Suchergebnisse

Penalty system in our criminal legislation has been severely changed with Criminal Code of 2005 and its changes in 2009. New penalties (community service and revocation of driver's license) were introduced along with new rules for determination of sentence. New solutions considering mitigation of penalty and remittance of punishment were also brought in. Criminal Code also incriminates two new institutes (voluntary prevention of consequence and settlement) as an optional ground for remittance of punishment. All these additions have opened new possibilities for determination of sentence and mitigation of penalty and their better adjustment to committed crime and its offender. However, some new problems occur on the process of mitigation of penalty. Therefore, it is necessary to find fast and proper solutions for these problems, not only through application of new rules but also through research of some future solutions that could be however found in next set of changes of Criminal code. ; Krivičnim zakonikom iz 2005. godine i njegovim kasnijim izmenama i dopunama iz 2009. godine unete su značajne novine kako u sistem kazni u našem krivičnom zakonodavstvu, tako i u pravila o odmeravanju, ublažavanju i oslobođenju od kazne. Neke od ovih izmena bile su u funkciji proširivanja mogućnosti oslobođenja od kazne i ublažavanja kazne, kao što je uvođenje novih instituta stvarnog kajanja i poravnanja, ali su neke donete sa ciljem da se ublažavanje kazne u nekim slučajevima i za neka krivična dela ograniči. To je, s jedne strane, otvorilo nove, dodatne mogućnosti za odmeravanje kazne i njeno što bolje prilagođavanje učinjenom delu i njegovom učiniocu, ali stvorilo i nove probleme i nedoumice naročito prilikom ublažavanja kazne. Stoga je neophodno njihovo što brže i adekvatnije rešavanje, ne samo kroz doslednu primenu novih propisa, već i kroz iznalaženje novih, celishodnijih rešenja ovih pitanja prilikom eventualnih izmena i dopuna Krivičnog zakonika.

Suspension of driving licence is a new punishment in the Criminal Code of the Republic of Serbia which hasn't existed in our criminal legislation up until now. However, it is not new in comparative criminal law, because certain contemporary criminal codes already foresee it under different names, for example French Criminal Code, Hungarian Criminal Code, Spanish Criminal Code and Portuguese Criminal Code, while some foresee it as both punishment and security measure, as in the cases of German Criminal Code, Slovenian Criminal Code, and our Criminal code. Parallel existence of driving licence suspension and security measure of ban on driving a motor vehicle in our Criminal Code requires determination of differences in concept and content between these two criminal sanctions. This difference has to be sought in purpose of implementation one or the other sanction and in conditions for their pronouncement. Given the relationship between these two sanctions, the Criminal Code foresees that the suspension of driving licence can not be pronounced together with the security measure of ban on driving a motor vehicle. Suspension of driving licence may be pronounced both as principal and as secondary sanction. It may be pronounced as principal punishment for criminal offences punishable by imprisonment of up to two years, and it may me pronounced as secondary punishment together with any other principal punishment (imprisonment, community service, fine). Duration of the penalty may not be less than one nor more than three years, and general condition for its pronunciation is that a motor vehicle was used for preparation or commission of an offence. Although this punishment by its nature refers to criminal offences against public traffic safety, the Criminal Code has set the possibility of its use much wider, connecting it to the use of motor vehicle in preparation or commission of a criminal offence, which can be interpreted very broad. It could be concluded that this punishment is acceptable, observing the increase in number of punishments and expanding possibilities of their individualization, and also as another alternative to imprisonment in particular cases. However, considering numerous problems regarding its prescription and implementation in practice, it is evident that provisions on this punishment should be worked out, altered and amended in more details, in order to provide its adequate use, and hence accomplishment of the purpose of punishment. ; Novi Krivični zakonik Republike Srbije predvideo je u svom sistemu krivičnih sankcija oduzimanje vozačke dozvole kao novu vrstu kazne. Ova kazna se prvi put pojavljuje u našem krivičnom zakonodavstvu, ali u uporednom krivičnom pravu ne predstavlja novinu. Ona se može izreći i kao glavna i kao sporedna kazna, ali se ne može izreći zajedno sa merom bezbednosti zabrane upravljanja motornim vozilom. Kazna oduzimanja vozačke dozvole se pojavljuje kao korisna novina jer proširuje mogućnosti individualizacije kazne i predstavlja moguću alternativu kazni zatvora u pojedinim slučajevima, ali brojni problemi u vezi sa njenim propisivanjem i primenom u praksi nameću potrebu da se odredbe o ovoj kazni detaljnije razrade, dopune i izmene.

The domestic violence, as specific form of violence, is the substantial social phenomena both in Serbia and other countries which has started to be considered with increased interest. Although primarily perceived as social and phychological notion, this form of violence has its criminal law significance that has emerged with the inclusion of the new provisions in the criminal law legislation. This has been done for the first time in 2002 when the then Criminal Code of the Republic of Serbia has set forth the new criminal offence of domestic violence. The new Serbian Criminal Code of 2005 has slightly modified this provision by providing for - murder of a family member, as the new form of the qualified murder. The reasons for prescribing for the new provisions in our criminal law legislation should be sought in the fact that the domestic violence comes as a new and specific form of violence, given the setting in which it takes place, as well as its victims and perpetrators. The aim for the inclusion of the new forms of incrimination was to provide for the specific legal protection of family members from different forms of violence. This has proved to be significant step in criminal law with the view to abolish violent behaviour in contemporary society. ; Nasilje u porodici, kao specifičan oblik nasilja, veoma je aktuelan društveni fenomen kod nas i u svetu i njegovom izučavanju se u poslednje vreme posvećuje velika pažnja. Iako prevashodno socijalna i psihološka pojava ovaj oblik nasilja ima i svoj krivičnopravni značaj, posebno u novije vreme kada je došlo do unošenja u naše krivično zakonodavstvo novih odredaba koje se upravo odnose na ovu problematiku. To je prvi put učinjeno 2002. godine kada je u tada važeći Krivični zakon Republike Srbije uneto novo krivično delo pod nazivom 'Nasilje u porodici'. Novi Krivični zakonik Republike Srbije iz 2005. godine zadržao je nešto izmenjenu ovu odredbu, a takođe je predvideo još jednu, najtežu inkriminaciju u ovoj oblasti, krivično delo ubistva člana porodice, kao nov oblik teškog ubistva. Razlozi za unošenje ovih odredbi u naše krivično zakonodavstvo, s obzirom da su vidovi nasilja obuhvaćeni ovim inkriminacijama već bili inkriminisani u našem pozitivnom krivičnom pravu nalaze se u činjenici da je nasilje u porodici posebna i specifična vrsta nasilja, pre svega po tome gde se ono događa i ko su njegovi izvršioci i njegove žrtve. Cilj uvođenja ovih novih inkriminacija bio je da se članovima porodice pruži posebna krivičnopravna zaštita od različitih oblika nasilja koje pojedini članovi vrše, čime je i sa kriminalno-političkog aspekta učinjen značajan korak na planu suzbijanja ovakvih nasilničkih ponašanja u našem savremenom društvu.

In November 2005, new Law of Delict was adopted, which brought important novelties in our delict-related legislation, both in its material and procedural parts. To pass a new law of delict was necessary for many reasons primarily because of the need for additional adjustments following the discontinued use of Law on Delict that used to break federal regulations, but also because of the adjustments with the international regulations and newly-adopted regulations of criminal material and procedural legislation. Due to the necessity to adjust other delict regulations with the new Law of Delict and the need to constitute new police courts, as well as to make certain organizational and technical preparations, the application of the new law was postponed for January 01, 2007. The most important changes in material part of the new law refer to introduction of the notion of delict and delict liability, as well as to the introduction of new penalties: work in public interest and penal points as punishment, forbidding the access to the injured party, facilities or the place where the delict was made and public announcement of the sentences as protective measures, and so-called special measures as correctional measures towards juveniles. As for the delict procedure, the most important novelties refer to institutions leading the procedure, especially introduction of police courts as completely new institutions within our judicial system, but also to the bigger role of public prosecutor, strengthening of the principle of initiation of delict procedure, measures to ensure the presence of the accused, reaching the verdict instead of decision on the delict, et cetera. ; Novembra 2005. godine donet je novi Zakon o prekršajima čime su u naše prekšajno zakonodavstvo unete značajne novine kako u njegovom materijalnom tako i u procesnom delu. Donošenje novog Zakona o prekršajima bilo je nephodno iz više razloga, pre svega zbog potrebe dodatnih usklađivanja nastale posle prestanka primene Zakona o prekršajima kojim se povređuju savezne propisi, ali i zbog usaglašavanja sa međunarodnim propisima i novo usvojenim propisima krivičnog materijalnog i procesnog zakonodavstva. Zbog neophodnosti usklađivanja drugih prekršajnih propisa sa novim Zakonom o prekršajima i potrebe da se konstituišu novi prekršajni sudovi, kao i da bi se izvršile određene organizacione i tehničke pripreme, početak primene novog Zakona odložen je za 1. januar 2007. godine. Najznačajnije izmene u materijalnom delu novog zakona odnose se na novo određenje pojmova prekršaja i prekršajne odgovornosti, kao i na uvođenje novih prekršajnih sankcija: rad u javnom interesu i kazneni poeni kao kazne, zabrana pristupa oštećenom objektima ili mestu izvršenja prekršaja i javno objavljivanje presude kao zaštitne mere, i tzv. posebne mere, kao vaspitne mera prema maloletnicima. Što se tiče prekršajnog postupka, najznačajnije novine odnose se na organe za vođenje ovog postupka, naročito na uvođenje sudova za prekršaje kao potpuno novih organa u našem pravosudnom sistemu, ali i na veću ulogu javnog tužioca jačanje načela pokretanja prekršajnog postupka, mere za obezbeđenje prisustva okrivljenog, donošenje presude umesto rešenja o prekršaju i dr.

This paper describes the manners of meting out a penalty in the law of torts. In contrast to criminal law, the law of torts uses three systems of meting out the tortuous penalty: The system of relatively defined penalties, the system of absolutely defined penalties and the system of proportionate penalties. The system of relatively defined penalties is dominant, but the other two also apply to some torts. This paper analyzes the advantages and disadvantages of these systems as well as the range of their application in the domestic law of torts. It also points to the differences emerging in our codes of torts to this effect as well as to the need to overcome them in the course of forthcoming reform of our tort-related legislation. ; U radu se govori o načinima odmeravanja kazne u prekršajnom pravu. Za razliku od krivičnog prava, u prekršajnom pravu se koriste tri sistema odmeravanja prekršajne kazne: Sistem relativno određenih kazni, sistem apsolutno određenih kazni i sistem proporcionalnih kazni. Dominantan je sistem relativno određenih kazni, ali za pojedine vrste prekršaja u primeni su i druga dva sistema. U članku se analiziraju prednosti i nedostaci ovih sistema kao i dometi njihove primene u našem prekršajnom pravu. Takođe se ukazuje na razlike koje se po ovim pitanjima pojavljuju u našim prekršajnim zakonima, kao i na potrebu njihovog prevazilaženja prilikom predstojeće reforme našeg prekršajnog zakonodavstva.

Robbery is one of the most serious criminal offences, its more serious forms belonging to the group of the most serious criminal offences in general. Robbery is a complex criminal offence consisting of theft and constraint, while its more serious forms comprise the criminal offence of bodily injury or murder. According to our criminal law this criminal offence occurs when a criminal, caught in the act of theft, in order to retain the stolen thing uses force or threat of force against some person's life or body. In criminal legislation of other countries this criminal offence is defined in a similar way, although there are differences in the way this criminal offence is determined and in specification of its elements. As a consequence, some criminal codes treat this criminal offence as a separate criminal offence, some treat it as a special form of theft, some as a form of robbery, while some speak of it together with the criminal offence of robbery within the same article. In addition, there are differences regarding regulation of the character of the used threat, depending on the fact weather any kind of threat is sufficient for the existence of such criminal offence, or only a threat to attack life or body. There are also differences concerning the objective to be attained by means of force or threat. Usually it is the intention to retain the stolen thing, but some criminal codes speak also of intention of the criminal to escape. It has to be kept in mind that in criminal legislation there also are differences regarding the definition of the concept of theft, the concept used in case of this criminal offence too, according to whether theft is conceived as taking away of someone else's movable thing, or also by intention of its appropriation or by intention to acquire unlawful material benefit for oneself or for others. A certain number of criminal codes prescribe as more serious forms of robbery cases when a person has suffered serious bodily injury or has been murdered. ; Krivično delo razbojničke krađe je jedno od najtežih imovinskih krivičnih dela, a njegovi teži oblici spadaju u najteža krivična dela uopšte. Razbojnička krađa je složeno krivično delo koje se sastoji od krivičnog dela krađe i krivičnog dela prinude, a njegovi teži oblici sadrže i krivično delo telesne povrede odnosno krivično delo ubistva. U našem krivičnom pravu ovo krivično delo je određeno tako što ono postoji kada je učinilac krivičnog dela krađe zatečen na delu, pa u nameri da ukradenu stvar zadrži upotrebi protiv nekog lica silu ili pretnju da će neposredno napasti na život ili telo. Na sličan način ovo krivično delo je predviđeno i u krivičnim zakonicima drugih zemalja, s tim da među njima postoje razlike u pogledu načina određivanja ovog krivičnog dela, kao i u pogledu preciziranja njegovih elemenata.

Parallel to a growing significance of cultural property, there is a rise in criminality in that sphere requiring adequate reaction of criminal legislation. Most frequent and most important is the offence of theft of cultural property, which is defined in many a criminal code, including that of Serbia, as a special kind of criminal offences. The author, applying comparative method, thoroughly analyses the elements of the offence and its specificity's in terms of the concept, the act of committing it premeditation, etc. ; Paralelno sa porastom značaja kulturnog vlasništva, dolazi do porasta kriminaliteta u toj oblasti što zahteva odgovarajuću reakciju krivičnog zakonodavstva. Najčešće i najznačajnije krivično delo je krađa kulturnog vlasništva koje je u većini zakonodavstava, pa i u srpskom, definisano kao posebna vrsta krivičnog dela primenjujući uporednopravni metod, autor vrši detaljnu analizu elemenata ovog krivičnog dela i njegovih karakteristika u smislu pojma, radnje izvršenja, umišljaja, itd.

From the adoption of the Criminal Code in 2006 until the latest amendments of 2019, the Serbian criminal legislation treated recidivism as an optional aggravating circumstance, which had its specific legal status in comparison with other mitigating and aggravating circumstances. According to the new legal solution, instead of being optional, recidivism has become a mandatory aggravating circumstance. Together with clearly specified condi-tions for harsher penalties this narrows down the possibility of free judicial decision-making when meting out punishment. The paper answers several questions: whether harsher penalties for recidivists are only the result of con-tinuous tightening of repression at a normative level, whether and to what ex-tent the criminal-law framework has been improved, and whether returning to some solutions, which were not normally applied in court practice, can be marked as approriate to achieve the desired degree of crime prevention. Final critical conculusion is that the new legal solution on recidivism appears regres-sive, given that the court is strictly bound by the law through oblitatory condi-tions regarding prior and persistent offending, which is in compliance with the general trend of tightening repression at the normative level and reducing the role of the court to the level of administrative application of the norm.

From the adoption of the Criminal Code in 2006 until the latest amendments of 2019, the Serbian criminal legislation treated recidivism as an optional aggravating circumstance, which had its specific legal status in comparison with other mitigating and aggravating circumstances. According to the new legal solution, instead of being optional, recidivism has become a mandatory aggravating circumstance. Together with clearly specified conditions for harsher penalties this narrows down the possibility of free judicial decision-making when meting out punishment. The paper answers several questions: whether harsher penalties for recidivists are only the result of continuous tightening of repression at a normative level, whether and to what extent the criminal-law framework has been improved, and whether returning to some solutions, which were not normally applied in court practice, can be marked as appropriate to achieve the desired degree of crime prevention. Final critical conclusion is that the new legal solution on recidivism appears regressive, given that the court is strictly bound by the law through oblitatory conditions regarding prior and persistent offending, which is in compliance with the general trend of tightening repression at the normative level and reducing the role of the court to the level of administrative application of the norm.