in the determination of the university’s infrastructural needs. In November 1924 the faculty sent the university rector a letter detailing the requirements that needed to be fulfilled in order for it to continue its work at full capacity.2 These included the need for more space. In the new university building as it was planned, the law faculty was to be given one room each for the dean, the secretary, the professors (this room would also serve as the meeting room) and the professors’ library, one (between 120 and 150 m2) for the library repository, five for faculty seminars and five for seminar assistants. The faculty would also require one large lecture hall for 150 students, two medium-sized lecture halls for 80–100 students, and two small lecture halls for 30–40 students. The dean’s office, the lecture halls and the seminar rooms would each have an additional room, as the letter put it, for the servant to each of those three clusters.

However, since the faculty was obviously aware that the new university building would be built in the distant future, the same letter also contained a request for additional space in the regional parliament building. There the university was additionally to assign to the faculty one lecture hall, one seminar room, one room for the criminology institute, one room for the library assistant, and one large room to serve as a new room for professors.

As we know, the construction of a new university building never took place but the university did assign one additional room to the faculty; this was used by the library.3 In order to put the infrastructure demands of

W a r s

Vendar pa problem prostorov ni bil samo v njihovi velikosti, marveč tudi v njihovi primernosti za delo, saj mnogi pozimi sploh niso bili kurjeni. Seveda pa prostorski problemi niso bili najpomembnejši. Prva desetletja obstoja slovenske univerze označujejo namreč tudi različne pobude za njeno ukinitev. Zato je razumljivo, da vprašanje prostorov ni bilo vedno v ospredju fakultetnih prizadevanj.

Leta 1927 je prišlo do zahteve, da se fakulteta začasno izseli iz Deželnega dvorca in svoje prostore odstopi oblastni skupščini v času njenega zasedanja.7 Ob tem je predsednik oblastnega odbora dr. Natlačen rektorju zagotovil, da bodo že naslednje leto začeli zidati novo univerzitetno poslopje, in sicer s sredstvi ljubljanske in mariborske oblastne skupščine, če denarja ne bi zagotovila centralna vlada.8 že v razpravi o začasni izselitvi so prišli na dan pomisleki fakultete proti selitvi iz Deželnega dvorca in hkrati dvom o tem, da bo v resnici prišlo do gradnje nove univerzitetne stavbe in kakšna bo.

Kot vemo, ni prišlo ne do enega ne do drugega, in v zapisnikih sej fakultetnega sveta srečujemo občasno razprave o pomanjkanju prostorov in o njihovi optimalni razporeditvi.9 Seveda je ostalo število prostorov v Deželnem dvorcu nespremenjeno, s tem pa tudi stiska pravne in drugih fakultet, ki so v njem delovale. Stanje se je spremenilo s selitvijo Filozofske fakultete v prostore

Univerzitetne knjižnice leta 1941. Takrat je Pravna fakulteta naslovila na rektorja dopis, v katerem je opredelila svoje minimalne potrebe po novih prostorih.10 Fakultetni svet je zahteval štiri predavalnice, med njimi zbornično dvorano, eno izpraševalno dvorano, eno sobo za dekanat, dve sobi za knjižnico, pet seminarskih čitalnic za 18 fakultetnih seminarjev in pet sob za upravnike seminarjev.

Kakšno je bilo tudi sicer materialno stanje fakultete, med drugim kaže poziv upravnika seminarja za mednarodno zasebno pravo, ki se “ponovno priporoča za kakšno staro omaro.”11 Zanimivo je, da je bilo v tem času (verjetno tudi zaradi vojne) število študentov bolj ali manj nespremenjeno. Leta 1943 je bilo na fakulteti vpisanih 295 študentov.12 1

Zapisnik seje sveta juridične fakultete z dne 16. oktobra 1924.

2 Sklep sveta juridične fakultete z dne 7. novembra 1924.

3 Zapisnik seje fakultetnega sveta 2. julija 1925.

4 Zapisnik 2. redne seje sveta juridične fakultete z dne 22. oktobra 1925.

5 Zapisnik 8. redne seje sveta juridične fakultete z dne 27. februarja 1926.

6 Fakulteta v tem času še ni imela asistentov. Profesorji so prihajali na fakulteto iz prakse.

7 Dotlej je oblastna skupščina zasedala na magistratu.

8 Zapisnik 1. izredne seje fakultetnega sveta juridične fakultete 27. oktobra 1927.

9 Zapisnik 8. redne seje fakultetnega sveta z dne 9. junija 1928.

10 Zapisnik sveta juridične fakultete z dne 30. junija 1941.

11 Zapisnik sveta juridične fakultete z dne 30. junija 1941.

12 Zapisnik sveta juridične fakultete z dne 10. novembra 1943. Iz istega zapisnika razberemo, da je bilo takrat na medicinski fakulteti vpisanih 370, na filozofski 366, na teološki 130 in na tehnični 529 študentov.

the faculty into perspective, it may be worth mentioning that there were 324 regular and 16 part time students enrolled at the faculty in 1925.4 The numbers from February 1926 show that in the winter term there were 296 and in the spring term 338 students enrolled.5 At that time there were 12 professors at the faculty.6 The problem with the rooms was not only related to their size but also to the working conditions within them, with many of them having no heating in the wintertime. However, a shortage of rooms was not the most significant problem faced by the university.

The first few decades of its existence were marked by various initiatives to abolish it. It is therefore understandable that the issue of adequate working space was not always at the forefront of faculty concerns.

In 1927 the faculty received an order to temporarily vacate the regional parliament building and give its rooms over to the governing assembly over the course of its session.7 This was accompanied by a guarantee given to the rector by the president of the assembly, Dr Natlačen, that work on the new university building would commence the following year and that funds for it would be provided by the Ljubljana and Maribor governing assemblies, if not by central government.8 During the debate on temporary relocation, arguments against the faculty leaving the regional parliament building were expressed, accompanied by doubts as to whether a new university building was really going to be built and, if so, what shape it would take.

As we now know, neither of the above happened.

In Faculty Council minutes one occasionally finds a reference to the shortage of rooms and a debate on the best way to apportion them.9 Naturally the number of rooms in the regional

parliament building was left unchanged, a fate shared by all the faculties residing there. The situation changed when the Faculty of Arts relocated to the University Library in 1941. At that time the Faculty of Law sent the rector a letter in which it listed the very least it would need in terms of space.10 The Faculty Council asked for four lecture rooms, one of them the aula magna, one examination hall, one room for the dean’s office, two rooms for the library, five seminar reading rooms for 18 faculty seminars, and five rooms for seminar assistants. The material conditions of the faculty are illustrated by a note from the manager of the seminar on private international law, who “would eagerly accept an old wardrobe or two”.11 It is interesting to note that at that time (possibly also due to war), the number of students was more or less fixed. In 1943, 295 students were enrolled at the faculty.12 1

See the minutes of the meeting of the Council of the Juridical Faculty, 16 October 1924.

2 Decision of the Council of the Juridical Faculty, 7 November 1924.

3 See the Faculty Council minutes of 2 July 1925.

4 See the minutes of the 2nd regular session of the Council of the Juridical Faculty, 22 October 1925.

5 See the minutes of the 8th regular session of the Council of the Juridical Faculty, 27 February 1925.

6 At the time the faculty had no assistants; professors came to the faculty direct from legal practice.

7 Until then the assembly met in the town hall.

8 See the minutes of the 1st extraordinary session of the Council of the Juridical Faculty, 27 October 1927.

9 See for example the minutes of the 8th regular session of the Faculty Council, 9 June 1928.

10 See the minutes of the Council of the Juridical Faculty, 30 June 1941.

11 Ibid.

12 See the minutes of the Council of the Juridical Faculty, 10 November 1943. According to the same minutes the Faculty of Medicine had 370 students, the Faculty of Arts 366, the Faculty of Theology 130 and the Technical Faculty 529.

ČAS PO DRUGI SVETOVNI VOJNI T h e

P e r i o d

o koncu vojne so oživele ideje o gradnji novih stavb za potrebe Univerze. Minister prosvete je dekanu Tehnične fakultete naročil, da naj izdela načrt zanje. Kot prostor je bil predviden Cekinov grad, športno igrišče Ilirija in velesejemski prostor. Pravna fakulteta naj bi tam dobila svojo stavbo v izmeri 80 krat 30 metrov s prostornino 8.000 kubičnih metrov. Fakultetni svet je sprejel okvirna izhodišča za razporeditev prostorov v novi stavbi.13 V pritličju naj bi bila knjižnica, študentska in profesorska čitalnica ter tri pisarne. V prvem nadstropju naj bi bil dekanat (5 sob) in predavalnice. Predvideli so dve veliki predavalnici za 500 oziroma 300 oseb, dve dvorani po 150 oseb, dve manjši predavalnici za doktorske tečaje, dve izpraševalnici in profesorsko sobo. V drugem nadstropju so načrtovali šest seminarskih sob, dvajset delovnih sob za profesorje, tri prostore za kriminološki inštitut in kriminološki muzej, eno sobo za asistenta seminarjev ter dve sobi za Društvo slušateljev juridične fakultete. Fakultetni svet razumljivo ni navedel nobenih kvadratur za posamezne prostore. Čeprav je Pravna fakulteta resno računala z novo stavbo, je morala delovati v obstoječih prostorih. Njeni predstavniki so si na ravni univerze ves čas prizadevali pridobiti nekaj novih prostorov, oziroma vsaj ohraniti obstoječe prostore, ki so jih zase zahtevale druge fakultete. Velik problem je bilo ogrevanje. Ker nekaterih prostorov pozimi niso ogrevali, so bili v mrazu neuporabni, zaradi različnih slovesnosti pa večkrat tudi ni bilo mogoče uporabljati zbornične dvorane.14 Fakultetni svet je zaradi vsega skupaj svojega predstavnika v univerzitetnem svetu pooblastil, da “energično zastopa interese fakultete” v prostorski komisiji.

Junija 1946 je tako Pravna fakulteta ob selitvi Tehnične fakultete v nove prostore zahtevala dodelitev ene predavalnice, štirih seminarskih čitalnic in štirih seminarskih sob.15 Decembra 1946 je fakultetni svet znova razpravljal o novi stavbi. V skladu z njegovimi sklepi je bilo izdelano “Poročilo o stavbnem programu juridične fakultete v Ljubljani za prihodnjih dvajset let.”16 V njem fakultetni svet ugotavlja, da so se razmere bistveno spremenile zaradi uvedbe novih predmetov, povečanja obsega praktičnega dela v vajah in predvidenega povečanja števila študentov, ki naj bi prihajali tudi iz drugih jugoslovanskih republik in iz Albanije. Celotne prostorske potrebe fakultete bi po izračunu, ki je temeljil na sklepih fakultetnega sveta, znašale 11.519 m2. Od tega so namenili za knjižnico 900 m2, za predavalnice pa 1230 m2.

t h e

..............................................................................................................................................................................................

P

A f t e r

S e c o n d

I

W o r l d

deas for building new university premises resurfaced after the war. The education minister instructed the dean of the technical faculty to draw up appropriate plans. The area intended for the new buildings included Cekin castle, the Ilirija playing fields and the Ljubljana tradefair area. The Faculty of Law was to be given its own building, 80 x 30 m and approximately 8,000 cubic metres. The Faculty Council passed general guidelines for the division of space in the new building.13 The ground floor was to host the library, a reading room for students and one for professors, and three offices. The first floor was to host the dean’s office (five rooms) and the lecture halls. On the second floor, six seminar rooms, 20 working rooms for professors, three rooms for the Institute of Criminology and a Museum of Criminology, one room for the seminar assistant and two rooms for the Juridical Faculty’s students’ society were planned. For understandable reasons the Faculty Council specified no precise sizes for individual rooms.

While the Faculty of Law was awaiting a new building, work had to continue on the old premises. Faculty representatives still tried to acquire new rooms from the university and keep existing ones in the face of demands made by the other faculties. One of the major problems was heating. Since some of the rooms were not heated in the winter, they were useless during times of severe cold. Due to the large number of ceremonies, the aula magna also often could not be used.14 For these reasons the Faculty Council authorised its representative on the University Council to “represent the interests of the faculty energetically” to the university commission in charge of problems related to space.

In June 1946, when the Technical Faculty was relocating from the regional parliament building to new premises, the Faculty of Law requested one lecture hall, four seminar reading rooms and four seminar rooms.15 In December 1946 the Faculty Council again discussed the new building. On the basis of its decisions, a “Report on the building plan of the Juridical Faculty of Ljubljana for the next twenty years” was drawn up.16 In the report the Faculty Council determined that circumstances had changed radically due to the introduction of new courses, the expansion of the scope of practical work and the anticipated increase in the number of students, including those coming to Ljubljana from the other Yugoslav republics and from Albania. The full requirements of

W a r

vsaj deloma izpraznili to poslopje”.18 Taka rešitev je bila po eni strani posledica neagresivnosti in morda pasivnosti fakultete, po drugi strani pa seveda tudi splošnega pomena, ki so ga v tistem času odločujoči dejavniki pripisovali pravnemu študiju in pravu nasploh. Pri tem ni nobenega dvoma, da so si posamezne fakultete želele nove stavbe oziroma selitev iz glavnega univerzitetnega poslopja in da je bila nova oziroma lastna stavba del njihovega prestiža.

Prostorska stiska Pravne fakultete pa se ni zmanjševala le zaradi postopnih selitev drugih fakultet iz Deželnega dvorca, marveč – vsaj začasno – tudi zaradi padanja števila vpisanih študentov, do katerega je prišlo v šestdesetih letih. Po začetnem naraščanju, do katerega je prišlo v letih po koncu vojne, je začelo število študentov po letu 1962, ko je naraslo na 978, postopoma upadati.

Najnižjo točko je doseglo v študijskem letu 1966/67, ko je bilo na fakulteti vpisanih skupaj 657 študentov. V naslednjem letu je bil vpisan eden več, nato pa je začelo njihovo število znova enakomerno naraščati. V študijskem letu 1970/71 je bilo vpisanih nekaj manj kot 1000 študentov, naslednje leto pa je skupno število študentov prvič preseglo število tisoč.

V študijskem letu 1973/74 je bilo vpisanih 1465 študentov, leto kasneje pa 1358 in v letu 1975/76 1212.19 Naraščanje števila študentov je znova zaostrilo prostorski problem fakultete. Ideja o novogradnji je postala znova aktualna.

Pri tem je Center za razvoj univerze, ki je pripravljal

......................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Predvideli so tri velike predavalnice s po 200 sedeži oziroma 200 m2¸ dve srednji predavalnici s po 100 sedeži oziroma 100 m2, štiri manjše predavalnice s po 45 m2 in 40 sedeži ter pet izpitnih sob po 50 m2. Kot zanimivost velja omeniti, da so v novi stavbi predvideli tudi štiri stanovanja, velika med 50 in 80 m2, in sicer za vratarja, kurjača, snažilko in strojnika. Predvidena cena nove stavbe je znašala pri ceni 4000 din za kvadratni meter nekaj več kot 46 milijonov.

Fakulteta je pričakovala izgradnjo nove stavbe, kot so zapisali, šele v četrti petletki, torej v dvajsetih letih. V poročilu beremo, da fakulteta “uvideva izredno težavni položaj drugih fakultet in institutov in njihovo takojšnjo potrebo po novih poslopjih”. Pogoj za to uvidevnost do drugih je bil, da bi fakulteti dodelili tiste prostore v Deželnem dvorcu, ki bi se izpraznili po izselitvi drugih fakultet.17 S tem pa smo se srečali s temeljno potezo Pravne fakultete, ki se je v glavnem sprijaznila z mislijo, da ostane v stavbi Deželnega dvorca in prevzame prostore tistih fakultet, ki bi se iz njega izselile. S tako rešitvijo prostorskih problemov fakultete se je očitno strinjalo tudi vodstvo Univerze. Rektorjevo poročilo za leto 1954-55 npr. izrecno pravi: “Pravni oddelek Pravno-ekonomske fakultete se stiska sedaj v tesnih prostorih glavnega univerzitetnega poslopja in bo moglo zaživeti šele tedaj, ko bodo drugi oddelki

the faculty would, according to the calculation arrived at on the basis of Council decisions, amount to 11,519 m2. Of this, 900 m2 was intended for the library and 1,230 m2 for lecture halls.

They anticipated three large lecture halls with 200 seats and 200 m2 in size, two medium-sized lecture halls (100 seats, 100 m2), four smaller lecture halls (40 seats, 40 m2) and five examination rooms (each 50 m2). It may be interesting to add that they also envisaged four apartments, between 50 and 80 m2, intended for the doorman, the person in charge of the heating, the cleaning lady and the engineer. The cost of the new building, at 4,000 dinars per square metre, was estimated at a little over 46 million dinars.

The faculty stated that it expected the new building to be finished in 20 years. As the report says, the faculty was “aware of the tremendously difficult position of the other faculties and institutes, and understands their immediate need for new building space”. The condition for such consideration for the other faculties was a guarantee that the law faculty was to be assigned the rooms vacated once the other faculties had left the premises of the regional parliament building.17 This illustrates a fundamental strategy on the part of the law faculty – to accept the fate of staying in the regional parliament building indefinitely, as long as it could take over the rooms of the other faculties as they relocated to their new buildings. It appears that the management of the university agreed. The rector’s report of for 1954/55 for example explicitly states: “The Department of Law of the Law-Economics Faculty is now crowded into the small premises of the main university building and will only be able to breathe

more freely once the other departments at least partly vacate this building.”18 This solution was partly a consequence of a rather nonaggressive approach (perhaps even passivity) of the faculty, but it was also due to the lack of general importance given to law studies and the law itself at the time. There is no doubt however that the other faculties also wanted to relocate from the main university building to new buildings of their own, and that having a new or at least one’s own building was also a matter of prestige.

There was another factor that alleviated the faculty’s problems of space, quite apart from the gradual departure of other faculties from the regional parliament building: the decline (a temporary one) in the number of enrolled students which occurred in the 1960s. After the initial increase, occurring in the first years following the end of the Second World War, the number of enrolled students reached its peak of 978 in 1962 and then slowly began to fall. The lowest enrolment numbers were seen in the 1966/67 academic year, when there were only 657 students at the faculty. The following year the number increased by one student, whereupon a sustained increase in the number of enrolled students returned. In the 1970/71 academic year there were a little less than 1,000 students enrolled; the following year the total number of students surpassed 1,000 for the first time. In the 1973/74 academic year there were 1,465 enrolled students, the following year 1,358 and in

1

2

2

3

4

3

5

Pritličje Ground floor 1 Kapiteljska ulica Kapiteljska Street 2 knjižnica Library 3 predavalnica Lecture room 4 zgradba Kanarček The Canary 5 atrij Atrium 6 kuhinja in jedilnica Kitchen and restaurant 7 dekanat Dean's office 8 Poljanski nasip Poljanski Embankment

6

7

8

1

2 6

3

3 5

3

7

Nadstropje First floor 1 Kapiteljska ulica Kapiteljska Street 2 knjižnica Library 3 predavalnica Lecture room 4 zgradba Kanarček The Canary 5 hall v etaži Hall 6 svetlobnik Light shaft 7 atrij Atrium 8 kabineti Offices 9 Poljanski nasip Poljanski Embankment

8

9

4

O

be zgradbi fakultete in povezovalni steklenjak ustvarjajo notranje dvorišče – atrij, proti kateremu so obrnjene predavalnice in študentska jedilnica.

B

oth faculty buildings and the linking conservatory create an internal courtyard or atrium flanked by the lecture rooms and the student restaurant.

SKOZI OKNA SEVERNE FASADE SE ZLIVATA NOTRANJOST IN ZUNANJOST ZGRADBE THE BUILDING'S INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR MERGE THROUGH THE WINDOWS OF THE NORTHERN FACADE

............................................................................................

prostorske rešitve za celotno univerzo, predlagal za Pravno fakulteto lokacijo na jugu mesta. Pedagoškoznanstveni svet fakultete se je s tem strinjal, izrazil pa je tudi interes za lokacijo na severu, t. j. za Bežigradom.20 Zakaj do novogradnje ni prišlo, ni povsem jasno.

Po eni strani se je zataknilo pri sredstvih, ki jih fakulteti ni uspelo zbrati, po drugi strani pa so se pojavile ideje za ustrezno adaptacijo stavbe Deželnega dvorca oziroma za selitev v poslopje nekdanje realke na Vegovi ulici. Pa tudi sicer fakulteta ni kazala posebnega navdušenja za selitev iz Deželnega dvorca na obrobje mesta.

Skladno s tem je Fakulteta za arhitekturo izdelala tri študije za rešitev prostorske problematike Pravne fakultete. Fakultetnemu pedagoško-znanstvenemu zboru jih je predložila leta 1987.21 V študijah so obdelali tri možnosti: novogradnjo za Bežigradom, adaptacijo stavbe srednje elektrotehnične šole (bivše realke) na Vegovi ulici in adaptacijo obstoječega poslopja Deželnega dvorca. Po mnenju pripravljalcev študij bi bila najcenejša in najbolj racionalna zadnja od omenjenih variant.

Osnutek novogradnje, ki ga je izdelal Marko Kogovšek pod mentorstvom profesorja Jožeta Koželja, je predvideval netto površino 5060 m2. Od tega bi odpadlo na učilnice 1860 m2, na knjižnico 1700 m2, na kabinete pa 900 m2. Po tem načrtu bi dobila fakulteta pet predavalnic v skupni izmeri 1030 m2 in seminarje v skupni izmeri 830 m2.

1975/76, 1,212.19 The increase in the number of enrolled students again brought to the forefront the problem of shortage of classroom space. The idea of a new faculty building regained popularity. The Centre for University Development, preparing urban planning solutions for the entire university, proposed a location for the law faculty in the southern part of the city. The faculty’s Education and Science Council accepted the proposal, but also stated its own preference for a location in the north, i.e. the Bežigrad area.20 It is not entirely clear why construction never took place. On the one hand there were financial constraints as the faculty was not able to raise sufficient funds; on the other, alternative ideas emerged for the appropriate adaptation of the regional parliament building or for relocation to the building of the former Realgymnasium on Vegova Street. On top of that the faculty itself showed little enthusiasm for relocation from the regional parliament building to the outskirts of the city.

Accordingly the Faculty of Architecture prepared three studies of possible solutions. These were submitted to the faculty’s Education and Science Council in 1987.21 Three options were analysed: a new building in Bežigrad; the adaptation of the former Realgymnasium building; and the adaptation of the existing regional parliament building. According to the authors of the studies, the cheapest and most cost-effective option was the third one.

Fasade “Slepa” vzhodna fasada proti stanovanjskim objektom.

Okna južne fasade so v globini, pred njimi so senčila.

Na severni strani so okna v ravnini fasade.

Facades The “blind” eastern facade facing the residential buildings.

Receding windows of the southern facade, concealed by sun shields.

The northern side – the windows are on the same level as the facade.

“

P

reizkus vstavitve programa Pravne fakultete v obstoječi volumen realke na Vegovi cesti”, ki ga je pod vodstvom profesorja Miloša Bonče izdelala Mira Stantič, je predvideval netto površino 3987 m2. Fakulteta bi med drugim dobila eno predavalnico za 300 študentov, tri predavalnice za 200 študentov, deset seminarjev za 42 študentov, 42 kabinetov in prostore za dekanat ter pomožne prostore. Pri tem bi bila velika predavalnica v dotedanji telovadnici na dvorišču, ostale pa po ena v vsakem nadstropju. Za knjižnico bi bilo na voljo 362 m2.

Programska zasnova za adaptacijo stavbe Deželnega

Fakulteta se je najbolj ogrevala za adaptacijo Deželnega dvorca, čeprav so preliminarne študije in ugotovitve opozarjale na problem potresne sanacije, problem dotrajanega ostrešja ipd. Problem vseh treh predlogov je bil tudi v premajhni kvadraturi prostorov, tako da ponujene rešitve ne bi mogle biti trajne. Ko so v začetku devetdesetih let na dvorišču glavne stavbe univerze zgradili stolp za dvigala in s tem onemogočili interpolacijo prečnega trakta, je možnost adaptacije Deželnega dvorca za potrebe Pravne fakultete praktično odpadla. Treba je bilo iskati novo rešitev.

dvorca, ki jo je izdelal docent Črtomir Mihelj, je imela več variant, po katerih bi imela fakulteta po adaptaciji med 3529 in 4383 m2 površine. Največ bi pridobila po predlogu C3, ki je poleg adaptacije podstrešja ob Gosposki in Vegovi ulici predvideval tudi interpolacijo novega prečnega krila v atriju Deželnega dvorca, v katerem bi uredili kabinete. Po tem predlogu bi dobila fakulteta eno predavalnico za 250 študentov, dve predavalnici za 200 študentov in eno predavalnico za 80 študentov, 8 seminarjev za 72 študentov, 9 pisarniških prostorov ter 69 kabinetov. Knjižnica bi imela po tem predlogu površino 328 m2.

13

Zapisnik seje sveta juridične fakultete, ki je bila 20. junija 1945.

14 Zapisnik 4. seje fakultetnega sveta, ki je bila 15. maja 1946.

15 Zapisnik 2. izredne seje fakultetnega sveta, ki je bila 4. junija 1946.

16 Poročilo je priloga zapisnika seje fakultetnega sveta, ki je bila 6. decembra 1946.

17 Gl. ibid.

18 Univerza v Ljubljani, Rektorjevo poročilo za leto 1954-55, str. 44. Rektor prof. dr. Anton Kuhelj ga je podpisal 18. oktobra 1955.

19 Zapisnik seje fakultetnega sveta, ki je bila 5. februarja 1976. Temeljna značilnost vpisa v tem času je bil velik osip, saj je bilo v letu 1975/76 v prvem letniku 516, v drugem pa le 219 vpisanih.

20 Zapisnik 4. seje pedagoško-znanstvenega sveta, ki je bila 1. aprila 1974.

21 Zapisnik 9. seje pedagoško-znanstvenega zbora, ki je bila 19. maja 1987.

Prerezi Vzdolžni prerez – široko stopnišče povezuje spodnji hall in predavalnice v nadstropju.

Prečni prerez – predavalnice Vzdolžni prerez – evakuacijska stopnišča

Sections Longitudinal section – broad stairway connecting the downstairs hall and lecture rooms on the first floor.

Cross–section – lecture rooms Longitudinal section – fire escapes

T

he draft of a new building, prepared by Marko Kogovšek under the guidance of Prof Jože Koželj, anticipated a net surface area of 5,060 m2. Of this, 1,860 m2 would be taken by classrooms, 1,700 m2 by the library and 900 m2 by offices. According to the plan the faculty would receive five lecture halls (totalling 1,030 m2) and several seminar rooms (830 m2). The “Evaluation of the placement of the law faculty’s programme into the existing building volume of the Realgymnasium on Vegova Street”, drawn up by Mira Stantič under the guidance of Prof Miloš Bonča, anticipated a net surface area of 3,987 m2.

This would include one lecture hall for 300 students, three lecture halls for 200 students, ten seminar rooms each for 42 students, 42 offices for professors, rooms for the dean’s office, and auxiliary rooms. The large lecture hall was to be built in lieu of an existing gym in the courtyard, and the others were to be placed one on each of the floors of the main building. The library was to cover 362 m2.

A planning concept for the adaptation of the existing regional parliament building, prepared by Črtomir Mihelj, consisted of several options, according to which the faculty

was to be given between 3,529 and 4,383 m2 once adaptation was complete. It would gain the most space under plan C3, which proposed not only an adaptation of the top floor alongside Gosposka and Vegova Streets but also the insertion of a new wing into the courtyard of the regional parliament building, where the offices would be set up. According to this proposal the faculty would receive one lecture hall for 250 students, two lecture halls each holding 200 students, and one lecture hall for 80 students, as well as eight seminar rooms each holding 72 students, nine administration office rooms and 69 offices for professors. The library would cover an area of 328 m2.

The faculty was most interested in the adaptation of the regional parliament building, although the preliminary studies and conclusions pointed to a number of problems related to the building’s earthquake safety standards and the antiquated roof structure. A common fault in all the proposals was also the fact that the anticipated surface area was not adequate in any of them; none of the accepted proposals were therefore able to offer a permanent solution. When a lift shaft was built in the courtyard of the main university building at the beginning of the 1990s, thus precluding the need for the insertion of an extra wing, the possibility of adaptation of the regional parliament building for the use of the law faculty was made impractical. A new solution had to be sought.

13

See the minutes of the Council of the Juridical Faculty, 20 June 1945.

14 See the minutes of the 4th session of the Faculty Council, 15 May 1946.

15 See the minutes of the 2nd extraordinary session of the Faculty Council, 4 June 1946.

16 See the report as annexed to the minutes of a session of the Faculty Council, 6 December 1946.

17 Ibid.

18 See rector’s report for 1954/55, p.44.

The rector, Prof Anton Kuhelj, signed it on 18 October 1955.

19 See the minutes of the session of the Faculty Council of 5 February 1976. A fundamental feature of enrolment at the time was a highly selective process of study advancement; in the 1975/76 academic year for example there were 516 students enrolled in the first year of study and only 219 students in the second year.

20 See the minutes of the 4th session of the Educational-Scientific Council, 1 April 1974.

21 See the minutes of the 9th session of the Educational-Scientific Council, 19 May 1987.

OSAMOSVOJITEV Čas po razglasitvi samostojnosti in selitev Pravne fakultete

.....................................................................

P

.........................................................................

otrebo po čim prejšnji rešitvi so zahtevale predvsem spremenjene razmere v samostojni slovenski državi. V devetdesetih letih se je namreč bistveno povečalo zanimanje za študij prava. To se ni odražalo toliko v povečanem vpisu kot predvsem v sami naravi študija. Če je bil prej ena od temeljnih značilnosti vpisa na Pravno fakulteto velik osip med prvim in drugim letnikom, sta postali karakteristiki devetdesetih let večja navzočnost študentov na fakulteti in posledično velik porast števila diplomantov. Tako je npr. v študijskem letu 1990/91 diplomiralo 146 študentov, v študijskem letu 1996/97 pa 244, čeprav se število vpisanih v prvi letnik ni bistveno spremenilo. Obseg t. i. slepega vpisa, t. j. vpisa, kjer bi vpisani ne imel resnega namena študirati, se je zmanjšal na minimum, tekmovalnost med študenti in želja čim prej končati študij pa sta se močno povečali.

Posledica tega so bile prepolne predavalnice, nemogoče razmere za izpraševanje in druge oblike preverjanja znanja itd. Kot eden od večjih problemov se je pokazalo tudi pomanjkanje prostora za študij, saj fakultetna knjižnica, v kateri ni bilo dovolj prostora niti za knjige, ni imela čitalnice. V bivši deponiji za premog, v kateri je fakulteta v začetku devetdesetih let uredila del knjižnice v prostem pristopu, je bilo nekaj zasilnih sedežev, ki so bili bolj kot študiju namenjeni pregledovanju nove literature.

Povečano število ljudi na fakulteti pa je izpostavilo tudi nemogoče sanitarne razmere. V prenatrpanih predavalnicah ni bilo zraka, hkrati pa je bilo odločno premalo toaletnih prostorov. Deželni dvorec pač ni bil grajen za takšne množice ljudi, ki bi v njem delali po ves dan. Zato je bilo nujno treba najti rešitev, ki bi bila obenem hitra in dolgoročno učinkovita.

Ko sem v letu 1995 prevzel funkcijo dekana, sem se tega problema v polni meri zavedal. Ker so v tistem času načrtovali širitev univerzitetnih poslopij na severni lokaciji, je bila ena od opcij, ki je prihajala v poštev za Pravno fakulteto, še vedno novogradnja za Bežigradom. Vendar pa bi se po najbolj optimističnih napovedih gradnja lahko začela šele po letu 2001. Za Pravno fakulteto to ni prihajalo v poštev, saj bi pomenilo podaljšanje nemogočih razmer vsaj za nekaj let.

Pa tudi sicer ne med učitelji ne med študenti ni bilo posebnega navdušenja za selitev na sever. Narava pravnega študija in raziskovanja je pač taka, da je tesno povezana tako s pravosodjem kot tudi z zakonodajno vejo oblasti.

Ob iskanju boljše in predvsem hitrejše rešitve od novogradnje na severu se je povsem po naključju pokazala možnost adaptacije stavbe bivše Tiskarne Ljudske pravice, ki je bila prav takrat na prodaj. Učitelji in sodelavci fakultete so si stavbo ogledali in senat fakultete je na izredni seji 9. aprila 1996 soglasno sprejel sklep, po katerem “vidi v pridobitvi in prenovi

secesijskega dela stavbe Tiskarne Ljudske pravice trajno možnost rešitve svoje prostorske stiske”.22 Senat je zaprosil Ministrstvo za šolstvo in šport, da zagotovi ustrezna finančna sredstva za pridobitev in prenovo te stavbe za potrebe Pravne fakultete. Senat je hkrati pooblastil dekana, da opravi potrebne razgovore in da pridobi tudi od rektorja pismo o podpori tem prizadevanjem Pravne fakultete.

Ministrstvo za šolstvo in šport in še posebej minister dr. Slavko Gaber ter svetovalec vlade g. Niko žibret so po začetnih pomislekih sprejeli stališče Pravne fakultete in se dejavno vključili v težavno zagotavljanje sredstev za nakup in obnovo stavbe bivše tiskarne.

Vlada Republike Slovenije je že 15. maja 1996 v zvezi s tem sprejela svoj prvi sklep.23 Sklenila je, da se za Pravno fakulteto zaradi prostorske stiske pridobijo novi prostori, ter imenovala tričlansko komisijo, ki naj bi pripravila predlog razrešitve prostorske stiske Pravne fakultete in jo predložila Vladi RS.24 Na podlagi poročila te komisije je vlada 20. junija 1996 v zvezi s prostorsko problematiko Pravne fakultete sprejela svoj drugi sklep.25 Sklenila je, da se prostorska stiska Pravne fakultete Univerze v Ljubljani razreši z nakupom objekta Tiskarne Ljudske pravice in da mora kupec pred podpisom pogodbe pridobiti ekspertno mnenje pooblaščene institucije o primernosti objekta za izvajanje izobraževalne in raziskovalne dejavnosti. Vlada je hkrati določila, da sme kupnina znašati največ 1.620.000.000 tolarjev.

Na seji 1. avgusta 1996 je vlada sprejela tretji sklep, s katerim je predvsem zadolžila Ministrstvo za šolstvo in šport, da skupaj s Službo Vlade Republike Slovenije za zakonodajo do prihodnje seje vlade pripravi predpogodbo o nakupu stavbe Tiskarne Ljudske pravice oziroma pripravi način finančnega pokritja obveznosti, hkrati pa je pooblastila takratnega rektorja Univerze v Ljubljani akad. prof. dr. Alojza Kralja, da podpiše kupno pogodbo.26 Ker se je pri izvajanju teh sklepov nekoliko zataknilo, je vlada 17. oktobra 1996 ponovno dala soglasje k nakupu stavbe Tiskarne Ljudske pravice in znova pooblastila rektorja Kralja, da podpiše pogodbo. Ker je bilo jasno, da kupnine ne bo mogoče zagotoviti takoj, so bile po tem sklepu vlade v ceno vključene tudi obresti do 31. marca 1997, tako da je celotna cena znašala 1.750.000.000 tolarjev.27 S tem je bil storjen odločilni korak. 16. decembra sta direktor prodajalca, t. j. Centra za gospodarsko svetovanje, mag. Milan Lovrenčič in rektor Univerze v Ljubljani akad. prof. dr. Alojz Kralj podpisala pogodbo o nakupu stavbe bivše Tiskarne Ljudske pravice za potrebe Pravne fakultete Univerze v Ljubljani. Ker se je zatikalo pri plačilu, je fakulteta stavbo dejansko prevzela šele 11. novembra 1997, nekaj manj kot leto dni po podpisu pogodbe.

INDEPENDENCE Slovenian Independence and the Relocation of the Faculty

.....................................................................

T

.........................................................................

he need for a speedy solution was intensified by the changed circumstances brought about

by Slovenian independence. The study of law became increasingly popular in the 1990s. This was not just reflected in the number of enrolled students but above all in the nature of the study process. The earlier feature of a large decline in the number of students between the first and second years was replaced by increased involvement of law faculty students and the consequent high increase in the number of graduates. Between 1990/91 and 1995/96 the number of students graduating yearly rose from 146 to 244, although the number of students enrolling in the first year did not change significantly. Incidences of socalled “blind enrolment”, where a student has no serious intention of pursuing studies, dropped to a minimum while competitiveness between students and the desire to finish studies as soon as possible rose dramatically. The consequences were overflowing classrooms and impossible examination conditions, to name but two. One of the larger problems that became evident was the lack of study space, since the faculty library, too crowded even to hold all the books, had no reading room space. A few stools were placed in the former coal depository, where the faculty organised the open access part of the library, in the 1990s, but these stools were intended for the examination of newly arrived literature rather than serious study.

The increase in the number of people at the faculty also brought to the forefront the impossible sanitary conditions.

The overcrowded lecture halls were drained of all fresh air, there was a serious shortage of lavatories, and so on. The regional parliament building was not intended to be peopled by such large numbers on a daily basis. It was therefore imperative to find a solution that would be both speedy and permanently effective.

When I took over the duties of dean in 1995, I was acutely aware of this problem. As a new expansion of the university was planned in the northern part of the city, one of the options for the law faculty remained a new building in Bežigrad. However, even under the most favourable of projections the construction could start only after 2001. This was not a viable option for the faculty since it would prolong the unbearable conditions for several more years. In any case there was little enthusiasm for relocation to the north among the professors and students: the nature of law study and research as such ties it closely to both the judiciary and the legislative branch of government, warranting a location in the centre of the city.

The faculty therefore searched for a better and above all speedier solution to that of waiting for a new building in the northern part of the city. By coincidence the possibility emerged of adapting the building that used to house the Ljudska Pravica Printing House,

which was up for sale. Professors and other faculty employees inspected the building and the Faculty Senate passed a resolution at an extraordinary session on 9 April 1996 to the effect that it “viewed the acquisition and renovation of the Secessionist part of the building of the Ljudska Pravica Printing House as a permanent option for the solution of its infrastructure difficulties”.22 The senate requested that the Ministry of Education and Sport provide the appropriate financial resources for the acquisition and the renovation of this building for the Faculty of Law. At the same time the senate authorised the dean to carry out the necessary interviews and obtain a letter of support for these law faculty initiatives from the university rector. After some initial reservations and hesitation, the ministry, especially Minister Slavko Gaber and government adviser Niko žibret, accepted the law faculty’s arguments and actively contributed to the difficult process of raising sufficient funds for the purchase and renovation of the building.

The Slovenian government passed its first decision on the matter on 15 May 1996.23 It decided to acquire new premises for the law faculty, and appointed a three-member commission to draw up a proposal and present it to the government.24 On the basis of the commission’s report, the government passed its second decision on 20 June 1996.25 It decided that the problems of space encountered by the law faculty were to be solved by the acquisition of the building formerly occupied by the Ljudska Pravica Printing House and that, prior to purchase, the buyer should obtain an expert opinion from an authorised institution on the suitability of the building for the performance of educational and research activities. The government also stipulated that the purchase price could be no higher than SIT 1,620,000,000.

At a session on 1 August 1996 the government passed a third decision in which it entrusted the Ministry of Education and Sport with the task of preparing, in collaboration with the Government Office for Legislation, a pre-contract agreement for the purchase of the Ljudska Pravica Printing House building, i.e. arranging the manner of handling the financial commitments arising from the purchase. At the same time it authorised the rector, Prof Alojz Kralj, to sign the purchase contract.26 As the execution of these decisions met with a number of obstacles along the way, the government issued a new agreement to the purchase of the Ljudska Pravica Printing House building on 17 October 1996, again authorising the rector Alojz Kralj to sign the contract. As it was evident that it would not be possible to guarantee the purchase funds immediately, the government’s decision included interest until 31 March 1997 so that the entire purchase price amounted to SIT 1,750,000,000.27

D O B R O O S V E T L J E N A I N T H E W E L L – L I T L E C T U R E

Medtem so bili opravljeni prvi javni razpisi za nadzor, projektanta in izvajalce. Seveda bi bilo preveč, če bi opisovali vse težave in ovire, ki so spremljale prenovo. Kot so nas večkrat tolažili izkušeni praktiki, enostavne gradnje sploh ni; so le bolj ali manj komplicirane. Pri nas so bile glavne težave finančne in časovne narave. Kljub vsemu se je adaptacija končala relativno hitro in uspešno, za kar gre vsekakor zasluga izkušenemu projektantu in požrtvovalnim izvajalcem, ki so svoje delo v danih razmerah v veliki meri opravili zelo uspešno.

Fakulteta se je v nove prostore preselila v začetku novembra 2000 in se v njih takoj počutila doma. Za to gre zasluga predvsem projektantu gradbenih del arhitektu Andreju Mlakarju. Fakulteta ga je zato za projekt, ki ga je izdelal skupaj s sodelavci Ferdom Jordanom, Tatjano Mahovič,

A K U S T I Č N A P R E D A V A L N I C A R O O M H A S G O O D A C O U S T I C S

Markom Kogovškom in projektivnim podjetjem LUZ, d. d., predlagala za nagrado Jožeta Plečnika.28 Čeprav nagrade ni dobil, kažejo prenovljena stavba in predvsem posamezne rešitve na to, da bi jo v polni meri zaslužil, naše dobro počutje v novi fakulteti pa je tudi posledica uspešne in bivanju ter očesu prijetne arhitekture.

Gotovo je, da pomeni selitev fakultete v nove prostore dolgoročno konec njenih prostorskih težav.

Upati pa je, da bo imela tudi posredne pozitivne učinke. Predvsem dajejo novi prostori možnost za tesnejšo povezavo slovenskih pravnikov. Eden temeljnih problemov naše države je pomanjkanje strokovnjakov na mnogih področjih. Kljub relativno velikemu številu pravnikov so nekatera specialnejša področja navadno šibko zastopana. Zato je bistvenega pomena, da se ob pomembnejših projektih

združi in ustrezno koordinira širše pravno znanje ter tako doseže nova kakovost.

To pa je bistveno lažje, če obstaja prostor, ki daje možnosti za delo in za sproščen pogovor.

Slovenija potrebuje tesno povezavo in koordinacijo ne le pravne teorije in prakse, marveč pravnega znanja nasploh. Selitev Pravne fakultete v nove in ustrezne prostore predstavlja zato priložnost za oblikovanje stičišča pravnega znanja in kraj, kjer bi se lahko ustvarjalno srečevali teoretiki in praktiki. Da volja za kaj takega obstaja, so med drugim pokazali številni pravniki, ki so prispevali za obnovo naše lepotice ob Ljubljanici. Zavedali so se, da ne prispevajo za tuje zidove, marveč za nove možnosti pravnega študija in prava na Slovenskem.

Pravna fakulteta skuša ohraniti spomin nanje in na vse tiste, ki so zaslužni za

to, da je dobila svoje lastne in lepe prostore, z napisom v avli nove stavbe.

Na njem so navedeni vsi donatorji in glavni protagonisti obnove.

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Zapisnik izredne seje senata Pravne fakultete v Ljubljani, ki je bila dne 9. aprila 1996.

Sklep Vlade RS št. 360-04/934/10-8 o pridobitvi novih prostorov za Pravno fakulteto Univerze v Ljubljani.

V komisijo so bili imenovani Niko žibret z MŠŠ, Valter Reščič z MF in Valentin Gerkman s Servisa skupnih služb Vlade RS. Sklep Vlade RS št. 360-04/934/11-8 o razrešitvi prostorske stiske Pravne fakultete Univerze v Ljubljani.

Sklep Vlade RS št. 360-04/934/13-8 o soglasju k nakupu stavbe Tiskarne Ljudske pravice v Ljubljani za potrebe Pravne fakultete Univerze v Ljubljani.

Sklep Vlade RS št. 360-04/934/15-8 o soglasju k nakupu stavbe Tiskarne Ljudske pravice v Ljubljani za potrebe Pravne fakultete Univerze v Ljubljani.

Dopis fakultete št. 68-20/01jk z dne 5. 3. 2001, naslovljen na Društvo arhitektov Ljubljana, Sklad Jožeta Plečnika.

The decisive steps had thus been taken. On 16 December Milan Lovrenčič, director of the Business Advice Centre (which owned the building), and the rector, Alojz Kralj, signed the contract on the purchase of the Ljudska Pravica Printing House building for the use of the law faculty. Due to a number of problems related to payment of the purchase price, the faculty eventually took possession of the building only on 11 November 1997, almost a year after the contract was signed.

In the meantime the first public procurement procedures for the tasks of supervision, planning and reconstruction were undertaken. It would be far too exhausting to list all the problems and obstacles encountered in the renovation process. As experienced practitioners would often say by way of consolation, a simple process of construction does not exist – one can only distinguish between more or less complicated ones. The main problems occurring here related to time and money.

However, despite all the difficulties, renovation was completed in a relatively short time and successfully, for which credit is definitely due to the experienced architect and hardworking construction companies who, under the given circumstances, completed their work for the most part in a very successful manner.

The faculty relocated to the new premises in November 2000 and immediately felt at home there.

A great deal of credit for this is again due to the architect who designed the building, Andrej Mlakar. The faculty therefore nominated him and his team, Ferdo Jordan, Tatjana Mahovič, Marko Kogovšek and the LUZ company, for the Jože Plečnik Award.28 Although he did not receive the award, the renovated building and some of the architectural solutions in particular are proof enough of the quality of his work, which was certainly deserving of the prize. The high level of satisfaction with the working conditions at the new building is also the consequence of successful and user-friendly architecture which is also pleasing to the eye.

There is no doubt that the relocation of the faculty signifies a long-term solution to its spatial issues. In addition one hopes that it will also have other, indirect positive effects. Above all the new premises offer possibilities for closer co-operation between Slovenian lawyers.

One of the fundamental problems faced by Slovenia is the shortage of experts in many fields. Despite a relatively large number of lawyers, some of the more specialised fields are usually weakly represented. It is therefore of the utmost importance that on important projects a wider pool of legal knowledge is gathered and new levels of quality in legal work achieved. All this is much easier to accomplish if an environment exists that promotes opportunities for work and relaxed discussion.

Slovenia needs close links and coordination not only in legal theory and practice but also in legal knowledge in general. The relocation of the Faculty of Law thus signifies an opportunity for the creation of a focal point for legal knowledge and a place where legal theoreticians and practitioners can meet in creative endeavours. That there is enough will for such an enterprise was shown, among others, by the numerous lawyers who donated funds for the renovation of our new “beauty on the banks of Ljubljanica”. They were aware of the fact that they were not merely contributing to “someone else’s walls” but also to new opportunities for law studies and the law itself in Slovenia.

The Faculty of Law is trying to preserve their memory, as well as that of all those who made it possible for the faculty to acquire its own beautiful premises, with a plaque in the lobby of the new building. It contains the names of all the donors and main players involved in the renovation.

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

See the minutes of the extraordinary session of the Senate of the Faculty of Law, 9 April 1996.

See the decision of the Slovenian government no. 36004/93-4/10-8 on the acquisition of new premises for the Faculty of Law. The commission consisted of Niko žibret from the Ministry of Education and Sport, Valter Reščič from the Ministry of Finance, and Valentin Gerkman from the Joint Services of the Government.

See the decision of the Slovenian government no. 36004/93-4/11-8 on the alleviation of the infrastructure problems of the Faculty of Law. See the decision of the Slovenian government no. 36004/93-4/13-8 on the agreement to purchase the Ljudska Pravica Printing House building for the use of the law faculty.

See the decision of the Slovenian government no. 36004/93-4/15-8 on the agreement to purchase the Ljudska Pravica Printing House building for the use of the law faculty.

See faculty letter no. 68-20/01jk, 3 March 2001, addressed to the Architects Society of Ljubljana (DAL), Jože Plečnik Fund.

V ZGRADBI NOVE FAKULTETE JE POSKRBLJENO ZA DUŠEVNO IN TELESNO HRANO THE NEW FACULTY BUILDING PROVIDES COMFORT FOR THE SOUL AND BODY

Novo

Ž I V L J E N J E STARE TISKARNE •

Andrej Hrausky

Stavbe preživijo svoje investitorje. Četudi so zasnovane za točno določen namen, je njihova življenjska doba praviloma daljša od potreb, zaradi katerih so bile zgrajene. Tako z leti stavbe postanejo zgolj lupine, v katerih se bolj ali manj uspešno skušajo umestiti nove vsebine. Nič drugačna ni bila naloga, s katero se je soočil arhitekt Andrej Mlakar pri projektu nove pravne fakultete. Ministrstvo za šolstvo je imelo na voljo dve stavbi, ki sta bili zgrajeni v različnih obdobjih in sta bili del širšega kompleksa nekdanje založbe in Tiskarne Ljudska pravica. Prva stavba izvira še iz avstro-ogrske monarhije. V letih 1907-08 jo je zgradilo podjetje Gustava Tönniesa za Katoliško tiskovno društvo in je predstavljala del nove urbanistične poteze od Krekovega trga s stavbo nove mestne hiše – Mestnega doma, prek Zmajskega mostu in Resljeve ceste proti železniški postaji. Drugo stavbo so zgradili v letih 195861 po načrtih arhitekta Edvarda Ravnikarja in je tvorila celoto z upravno zgradbo nekdanje Ljudske pravice, ki so jo ljudje po rumeni oblogi fasade poimenovali Kanarček. Četudi sta bila objekta prvotno namenjena isti dejavnosti – tiskarstvu in založništvu, sta si bila po zasnovi zelo različna ter kaj malo primerna za novi namen.

Stavbi s svojima konstrukcijskima rastroma nista samo omejevali notranje razporeditve, ampak sta bili tudi brez prave medsebojne povezave. Ministrstvu za šolstvo je namreč uspelo odkupiti le del celotnega kompleksa tiskarne; od objektov vzdolž Kopitarjeve ulice je tako razpolagalo le z delom pritličja v veznem objektu med Kanarčkom in Katoliško tiskarno (ki je bil zgrajen po načrtih Edvarda Ravnikarja v letih 1981-82). Da bi oba objekta povezal v celoto, si je arhitekt Andrej Mlakar zamislil tako imenovano “študentsko os”. Tako je nastala pokrita ulica s poljavnim programom, ki poteka od obrežja Ljubljanice vse do Plečnikovega Peglezna in predstavlja hrbtenico vsega dogajanja. Na dvorišču jo je arhitekt prekril s stekleno opno, ki deluje kot zimski vrt, in ob njej uredil manjšo restavracijo z bifejem.

G

lavni vhod z dvignjene ploščadi ob Ljubljanici označuje bronasti kip Pegiusa, slovenskega pravnika iz 15. stoletja, ki ga je izdelal akademski kipar Mirsad BegiÊ.

Ta je na hrbtno stran doprsnega kipa dodal še podobo pravnika Franceta Prešerna, ki je zaslutil samostojno državo in katerega 200-letnico rojstva smo praznovali lani.

Starejša stavba je na zunaj oblikovana v slogu, ki je bil za tisto dobo v Ljubljani značilen. Gre za prehod iz historicizma v secesijo, kjer sta arhitekt in naročnik hotela biti sodobna, obenem pa se vendar nista želela preveč oddaljiti od tradicije. Podobno velja tudi za konstrukcijo. Za tradicionalno opečno fasado se v notranjosti skriva prva armiranobetonska skeletna konstrukcija v Ljubljani.

V preureditvi za potrebe Pravne fakultete je arhitekt Andrej Mlakar v stavbi uredil prostore profesorjev: pisarne, sejno sobo in tudi klub pravnikov v nadstropju. Le klet je namenjena predavalnicam za seminarsko delo.

Obstoječi raster armiranobetonske skeletne konstrukcije ni bil optimalen za ureditev pisarniških prostorov. Zato je arhitekt nove zidove hodnika zasnoval zunaj konstrukcijskega rastra stebrov in s tem na strani proti Ljubljanici omogočil globlje pisarne. Zaradi tega niz stebrov ni skrit v zidu, ampak stoji ob robu hodnika in v perspektivi ustvarja zanimiv motiv. Sanitarije na koncu hodnika so povsod oblikovane kot poseben blok, ki je označen z drugačno barvo.

Zraven njih je na fasadi na novo zgrajeno požarno stopnišče, ki z zunanje strani tvori sodoben arhitekturni element dvoriščne fasade. Da bi pridobil potrebno višino na podstrešju, je arhitekt

nekoliko dvignil venec stavbe in predvidel višja okna. Tu se je prilagodil secesijskemu slogu in na vrhu venca dodal balustre, ki so bili predvideni v prvotnem projektu, vendar niso bili izvedeni. Na ta način zunanja fasada stare stavbe, ki nagovarja secesijski Zmajski most arhitekta Jurija ZaninoviÊa iz leta 1901, ohranja svoj prvotni slog. Da gre za novo vsebino, nakazuje le dodana nadstrešnica iz jekla in stekla, vendar tudi izbira materialov sledi secesijskim vzorom. Secesija je rada uporabljala nadstreške in izveske iz kovanega železa in stekla, o čemer se lahko prepričamo pri blagovnici Centromerkur (1903) na Prešernovem trgu in pri Mestni hranilnici (1904) v Ljubljani. Pri Pravni fakulteti nadstrešek tvori tudi nov portal vhoda, saj je bil prvotni vhod v stavbo etažo nižje. Danes je vhod v stavbo z dvignjene ploščadi, pod katero so energetski objekti, in je speljan skozi nekdanje okno v prvem nadstropju.

Tudi novejša stavba nekdanje Tiskarne Ljudske pravice s svojimi velikimi površinami, ki jih opredeljuje konstrukcijski raster v razponu 6 metrov, ni bila najbolj primerna za novo uporabo. Velika globina ni omogočala naravne osvetlitve vseh prostorov in arhitekt si je moral na več mestih pomagati s svetlobnimi jaški. Poleg tega so se stebri ponekod pojavili sredi predavalnic. Statik Miran Pezdirc jih je nekaj sicer lahko odstranil, kljub temu pa je raster stebrov omejeval notranjo razporeditev in med drugim določil širino hodnikov in stopnišč. S študentske osi je v pritličju dostop do dveh predavalnic, preko stopnišča pa še do treh predavalnic v nadstropju. Knjižnica v pritličju in Institut za kriminologijo, ki sta v isti stavbi, imata dostop skozi svoj vhod iz Kapiteljske ulice. V kleti stavbe so pokrite garaže s 106 parkirnimi mesti, ki se raztezajo tudi v nekdanje gospodarsko dvorišče; to je arhitekt skoraj v celoti prekril s ploščo.

Nekdaj vidno skeletno konstruk-

cijo iz betona na fasadi je oblekel v kamen. S tem ni samo prekril slabo ohranjenega vidnega betona, ampak je fasado prilagodil pomenu nove vsebine.

Podobno kot na dvoriščni fasadi secesijske stavbe je arhitekt tudi tu uporabil novo požarno stopnišče kot poseben arhitekturni element.

Arhitekt Andrej Mlakar je izdelal tudi načrte za notranjo opremo. Pri tem je uporabil običajne materiale, kot sta vezana plošča ali ultrapas, in s preprostim, a elegantnim oblikovanjem ustvaril praktične in zanimive ambiente. Skrbneje so oblikovane dvorane, sejna soba v pritličju, restavracija in knjižnica, kjer vidimo tudi domiselno oblikovane trikotne lestence.

Adaptacija stare tiskarne v prostore Pravne fakultete v arhitekturnem smislu ni bila preprosta naloga. Ni jih bilo malo, ki so dvomili tudi v umestnost selitve fakultete na rob starega mestnega jedra. Vendar predstavlja projekt v času, ko se investicije zaradi slabih pogojev v mestu selijo na njegovo obrobje, skupaj s sosednjim Kapitljem enega redkih posegov, ki v staro mesto vnašajo novo življenje, zato je še toliko pomembnejši.

D I A L O G Z IN DIALOGUE

A R H I T E K T U R O P L E Č N I K A I N R A V N I K A R J A WITH THE ARCHITECTURE OF PLEČNIK AND RAVNIKAR

New L I F E

FOR THE OLD PRINTWORKS •

Andrej Hrausky

Buildings outlive those who commission them. Even if they are designed for a specific purpose, they usually outlast the needs for which they were built. Thus over time buildings become mere shells and attempts are made to fill them with new contents – with varying degrees of success. This was precisely the task facing architect Andrej Mlakar in the new law faculty project. The Ministry of Education had two buildings at its disposal, built in different periods and forming part of a wider complex constituting what was once the Ljudska pravica Printing and Publishing House. The first building dates from the period of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

Built in 1907–08 by the construction company of Gustav Tönnies for the Catholic Printing Society, it represented part of the new urban axis running from Krekov Trg with its new town hall building (Mestni Dom), over the Dragon Bridge and up Resljeva Street towards the railway station. The second building was built in 1958–61 to the plans of architect Edvard Ravnikar and formed a united whole with the Ljudska pravica office building, popularly known as Kanarček (The Canary) because of its yellow faćade. Although the two buildings were originally conceived for the same activity – printing and publishing – they were of very different design and little suited to the new purpose. Not only did the grid structures around which they were built limit the options for converting their interiors, they lacked a proper interface. The Ministry of Education in fact only succeeded in purchasing part of the printworks complex, and of the buildings along Kopitarjeva Street all it had at its disposal was part of the ground floor of the structure linking Kanarček to the Catholic Printing Society printworks (built to Edvard Ravnikar’s plans in 1981–82). In order to connect the two buildings to form an integrated whole, architect Andrej Mlakar came up with the idea of a “students’ axis” which resulted in a covered street or mall, semi-public in function, running from the Ljubljanica embankment to Plečnik’s Peglezen (flat iron) building and representing the backbone of the whole project.

NARAVNA SVETLOBA PRODIRA V NOTRANJOST PROSTOROV FAKULTETE THE INTERIOR SPACES OF THE FACULTY ARE FLOODED WITH NATURAL LIGHT

I

n the internal courtyard this was covered by a glass membrane functioning as a winter garden.

Next to it the architect situated a small restaurant and snack bar. The main entrance, from a raised platform on the side facing the river, is marked by a bronze statue of Pegius, a 15thcentury Slovenian lawyer, by Academy-trained sculptor Mirsad BegiÊ. On the back of this bust the sculptor added an image of poet and lawyer France Prešeren (1800–1849), who foresaw an independent Slovenia and whose bicentenary we celebrated last year.

The exterior of the older building is in a style typical of the Ljubljana of the period in which it was built. It is a kind of transition from historicism to the style of the Vienna Secession, where the architect and the client wanted to be contemporary but at the same time did not want to depart too dramatically from tradition. A similar consideration applies to the structure. Behind the traditional brick facade hides the first reinforced concrete skeleton in Ljubljana. In converting the building to the needs of the law faculty, Andrej Mlakar designed premises for the teaching staff – offices, a conference room and a lawyers’ club – on the upper floors, while the basement was set aside for lecture rooms for seminar work. The existing grid of the reinforced concrete skeleton was not ideal for the arrangement of the offices. For this reason the architect designed new corridor walls outside the structural grid formed by the pillars, thus enabling deeper offices on the side facing the Ljubljanica. As a result, the row of pillars is not hidden in the wall but stands on the edge of the corridor and in perspective creates an interesting motif. The washrooms at the ends of the corridors are designed throughout as a special block, indicated by the use of a different colour. Next to

them is a new fire escape built onto the facade, which from the outside creates a modern architectural element on the courtyard frontage. In order to obtain the necessary height in the attic space, the architect slightly raised the cornice and planned taller windows. Here he adapted himself to the Vienna Secession style and at the top of the cornice added the balusters envisaged in the original project but never realised. In this way the external facade of the old building, which addresses the 1901 Secessionist Dragon Bridge by architect Jurij Zaninovich, preserves its original style. The only indication of its new content is the addition of a steeland-glass porch, but even here the choice of materials follows the Secessionist model, which favoured wrought iron and glass for porches and signs, as can be seen from other examples in Ljubljana such as the Centromerkur department store (1903) in Prešeren Square and the City Savings Bank (1904). In the case of the law faculty the porch also creates a new main entrance, since the original entrance to the building was one storey lower. Today the building is entered from a raised platform below which an electricity substation is located.

The entrance is through what used to be a window on the first floor.

With its large surfaces defined by a structural grid of six-metre intervals, the newer Ljudska Pravica building was likewise imperfectly suited to its new function. Its considerable depth did not permit natural illumination of all internal spaces and the architect was compelled to use light shafts at several points. Moreover some of the pillars appeared in the middle of lecture rooms.

Structural engineer Miran Pezdirc was able to remove some of them but even so the grid of pillars limited the internal layout options and among other things determined the breadth of corridors and staircases. The “students’ axis” gives access to two lecture rooms on the ground floor and, via the staircase, to three

upstairs lecture rooms. The library on the ground floor and the criminology institute, housed in the same building, have their own entrance on Kapiteljska Street. In the basement is a car park with space for 106 cars. The car park also extends into the former yard, which the architect has almost entirely covered with an apron.

The once-visible concrete skeleton on the faćade has been dressed in stone. Not only has this covered the poorly preserved visible concrete, it has adapted the facade to the importance of the building’s new content. As on the courtyard frontage of the Secessionist building, the architect has employed a new fire escape as a special architectural element.

Andrej Mlakar also drew up plans for interior fittings.

Here he used standard materials such as ultrapas and laminated boards, and with a simple but elegant design created practical and interesting surroundings.

More care went into the design of the hall, the conference room on the ground floor, the restaurant and the library (where we also see imaginatively designed triangular chandeliers).

The conversion of the old printworks into premises for the law faculty was not a simple task in the architectural sense.

Many also doubted the appropriateness of moving the faculty to the edge of the old town centre. Nevertheless, at a time when poor conditions in the city mean that investments are moving to the outskirts of the city, this project, together with the neighbouring Kapitelj building, represents one of the few construction projects to have brought new life to the old part of the city. And for this reason it is all the more important.

OŽIVLJENI MARTIN PEGIUS prof. dr. Milček Komelj

E

nega prvih znamenitih pravnikov slovenskega rodu Martina Pegiusa je bil kipar Mirsad BegiÊ prisiljen oblikovati le iz lastne predstave. Njegov kip, ki obvladuje ploščad pred prenovljeno stavbo Pravne fakultete, ne pomeni t.i. rekonstrukcije (kakršne so številne upodobitve Prešerna, kjer so predstavno intuicijo avtorjev zamejevali pisno izročilo in nezanesljive, vendar v kulturni zavesti uveljavljene likovne predloge), ampak je umetnikova domišljija lahko razprla krila v neomejenem razmahu, ki ga je usmerila le zavest o mislečem umu, ujetem v izročilo humanističnega 16. stoletja. Pri tem pa si avtor svojega junaka ni zamislil le kot splošen (proto)tip, marveč ga je kot izkušen portretist realistično konkretno ustvarjalno individualiziral. Zamislil si je fizionomijo, ki naj bi iz brezna nekdanjosti priklicala nevideno, a zato nič manj živo in odslej na novo otipljivo obličje, ki naj bi z osebnostno prepričljivostjo izžarevalo predvsem učenjakov duhovni značaj in veličino.

Kiparjeva predstavna moč je energično oživela v poduhovljen starostni portret imenitneža, ki je nekoliko sključen le iz žive zvedavosti, kot bi želel pozorno razbrati naš čas in radovedno premotriti današnje profesorje in študente. Mogočno bronasto poprsje je v poudarku svoje snovnosti ponekod slikovito razbrazdano in z ritmično razčlenitvijo nakazuje slovesno draperijo z insignijami, iznad srčastega ovratnika prirasli sugestivni obraz pa že na prvi pogled učinkuje z živostjo duha.

Plemenito uglajeni mož je zajet v kanone renesančnih kiparskih in slikarskih portretov (ob njegovih prežarjeno upadlih razpotegnjenih potezah se nam npr. prebudijo v spominu El Grecova obličja) ter je videti prav toliko filozof ali umetnik kot svetnik ali predan učenjak; vsekakor pa je aristokrat duha, skoncentriran z intenzivnim pogledom pod pozorno namrščenim učenjaškim čelom v neznanost, skrito v konstelacijah zvezd, ki jih razbira astrologija, ter v kaosu razmerij medosebnega sveta, ki ga razrešuje pravna veda. Skozi BegiÊev pogled se v svoji plastični otipljivosti in duhovni skrivnosti preraja kot hkrati oster in blag, zamišljen in odločen, slovesno dostojanstven in vzvišeno razkošen in vendar ponotranjeno asketski, v duhu renesančnih portretov hkrati odmaknjeno historičen in v živi osebni izraznosti, ki se posebej izrisuje v njegovem ostrem profilu, tudi ognjevito priostren.

Učenjakovo bradato poprsje je premišljeno nameščeno na podstavek nekoliko postrani, da bi lahko živahni mož s prodirnim pogledom pritegnil čim širši prostor. Ker pa je s hrbtno stranjo obrnjen na ulico, je kipar odprtino začelne praznine, ki bi drugače zviška zevala v mimoidoče, domiselno zapolnil z reliefom pesnika Prešerna, ki ga nosi Pegius na svoji dragoceni opravi podobno, kot so nosili svečeniki na škofovskih oblačilih izvezene podobe svetnikov. S tem pa je tudi nakazal, da je bil spomenik postavljen v letu pesnikovega jubileja, ter spomnil na okoliščino, da je bil naš pesniški genij po poklicni izobrazbi pravnik.

Predvsem pa nam kiparjeva nepredvidljiva intuicija prebuja spoznanje, da nam je postavil duhovni državotvorni temelj za današnjo državo, za

katere veljavni pravni red naj bi skrbelo pravo, dr. France Prešeren. Trubarjev sodobnik Pegius, ki je pričel pisati tudi v nemščini, da bi ga razumeli latinščine nevajeni rojaki, tega seveda ni mogel slutiti, zato svojega Prešerna (vidnega s ceste nad izvirom vode pod podstavkom), ki mu ga je oprtala zgodovina kot napoved zanj še nerazvidne prihodnosti slovenskega naroda, iz katerega je izšel in se njegovih krajev tudi v starosti spominjal, sam seveda ne vidi. Oba portreta pa se v očeh današnjega gledalca, tako kot obličja vseh gorečih, le v duhovni zgodovini soočenih mislecev in ustvarjalcev iz različnih stoletij, s svojo medsebojno pomenljivostjo asociativno povezujeta v apokrifno simbolično, s popolno predanostjo zgodovinskemu poslanstvu zapečateno sporočilo.

Vsestranski učenjak Martin Pegius je bil rojen v Polhovem Gradcu leta 1508 ali 1523 in je umrl 1592 v Salzburgu, kjer je bil sprva pisar in nato knežji svetovalec. 20 let je živel na Bavarskem. Kot avtor pravnih spisov je skušal služiti dvema domovinama: rodni deželi in krajem, kjer se je izobrazil. Njegovo osrednje pravniško delo razpravlja o služnostih; napisal je še mnogo drugih pravnih del, ki so ga proslavile kot pravnega učitelja, ter prvi prevedel Justinijanov kodeks. Ukvarjal se je tudi z astrologijo in okultizmom (v grbu je imel netopirja) in je bil, obdolžen čarovništva, skupaj z ženo v Nemčiji pahnjen v ječo; tam je umrl – brez procesa in obsodbe, kar jasno kaže na to, da so bile obtožbe proti njemu izmišljene.

MARTIN PEGIUS REVIVED Prof Milček Komelj

W

hile working on his portrait of one of the first famous Slovenian lawyers, the sculptor Mirsad BegiÊ could rely only on his own creative imagination. His sculpture on the forecourt in front of the new Faculty of Law is not a reconstruction – unlike the numerous portraits of Prešeren in which the imaginative intuition of the artists is restricted by literary heritage and by unreliable (though in culture generally acknowledged) artistic sources. The artist’s imagination could spread its wings in complete freedom and was influenced only by the knowledge that the figure portrayed had been a genius belonging to the humanist tradition of the 16th century.

The artist did not imagine Pegius merely as a generalised (proto) type: as an experienced portraitist, he tried to give him a concrete, individualised appearance. He designed a physiognomy that, from the depths of the past, draws unknown but still living and newly palpable features which, through convincing individuality, radiate a scholar’s spirit and greatness.

The power of the sculptor’s imagination came to life in a spiritual portrait of the aged dignitary, whose shoulders stoop in keen curiosity as if he were trying to understand our time and observing today’s teachers and students with a measure of curiosity. In places the surface of the majestic bronze bust is pleasantly rugged and, by means of a rhythmic dynamism, reveals ceremonial drapery bearing insignia. The expressive face rising above the heart-shaped collar immediately affects us with its vivacity of spirit.

This noble refined man is portrayed according to the maxims of Renaissance portraits in sculpture and painting; his radiant, elongated features remind us of faces painted by El Greco.

He seems to be both a philosopher and an artist, a saint and a dedicated scholar. He is undoubtedly an aristocrat of great spirit, his powerful gaze seated beneath a tentative, furrowed brow, focused on the unknown somewhere in the stellar constellations studied by astrology and on the chaos of individual relationships governed by the law.

Through BegiÊ’s imagination, the portrait, in its plastic palpability and spiritual mysteriousness, emerges as both stern and kind; immersed in thought but decisive; ceremonially dignified, lofty and splendid. It is nevertheless ascetically introverted and, in the spirit of Renaissance portraits, historically distant.

Its lifelike personal expression is passionately accentuated, which is particularly evident in the bust’s sharp profile.

The scholar’s bearded bust is deliberately placed on the pedestal at an angle so that the gaze of this lively man can take in as much as possible.

But since his back is turned to the street, the sculptor skilfully filled the hole, which would otherwise gape at passers-by, with a relief of the poet Prešeren. Pegius carries it on his splendid cloak in the same way bishops used to display embroidered images of saints on their vestments. With this the sculptor indicated that the monument was erected in the year that saw the 200th anniversary of the poet’s birth, reminding us that the great poet was also a lawyer by profession.

More importantly however, the sculptor’s unpredictable intuition reminds us that it was Dr France Prešeren who created the spiritual and

political foundation of the current state, whose legal order depends on its lawyers. Pegius, a contemporary of Trubar, who wrote also in German so that his fellow countrymen, whose ears were not used to Latin, could understand him, could not possibly have known this. For this reason he cannot see the image of Prešeren, which is visible from the street, above the fountain below the pedestal. This image is placed there by history and represents, unknown to Pegius, a prediction of the future of the Slovenian nation, a nation to whom this great scholar belonged and whose land his memory often revisited in his old age.

In the eyes of the present-day observer, both portraits, like the depictions of all fervent philosophers and artists from different centuries who meet only in cultural history, are connected through the association of meaning into an apocryphally symbolic message sealed with their total devotion to their historical mission.

Martin Pegius the scholar was born in Polhov Gradec in 1508 or 1523 and died in 1592 in Salzburg, where he had begun his career as a notary and risen to the position of Ducal Counsellor. He spent 20 years in Bavaria. In his legal treatises, he tried to serve both homelands: the land in which he was born and the land in which he was educated. His main legal treatise also discusses many other legal works, strengthening his great fame as a legal scholar.

He wrote about the legal aspect of servitude and was the first to translate the Justinian Code.

He was also interested in astrology and occultism (his coat-of-arms featured a bat). He was accused of witchcraft and imprisoned together with his wife. He died in a German prison without having been tried and sentenced.

This clearly shows that the accusations against him were unfounded.

Realizacije • Vrtec Rožna dolina, Ljubljana, 1981

Andrej Mlakar Rojen/born on 13/9/1954.

Diplomiral leta 1979 na Fakulteti za arhitekturo v Ljubljani.

Graduated from the Faculty of Architecture in Ljubljana in 1979.

•

Vodarna Medlog, Celje, 1984

•

Medlog water supply centre, Celje, 1984

•

Tržnica Kamnik, Kamnik, 1989

•

Kamnik market, Kamnik, 1989

•

Stanovanjska soseska na Ledarski ulici, Ljubljana, 1995

•

Residential neighbourhood on Ledarska Street, Ljubljana, 1995

•

Bežigrajski dvor; stanovanjski bloki, 1995, garaže, 1995, zunanja ureditev, 1996

•

Bežigrajski Dvor; blocks of flats, 1995, garages, 1995, landscaping, 1996

•

•

Poslovni naslov Business address KROG d.o.o.

Krakovski nasip 22 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenija GSM 041/796 095 Tel + fax: 01/426 57 61 Priznanja za arhitekturo Zlata ptica Ljubljana, 1982

•

Jugoslovansko mladinsko priznanje za arhitekturo Zagreb, 1984 •

Priznanje za razstavljeno delo in postavitev razstave; DAL, razstava Društva arhitektov Ljubljane, Ljubljana, 1988 Architecture awards Golden Bird Award Ljubljana, 1982 Yugoslav Youth Award for Architecture Zagreb, 1984 Award for exhibition work and exhibition lay-out; DAL, Exhibition of the Architects’ Society of Ljubljana, 1988

Projects • Rožna Dolina nursery school, Ljubljana, 1981

•

Poslovno trgovski objekt na Litijski cesti, Ljubljana, 1996–1998 Poslovno stanovanjski objekti; med Metelkovo cesto in Kotnikovo ulico, poslovno stanovanjski objekt E, 1997, poslovno stanovanjski objekt D, 2000–2001, poslovni objekt P, 2000, Ljubljana, 1997–2001 Pravna fakulteta, prenova Tiskarne Ljudska pravica, Ljubljana, 1997–2000 Poslovno servisni objekt Vodovod-Kanalizacija, Ljubljana, 2001 Enodružinska hiša na Škofljici, Ljubljana, 2001

•

Business and shopping centre on Litijska Street, Ljubljana, 1996–1998

•

Business and residential areas; between Metelkova and Kontikova Streets, office and residential building E, 1997, office and residential building D, 2000–2001, office building P, 2000, Ljubljana, 1997–2001

•

Faculty of Law, restoration of the Ljudska Pravica Printing House, Ljubljana, 1997–2000

•

Office and services building water supply/sewage, Ljubljana, 2001

•

Single family home in Škofljica, Ljubljana, 2001

Razstave Trgi za naša mesta, skupinska razstava, Beograd, Delft, Novi Sad, Skopje, 1982

•

•

Razstava dobitnikov priznanj Zlata ptica, Novo mesto, 1982

•

Nekatere nove tendence v novejši slovenski arhitekturi, Piran, Rijeka, Beograd, 1984

•

Salon arhitekture, Beograd, 1986

•

DAL, razstava Društva arhitektov Ljubljane, Ljubljana, 1986, 1988, 2001

•

Razstava za nagrado Piranesi, Piran, 1997

Exhibitions Squares for our cities, Joint exhibition, Belgrade, Delft, Novi Sad, Skopje, 1982

•

•

Exhibition of Golden Bird award winners, Novo mesto, 1982

•

Some new trends in recent Slovenian architecture, Piran, Rijeka, Belgrade, 1984

•

Architecture showroom Belgrade, 1986

•

DAL, Exhibition of the Architects’ Society of Ljubljana, 1986, 1988, 2001

•

Piranesi Award Exhibition, Piran, 1997

Pravna fakulteta

The Faculty of Law

Univerza v Ljubljani University of Ljubljana • Založila / Published by

Pravna fakulteta / The Faculty of Law Univerza v Ljubljani / University of Ljubljana Poljanski nasip 2 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia tel.: +386 (0) 1/420 31 00 fax.: +386 (0) 1/420 31 15 e-mail: pf-dekanat@uni-lj.si Za Pravno fakulteto / For The Faculty of Law prof. dr. Marko Ilešič prof. dr. Janez Kranjc Arhitektura / Architecture Andrej Mlakar / KROG Sodelavci arhitekture / Architectural team Ferdo Jordan Tatjana Mahovič Marko Kogovšek Projektivni biro LUZ d.d.

Statika / Statics Miran Pezdirc Umetniško vodstvo in oblikovanje kataloga Art direction and design catalogue Edi Berk / KROG Besedilo / Text prof. dr. Janez Kranjc Andrej Hrausky prof. dr. Milček Komelj Fotografije / Photography Miran Kambič Lektura / Editing Maja Kraigher Prevod / Translation Matej Accetto in / and Amidas, Ljubljana Grafična priprava / Graphic pre-press Grafika Paradoks, Ljubljana Tisk / Printed by Gorenjski tisk, Kranj Realizacija / Produced by KROG, Ljubljana 2002