1.4 Skladna uporaba UI
Take
Ključno Homesporočilo
Pravne praznine ni. Zakonodaja o varstvu podatkov je veljala ves čas.
- Urnik
2. decembra 2027, ne avgusta 2026. Preverite gradiva svoje šole.Thereseisjenopremaknil.legalObveznostivacuum.zaDatavisokotveganoprotectionUIlawvhasizobraževanjuappliedseallzačnejoalong. TheŽetimetablezavezujočemoved.odThe high-risk duties for education AI start on2 December 2027, not August 2026. Check your school's handouts.
IfČeyousirememberzapomniteonlyleoneensentencestavekfromsthistepage:strani:ComplianceSkladnostisjeahiša,house,nenot a wall.zid.
The
Bralni readingdnevnik, journal,tretji third look
pogled
OurNaš ninth-gradedevetošolec, student,njegov hisbralni readingdnevnik, journal,sum hisnjegove teacher'sučiteljice. suspicion.V In Chapterpoglavju 1.2, itje wasšlo za vprašanje učenja; v poglavju 1.3 za strokovno presojo. Tu gre za sodni spis.
Decembra 2025 je upravno sodišče v Hamburgu v Nemčiji odločalo o nujnem pravnem sredstvu v tej zadevi. Učiteljica je opazila, da se dnevnik po slogu pisanja ni ujemal z dečkovim pisanjem pri razrednem testu. Posledično je šola to obravnavala kot goljufijo. Sledila je nujna pritožba, s katero so to poskušali ustaviti, a questionsodišče aboutjo learning;je zavrnilo. Neprijavljena uporaba UI pri šolskem delu šteje za goljufijo, tudi kadar šola nima izrecnega pravila proti UI. Vsi učenci morajo domnevati, da morajo delati samostojno, razen če jim je bilo povedano, kateri pripomočki so dovoljeni. Ena opomba, ki jo velja upoštevati že na začetku: gre za odločitev enega samega sodišča, ki še ni pravnomočna.
To je pravi trenutek, da naslovimo najpogostejšo zmoto na tem področju. Pravne praznine ni. Nikoli je ni bilo.
Hiša ima tri nadstropja
Večina učiteljev si zakonodajo o UI predstavlja kot en sam zid, ki se gradi nekje v Bruslju. Vendar si je bolj koristno predstavljati hišo, v kateri že živite. Temelj je varstvo podatkov. Je nosilen. Postavljen je bil pred leti. Ureja vaš torkovo dopoldne. Zgornje nadstropje je Akt EU o umetni inteligenci, evropski zakon o UI, ki sisteme razvršča glede na njihov potencial za škodo in Chapternalaga 1.3,strožje aboutobveznosti, professionalvišje judgment. Herekot itje istveganje. aDelno courtje file.naseljeno in še vedno v gradnji, rok dokončanja pa je bil pravkar prestavljen. Vrata in okna so avtorsko pravo in izpitno pravo – majhna in specifična, in se jih dnevno dotikamo, ne da bi to opazili.
Pritličje: varstvo podatkov, jasnejše, kot mnogi mislijo
Za obdelavo osebnih podatkov nekoga je vedno potrebna pravna podlaga. Kot javni organ šola svojo podlago v bistvu črpa iz svojih zakonsko določenih nalog po šolski zakonodaji. Splošne licence, ki bi šla z nazivom učitelja, ni.
InIz Decembertega 2025sledijo thetri Administrativeposledice, Courtki oftvorijo Hamburg,praktično Germany,jedro ruledtega onpoglavja.
Privolitev urgentne applicationponuja rešitve. Ena očitna rešitev bi bila preprosto vprašati starše. Vendar ima ta pristop dve pomanjkljivosti. Prvič, privolitev mora biti dana svobodno. V šolskem kontekstu, kjer so ocene dejavnik, prošnja učitelja ne pomeni svobodne izbire. Drugič, privolitev mora biti informirana, kar je težko doseči, kadar nihče ne ve, kje bodo podatki končali. Dovoljenje mora izhajati iz šolske zakonodaje, ne iz podpisa, saj se s tem odgovornost premakne navzgor, stran od vas.
Odstranitev imen ne anonimizira podatkov. Leta 2024 so nemški organi za varstvo podatkov skupno izjavili, da so podatki še vedno osebni, če je osebo iz konteksta še vedno mogoče prepoznati. To je v šolah še posebej problematično, ker vrste besedil, pri katerih si učitelji najbolj želijo pomoč – kot so eseji, prosto pisanje in theučni case.dnevniki The– teacheravtorja hadrazkrijejo noticedprek thatsloga.
Ločnica journalje didpogodba: notponudnik matchlahko theobdeluje boy'svaše writingpodatke, styleče to počne strogo po vaših navodilih in aobstaja classpisni test.dogovor Aso atem. consequence,Vendar these schooldogovor treatedsesuje itv astrenutku, deception.ko Thisponudnik wasto, followedkar byvnesete, anuporabi urgentza applicationsvoje tolastne stopnamene, this,saj buttakrat thene courtdela refused.več Undisclosedv AIvašem useimenu. Praktični preizkus je torej naslednji: ali tak dogovor obstaja in schoolworkali countsizključuje asurjenje deceptionmodela evenna wherevaših thevnosih? schoolČe hasne, nose explicitosebni rulepodatki againstne AI.smejo Allvnašati.
Dve mustopombi, assumeki theyju arevelja toomeniti: workpodatki independentlyo unlesszdravju, they have been told which aids are allowed. One caveat to keepinvalidnosti in mindposebnih fromvzgojno-izobraževalnih thepotrebah outset:so thispo is a single court, and the decision is not yet final.
This is a good moment to address the most common misconception in this field. There is no legal vacuum. There never has been.
The house has three storeys
Most teachers envisage AI law as a single wall under construction somewhere in Brussels. However, it is more useful to picture a house that you already live in. The foundation is data protection. It is load-bearing. It was laid years ago. It governs your Tuesday morning. The upper storey is thepravu EU AIdeležni Act,še Europe'sstrožjega AIvarstva, law,vsaj whichena categorizesnemška systemszvezna according to their potential for harm and imposes stricter obligations the higher the risk. It is partly occupied and still under construction, with the completion date just pushed back. The doors and windows are copyright and examination law — small and specific, and touched daily without noticing.
Ground floor: data protection, clearer than many think
Handling someone's personal data always requires legal permission. As a public body, a school's permission essentially comes from its statutory duties under school law. There is no general license that comes with being a teacher.
Three consequences follow, forming the practical core of this chapter.
Consent does not provide a solution. One obvious solution would be to simply ask the parents. However, this approach has two drawbacks. Firstly, consent must be freely given. In a school context where grades are a factor, a teacher's request does not constitute a free choice. Secondly, consent must be informed, which is difficult to achieve when nobody knows where the data will end up. Permission must come from school law, not a signature, as this shifts responsibility upwards, away from you.
Removing names does not anonymize data. In 2024, Germany's data protection authorities jointly stated that if someone could still be identified from the context, the data is still personal. This is particularly problematic in schools because the types of text that teachers most want help with — such as essays, free writing and learning journals — identify their author by style.
The dividing line is the contract: a provider may handle your data if it does so strictly on your instructions and there is a written agreement to this effect. However, the moment it uses what you type for its own purposes, the arrangement collapses because it is no longer working on your behalf. So the practical test is this: Is there such an agreement, and does it exclude training on your inputs? If not, no personal data should be entered.
Two footnotes worth noting: Data relating to health, disability, and special educational needs is subject to even stricter protection under EU law, and at least one German statedežela (Baden-Württemberg) haspa explicitlyje prohibitedz itsministrskim useodlokom njihovo uporabo v sistemih UI izrecno prepovedala. Kadar so vpletene zasebne naprave, pravna odgovornost leži pri šoli, ne pri vas osebno, kar razbremeni vas in AIzavezuje systemsvašega by ministerial decree. Where private devices are involved, the legal responsibility lies with the school, not you personally, which relieves you and obliges your head teacher.ravnatelja.
Upper
Zgornje floor:nadstropje: whatkaj theAkt AIo ActUI doesže andzahteva doesin notčesa requireše yet
ne
HereTu isje thepopravek, correctionzaradi thatkaterega makesje mostvečina existingobstoječih guidancenavodil outzastarelih. ofJulija date.2026 Inje JulyEU preložila najtežji sklop obveznosti Akta o UI za izobraževanje – tistih, ki veljajo za sisteme, uvrščene med visokotvegane, torej sisteme, ki se uporabljajo za odločanje o sprejemu, ocenjevanje tega, kar so se učenci naučili, ali njihovo nadzorovanje med izpiti – z avgusta 2026 na 2. december 2027. Veliko gradiv, napisanih leta 2025 in v zgodnjem 2026, theše EUvedno postponednavaja thestari heaviestdatum. set of AI Act duties for education, which are those attachingČe to systemsvelja classedza asdokument high-risk,na meaningvaši systemsšoli, usedpotrebuje to decide admissions, to assess what pupils have learned, or to monitor them during examinations, from August 2026 to 2 December 2027. A great many handouts written in 2025 and early 2026 still print the old date. If a document in your school does, it needs a footnote.opombo.
TheBolj morekoristen usefulpopravek correctiongre runsv thedrugo othersmer: way: whatto, alreadykar appliesže isvelja, underestimated,je andpodcenjeno, whattisto, iso endlesslyčemer discussedse doesneskončno notrazpravlja, applypa yet.še ne velja.
TwoDve thingsstvari havesta beenzavezujoči bindingod since 22. Februaryfebruarja 2025.2025.
ReadTo thatdrugo secondobveznost dutypreberite alongsideskupaj Chapters poglavjem 1.33, andin somethingnekaj clicks.se Thepoveže. gapVrzel betweenmed knowingpoznavanjem aboutUI AIin andsposobnostjo beingpoučevanja ablez njo ni več le strokovni problem. Od februarja 2025 je pravna obveznost.
Od 2. avgusta 2026 je treba vsebino, ustvarjeno z UI, tako tudi označiti. Od 2. decembra 2027 sistemi, ki se uporabljajo za odločanje o tem, kdo je sprejet, za ocenjevanje tega, kar so se učenci naučili, ali za njihovo nadzorovanje med izpiti, veljajo za visokotvegane. Kdorkoli uporablja tak sistem, s tem prevzame obveznosti, ki jih ta prinaša. Med njimi je tudi zahteva, da so osebe, ki ga nadzorujejo, po besedah akta, 'usposobljene, izurjene in pooblaščene'. Bodite pozorni na besedilo. Zakon je prišel do enakega zaključka kot pedagogika: nadzor brez strokovnega znanja ni nadzor.
Vrata in okna: avtorske pravice in izpiti
Presenetljivo je tisto, kar pride ven, lažji del. Besedilo ali slika, ki jo ustvari UI, na splošno nima človeškega avtorja v smislu, ki ga zahteva avtorsko pravo, zato je običajno samo po sebi brez avtorskih pravic. Vendar to teachne withpomeni itzagotovila, isda noje longer'čisto': onlyv prvi večji evropski sodni odločbi te vrste je sodišče v Münchnu ugotovilo, da si je klepetalnik zapomnil besedilo pesmi in ga skoraj dobesedno reproduciral. Sodišče je odgovornost naložilo ponudniku, ne osebi, ki je vnesla poziv. Ali bi bil lahko odgovoren tudi učitelj, ki tako gradivo posreduje naprej, je trenutno odprto vprašanje. Jasnejši problem je, kaj gre noter, a professionalpomnite, problem.da Sincegre Februaryza 2025vprašanje itavtorskega hasprava, beenne Akta o UI. Akt o UI ne pove ničesar o tem, kaj smejo učitelji vnašati v sistem; to ureja starejše in povsem ločeno področje prava.
Izjema, ki učiteljem dovoljuje kopiranje gradiva za svoj pouk, zajema natanko to: kopiranje omejenega deleža dela za ta razred. Nalaganje zaščitenega dela v komercialni sistem UI je drugačno dejanje, izjema pa ga ne obravnava. Gradivo, namenjeno šolskemu pouku, kar so predvsem učbeniki, je iz izjeme v vsakem primeru izključeno. Skeniranje poglavja, da bi ga dali povzeti, je torej vsakdanje dejanje, ki ga izjema za poučevanje očitno ne pokriva.
Koliko naj vas to skrbi? Manj, kot nakazuje vrzel, in več kot nič. Vprašanje je resnično nerešeno: noben višje sodišče o tem še ni odločalo, strokovna literatura pa obstoječe izjeme šteje za slabo prilagojene tej situaciji. Kadar imetnik pravic ugovarja, bi šlo za civilnopravni zahtevek, v praksi pa je to zadeva šolske politike in nabave, ne nekaj, kar bi lahko rešil posamezen učitelj. Kar pa ni nerešeno, je ozek primer, in to je črta, ki si jo velja zapomniti: šolski učbeniki in založniško gradivo naj sploh ne gredo v orodja UI – ne skenirano, ne prepisano, tudi ne za izdelavo delovnega lista.
Sodna praksa na tem področju se po Evropi trenutno zdi neskladna. Februarja 2026 je upravno sodišče v Kasslu v Nemčiji o dveh univerzitetnih primerih odločilo enako, in ostro: kadar je študent podpisal izjavo, da je delo njegovo lastno, je meja prekoračena 'že z eno samo neprijavljeno uporabo generativne UI'. Pariško upravno sodišče je februarja 2026 univerzi prepovedalo kakršno koli sankcioniranje študenta: ta namreč ni sprejela nobenega pravila o uporabi UI, brez vnaprej določenega pravila pa ni bilo disciplinske kršitve, ki bi jo bilo mogoče ugotoviti. Švedsko pritožbeno sodišče je prej prišlo do enakega izida ob skoraj identičnem dejanskem stanju kot nizozemski primer, ki se je iztekel nasprotno. V tem primeru je študent predložil izmišljene vire, a legalpravila obligation.
Sinceso 2pri Augustdomačih 2026nalogah dovoljevala 'vse pripomočke', AI-generatedzato contentni hasbilo toničesar, bekar labeledbi asbilo such.mogoče Fromkršiti. 2Kjer Decemberje 2027,bilo systemsponarejanje usedjasno to decide who gets admitted, to assess what pupils have learned, or to monitor them during examinations count as high-risk. Whoever uses such a system then assumes the duties that come with it. This incorporates a requirement that the people overseeing it be,dokazano in theje Act'spravilo words, "competent, trained and authorised". Note the wording. The law has arrived at the same conclusion as the pedagogy: oversight without expertise is not oversight.
Doors and windows: copyright and examinations
Counter-intuitively, what comes out is the easy part. A text or image generated by an AI generally has no human author in the sense copyright requires,obstajalo, so itsodišča issankcije usuallypotrdila. freeNizozemsko ofvrhovno copyrightupravno itself.sodišče Itje istako not,odločilo however, guaranteed to be clean: in the first major European ruling of its kind, a Munich court found that a chatbot had memorized song lyrics and reproduced them almost word-for-word. The court placed the liability on the provider, not on the person who typed the request. Whether a teacher who passes on such material could be liable is, as things stand, an open question. What goes in is the clearer problem, but note that this is a question of copyright, not of the AI Act. The AI Act says nothing about what teachers may feed into a system; that is an older and entirely separate body of law.
The exception that lets teachers copy material for their classes covers exactly that: copying a limited share of a work, for that class. Uploading a protected work into a commercial AI system is a different act, and the exception does not address it. Material intended for school teaching, which is mainly textbooks, is excluded from the exception in any case. So scanning a chapter to have it summarised is an everyday act that the teaching exception does not obviously cover.
How much should that worry you? Less than the gap suggests, and more than nothing. The question is genuinely unsettled: no higher court has ruled on it, and the specialist literature regards the existing exceptions as a poor fit for the situation. Where a rights holder objects, the claim would be a civil one, and in practice, this is a matter for school policy and procurement rather than something an individual teacher can settle. What is not unsettled is the narrow case, and it is the line worth remembering: school textbook and publisher material should not go into AI tools at all — neither scanned nor retyped, not even to generate a worksheet.
Case law in this field seems currently inconsistent across Europe. In February 2026, the Administrative Court of Kassel, Germany, decided two university cases the same way, and sharply: where a student has signed a declaration that the work is their own, the line is crossed "already with a single undisclosed use of generative AI". A Paris administrative court, in February 2026, forbade a university to sanction a student at all: it had produced no rule governing AI use, and without a rule set out in advance there was no disciplinary breach to find. A Swedish appeal court had reached the same result earlier, on facts almost identical to a Dutch case that went the other way. In this case, a student submitted invented sources, but the course rules permitted "all aids" in take-home work, so there was nothing to have broken. Where fabrication was clearly proven, and a rule existed, courts have upheld sanctions. The Dutch Supreme Administrative Court did so inleta 2025.
SoVzorec themed patternjurisdikcijami acrosstorej jurisdictionsni isstvar notposameznih aboutdržav. countries.Gre Itza isto, aboutali whetherje apravilo ruleobstajalo existedvnaprej beforehand,in andali whetherje thebila deceptiongoljufija wasdejansko actually shown. dokazana.
ThreeZa rulesprakso followiz fortega practice.sledijo tri pravila.
DetectorsDetektorji ne nosijo dokaznega bremena. Kar zakon dovoljuje, je sklepanje na podlagi tipičnih znakov. Sem sodijo ponavljajoče se, nenavadno dodelane formulacije, neskladje med tem, kar znajo napisati, in tem, kar znajo povedati, ter viri, za katere se izkaže, da ne obstajajo. Učenec lahko nato to pojasni. To je legitimna pot, in ne zahteva programske opreme. Izpis detektorja je kvečjemu en znak med drugimi. Stopnja napak, o kateri smo poročali v poglavju 1.3, orodje naredi neuporabno kot dokaz.
Pravo, etika in didaktika torej vsi vodijo do notistega carryodgovora: theocenjujte burdenproces, ofne proof.le Whatizdelka.
Prava lawnaslovljenka doesodgovornosti
Kot isodziv anje inferenceNemčija fromuvedla typicaldržavno signs.zagotovljena Thisšolska includesokolja repeated,za oddlyUI. polishedTo phrasing,so apreverjene mismatchplatforme betweenz whatizpogajanimi theypogodbami, cannamesto writeda andbi whatučiteljem theyprepustili, cannaj say,se andprijavijo sourcesna thatkarkoli turnje outbrezplačno. notČeprav te rešujejo probleme, ki jih posamezni učitelji ne morejo rešiti sami, so še vedno kritizirane zaradi tega, kako so upravljane, ali jih učitelji dejansko sprejemajo in ali so ocenjevanja, ki jih podpirajo, zanesljiva. Ker je uvajanje trenutno omejeno na izbrano skupino šol in določene predmete, bo treba v naslednjih mesecih spremljati, kako se učitelji znajdejo s temi platformami.
Kar je posebno, je ožje, kot se morda sprva zdi, in vredno je to exist.natančno Thepovedati: studentnamesto canda thenbi explain.razpisala Thatjavno isnaročilo aali legitimatekupila route,dostop anddo ittuje doesplatforme, notje requireNemčija software.edini Detectorevropski output,sistem, atkjer best,državni isorgan oneplatformo signsam among others. The failure rate reportedzgradi in Chapterupravlja. 1.3 rendersTudi theFrancija instrumentzagotavlja unusableplatformo asza evidence. celotno
Da nekaj zgradite sami, vam samodejno ne da več nadzora. Nemška platforma, kot je opozorilo eno panožno združenje, teče na istih komercialnih jezikovnih modelih kot vse druge, na evropskih strežnikih. Francoski sistem je, nasprotno, gostovan v Franciji pod najvišjo varnostno certifikacijo, ki jo izdaja francoska država. Ena država je zgradila površino in 2026:najema itsmotor, universitiesdruga maypa notje forbidkupila AIprogramsko opremo in unsupervisedobdržala assessmentsključe atzgradbe. all,Nobena butod mustmožnosti requireni studentsjasno tobolj declare'suverena' it.izbira, Labelingkar insteadvelja ofupoštevati, banning.
Law, ethics and didactics therefore converge on the same answer: assess the process, not just the product.
The real address of responsibility
In response, Germany has introduced state-provided school AI environments. These are vetted platforms with negotiated contracts, rather than leaving teachers to sign up to whatever is free. While these solve problems that individual teachers cannot solve alone, they are still criticized for how they are governed, whether teachers actually accept them and whether the assessments they support are sound. Since the rollout is currently limited to a select group of schools and specific subjects, we will need to monitor over the next few months how teachers are faring with the platforms.uporabimo.
WhatNizozemska isje distinctiveubrala isdrugačen narrower than it may initially appear, and it is worth stating precisely: Rather than putting it out to tender or buying access to someone else's, Germany is the only European system where a state body builds and runs the platform itself. France also provides a platform for an entire year group, but it commissioned one and two private companies deliver it: one wrote the software and the other hosts the data. Most of the rest of the continent has simply purchased one. Slovakia has gone the furthest, with 20,000 licences for teacher training faculties that will be extended towards some 80,000 school teachers by 2026. The state will only pay for the licences actually used, and the provider is contractually barred from training on Slovak school data. Estonia negotiated a similar arrangement for its upper secondary schools, and Northern Ireland invested £10.7 millionpristop, in licencesvredno forga allje teacherspoznati, ker ponuja bolj pošten odgovor na isto vprašanje. Namesto gradnje ali nakupa so se nizozemske šole in alluniverze schools.povezale Thein contractualdale guaranteeglavne thatponudnike yourformalno inputsoceniti. areKo notso usedpreučili forasistenta trainingUI —podjetja theMicrosoft, featureso thatodkrili thedve Germannerešljivi platformtežavi: wasmerila designedza tosamodejni providefilter —vsebine, canki bejih purchased.ponudnik ni hotel razkriti, in hrambo osemnajst mesecev diagnostičnih podatkov, ki je ni bilo mogoče utemeljiti. Pogajali so se. Marca 2026 pa je ponudnik zavrnil spremembe. Ocena zato ostaja 'jantarna', nizozemskim šolam pa svetujejo previdnost in lastno presojo od primera do primera, namesto splošne odobritve. Ena država je tveganje odpravila tako, da je zgradila okoli njega, druga pa si je stvar podrobneje ogledala in se odločila, da še ni pripravljena. Oba pristopa ponujata rešitve za problem, predstavljen na začetku tega poglavja.
BuildingPrimerjava itrazreši yourselfše doeseno notstvar. automaticallyPritožba, giveda youimajo moreučitelji control.raje Thebrezplačnega Germanklepetalnika platformkot runsuradnega, onni theposledica sameneuspešnega commercializvajanja languagev modelsNemčiji. asV everyoneEstoniji, else'kjer je država izpogajala dostop za vsakega dijaka višje srednje šole, je po enem letu uradnega klepetalnika tedensko uporabljala komaj več kot tretjina. Izkazalo se je, da je večina od njih brezplačna orodja uporabljala že pred začetkom programa. Povsod se preverjeno okolje poteguje s ontistim, Europeanki servers,je asbolj anpriročno. industryZagotoviti associationuradno hasorodje pointedje out.potrebno. ByNi contrast,pa the French system is hosted in France under the highest security certification issued by the French state. One country built the surface and rents the engine, while the other bought the software and keeps the keys to the building. Neither option is clearly the most sovereign choice, which is worth bearing in mind before using the term.dovolj.
TheVendar Netherlandsstrukturna tookugotovitev aostaja: differentskladnost approach,je andomogočitveni itpogoj, isne worthovira. knowingSe aboutspomnite, becausekaj itje offersbilo arečeno morev honest answer to the same question. Rather than building or buying, Dutch schools and universities joined forces and had the major providers formally assessed. When they examined Microsoft's AI assistant, they found two issues that could not be resolved: the criteria for an automatic content filter that the provider would not disclose and the retention of eighteen months of diagnostic data that could not be justified. They negotiated. In March 2026, however, the provider declined to change. The assessment therefore remains amber, and Dutch schools are advised to exercise caution and use their own judgement on a case-by-case basis rather than granting clearance. One country removed the risk by building around it, while another took a closer look and decided it was not ready yet. Both approaches offer solutions to the problem set out at the start of this chapter.
The comparison also settles one more thing. The complaint that teachers prefer the free chatbot to the official one is not due to a failure of implementation in Germany. In Estonia, where the state negotiated access for every upper-secondary student, barely more than a third were using the official chatbot weekly after a year. In turned out, that most of them had been using free tools before the program started. Everywhere, the vetted environment competes with the more convenient one. Providing the official tool is necessary. But this is not sufficient.
However, the structural point stands: compliance is an enabling condition, not a hindrance. Remember what was said in Chapterpoglavju 1.2?2? TheŠole schoolsz withjasnimi clearpravili rulesso werebile thetiste, oneskaterih whoseučitelji teachersso saidpovedali, theyda savedso theprihranili mostnajveč time.časa. ThereNoben isod nothingvirov, inna thekaterih sourcesta behindpoglavja thesetemeljijo, chaptersne thatkaže suggestsv otherwise.drugo smer.