Zbornik 1 2014

1/2014
2014

UNIVERSITY OF NOVI SAD
FACULTY OF LAW NOVI SAD
(SERBIA)

COLLECTED PAPERS
XLVIII 1 (2014)
, 2014.
, XLVIII , . 1 (2014)
3
1

:
. (1966), . (19671968),
. (19691973), . (19741976),
. (19771983), . (19841988),
. (19891991), . (19921997),
. (19982003), . (20042007),
. (20082013).

.

.

.
:
. , prof. dr Damjan Koroec (),
prof. dr Wilhelm Brauneder (); prof. dr Tams Prugberger (),
prof. dr Serge Regourd (), prof. dr Grard Marcou (),
prof. dr Heinz Mayer (A), prof. dr Peter Mader (A),
. , ,

, , , ,
, , , ,
, , ,
2008.
Proceedings of Novi Sad Faculty of Law
EBSCO Academic Search Complete.
2010.
:
International & Non-U.S. Law Journals HeinOnline.
.

:

: 200

,
Res sanctae .......................................
,
............................................
,

? ...............................................................................
,
...........................................
,

..........................................................
,

..........................................................................
,
........
,
............................................................................
, ; ,
- ....................
,
: ()
........................................................................................
. , ; . ,
......
,
.............................
,

..................................................................................................
7
25
45
53
73
91
105
119
137
153
175
189
209
,
...................... 229
,
..... 251
,

..... 263

,
........ 277
,
........ 317
. ,

............................. 337
,
........................................................................ 383

,
.............................................
,
.................................................................................
,
................
,
,
...................................................................................................
,
A
(Fork-in-the-Road Clause) ...........................................................
405
429
445
473
491
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Antun Malenica, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus
Res sanctae in Roman pre-Christian period .......................................................
Nataa Stojanovi, Ph.D., Full Professor
On Succession in the Nomocanon of Saint Sava ...............................................
Sran arki, Ph.D., Full Professor
Could We Talk about Environmental Protection in Mediaeval Serbia?
(Interpretation of the Article 123 of Dushans Law Code) ................................
Mile Vranje, Ph.D., Full Professor
On Reliefs from Customs Duty in the European Union ....................................
Rodoljub Etinski, Ph.D., Full Professor
New Concept of Equity and Human Rights as a Factor of Efficiency of Global
Fight against the Climate Change ......................................................................
Zoran Arsi, , Ph.D., Full Professor
Convention on Civil Liability for Damage Resulting from Activities
Dangerous to the Environment ..........................................................................
Duanka urev, Ph.D., Full Professor
Major Problems of Air Traffic are Inclusion of Aviation in the European Union
Carbon Emission Trading Scheme and Noise Protection .................................
Maja Stanivukovi, Ph.D., Full Professor
Serbian Law on Bankrupcy and Arbitration ......................................................
Marko Trajkovi. Ph.D., Associate Professor; Dragia Draki, Ph.D., Associate Professor
Bioethics as a Human Trait of Common Theory of Law and Criminal Law Theory ....
Branislav Ristivojevi, Ph.D., Associate Professor
About Justification of Decriminalizing Insult and Defamation:
Criminal (non)Policy of Serbian Legislator .......................................................
Darko T. Dimovski, Ph.D., Assistant Professor; Miomira P. Kosti, Ph.D., Full Professor
The Application of Restorative Justice in Cases of Sexual Delinquency ..........
Aleksandar Martinovi, Ph.D., Assistant Professor
Towards the Beginning of an Application of the New Misdemeanor Law .......
7
25
45
53
73
91
105
119
137
153
175
189
Attila Duds, Ph.D., Assistant Professor

On the Expedience of Statutory Regulation of Fiduciary Transfer
of Property in Serbia ..........................................................................................
Milana Pisari, Assistant
Expedited Preservation of Stored Computer Data .............................................
Uro Stankovi, Assistant
Extraordinary Comittees Inquiry against Sima Milutinovi Sarajlija ..............
Ivan Mili, Assistant
The new Misdemeanor Law and old Issues with Security Measures Ordering
Compulsory Alcohol and Drug Addiction Treatment ........................................
209
229
251
263
SECTION FOR FOREIGN AUTHORS
Attila Bad, Ph.D., Full Professor

The Selection of Judges and Judicial Independence .......................................... 277
Tams Ntri, Ph.D., Associate Professor
Law and Rhetorics in Cicero Speech in Defence of Cnaeus Plancius ............... 317
Lszl L. Heka, Ph.D., Associate Professor
System of Punishment by the new Hungarian Criminal Law
and its Comparison with the Serbian and Croatian Laws .................................. 337
LECTURES
Univ.-Prof. DDr. Bernd Wieser

Das Verwaltungsverfahren in sterreich ........................................................... 383
SECTION FOR STUDENTS
Aleksandra Popovi, Ph.D. Student

Effect of the Prohibition of Competition in the Labor Law...............................
Dejan Reetar, Ph.D. Student
Amnesty and Clemency .....................................................................................
Nikola Vukovi, Ph.D. Student
Specific Questions of Mistake of Fact and Mistake of Law in Criminal Law .....
Mirjana Sredojevi, Ph.D. Student
The Concept, Restriction and Mechanisms of Protection of Right to Life
as a Supreme Human Right ................................................................................
Dragana Mitri Savi, Ph.D. Student
The Fork-in-the-road Clause ..........................................................................
405
429
445
473
491
, 1/2014
347.2(37)
doi:10.5937/zrpfns48-6123
RES SANCTAE
: res sanctae
res sanctae , ,
. , sancta sancire
,
.
, ius-a divinum
, ,
res sanctae
.
: res sancta, res sacra, res religosa, res divini iuris, ius divinum, , , , .

res sanctae.
, res sanctae
res divini iuris. res sancta , res sanctae

ius- divinum res sacra res religosa
res divini iuris res sancta.
7
, Res sanctae (. 724)
I.

, .1
. ,
, :
,
, , , ,
, ,
, . 2 ,
, ius-
divinum.
754. . . . , ius divinum ius humanum. .3 Ius divinum , .4
. , , .
.
1
G. 2.2. Summa itaque rerum divisio in duos articulos diducitur: nam aliae sunt divini iuris,
aliae humani.
res divini iuris res humani iuris
. F. Fabrini, . Res divini
iuirs, Novissimo digesto italiano, vol. XV (: F. Fabrini, Res divini iuris), . 513.
2
G. 2.3.9. Quod autem divini iuris est, id nullius in bonis est; id vero, quod humani iuris est,
plerumque alicuius in bonis est: potest autem et nullius in bonis esse; nam res hereditariae, antequam alicuis heres existat, nullius in bonis sunt.
3
, - . : P. Catalano, Linee del sistema sovranazionale romano, Torino 1965, . 30
. 37 75 F. Sini, Sua cuique civitati religio, Religione e diritto pubblico in Roma antica, G. Giappichelli ed. Torino (: F. Sini, Sua cuique civitati religio), . 79, . 6.
4
.
ius religionum, religiosa iura, ius quod cum religione coniunctum est: Ius religionum, Cic., de leg., 2.42; religiosa iura, de leg., 2.57; ius quod cum religione
coniunctum est, de leg., 2.47. F. Fabrini, . Res divini iuirs, Novissimo digesto italiano, vol. XV (: F. Fabrini, Res divini iuris), . 516. ius sacrum: Quint., Inst. or., 2.4.33. Marcus Fabius Quintilianus 35., 100. . . . . Institutio oratoria
, , .
, 1/2014
: .5
.
...omnia prospera evenisse sequentibus deos,adversa spernentibus.6
,
, , ,
, . . . ,
.7
ius- divinum
, . res divini iuris,
, , .

res sacra, res religiosa, res sancta.
, .
.
II.
res sacra res religiosa , -
Cic., De nat. deor. 3.5. ... Numam sacris constitutis fundamenta icisse nostrae civitatis, quae numquam profecto sine summa placatione deorum immortalium tanta esse potuisse.
6
Liv., ab urbe condita, 5.51.4-5.
7
, , , F. Sini, Sua cuique civitati religio.
. , , 2014, . 25-35.
.
(lapis niger), , sakros.8 sakros :
quoi hon ... / ...sakros es /, : qui hunc ... / ... sakros erit (: sit). lapidem ( lapidi, locum) violaverit, , : / .
(sakros) . , , sakros .
.
, , ,
.
sakros sacer. XII 451. 450. . . . : (sacer).9

. sacer.10 sakros
. sacer . (sacer mons) , , je sacer
,
.11
T (comitia curiata).
, . ,
. , .
: . Bujukli, Forum romanum,
. lapis niger, . 429-432. lapis niger F. Fabrini, Res divini
iuris, . 519, . 13.

iovestud () ius () ious.
9
Tab. 8.21. Patronus si clienti fraudem fecerit, sacer esto.
10
Macr., Sat. 3.7.5 ... hominem sacrum ius fuerit occidi.
11
Fest., sub sacer: Sacer mons appellatur Anienem, paulo ultra tertium miliarium, quod eum
plebes, cum secessisset a patribus, creatis tr(ibunis) plebis qui sibi essent auxilio, discedentes
Iovi? consecraverunt. At homo sacer is est, quem populus iudicavit ob maleficium; neque fas est
eum immolari, sed qui occidit, parricidi non damnatur.
10
, 1/2014

sacer, , ,
, , , , , , . , sacer . sacer res sacra
.
res sacra (instituto civitatis) .
sacer : ... ,

, , ,
, , (dedicatum) (consacratum)...12
,
, .
K res religiosa .
religio religiosus. religio (est)
.13
. religiosus. religiosus ,
, .14
, religio . ,
Sextus Pompeius Festus II . . . De

verborum significatu (Marcus Verrius
Flaccus) ( 55 . . . 20 .
. .) ( -), .
12
Fest., sub sacer: Gallus Aelius ait sacrum esse, quodcumque more atque instituto civitatis
'consecratum' sit, sive aedis sive ara sive signum sive locus sive pecunia sive quid aliud, quod dis
dedicatum atque consecratum sit; quod autem privatis suae religionis causa aliquid earum rerum deo dedicent, id pontifices Romanos, non existimare sacrum.
13
F. de Visscher, Le droit des tombeaux romains, Milano 1963 (: De Visscher, Le droit
des tombeaux), . 45.
14
Fest., Religiosus: ... quod homini ita facere non liceat, ut, si id faciat, contra deorum voluntatem videantur facere.
11
. (sacra),

(auspicia).15 ,
, res sacra
.
, , .

. ,
religiosus, res religiosa. ,
.16
res religiosa religiosus
locus religiosus. : . , locus religiosus , .17
III.
res sancta.

:
. 1. (. sanctus)
(. sagmen). ,
,
() .18
15

,
: ...mnis populi Romani religio in sacra et in auspicia divisa sit... Cic., De nat. deor. 3.5.
16
G. 2.4. Sacrae sunt quae diis superis consecratae sunt; religiosae quae diis Manibus relictae sunt.
17
D. 11.7.2.5 Ulp. lib. 25 ad ed. Sepulchrum est, ubi corpus ossave hominis condita sunt.
Celsus autem ait: non totus, qui sepulturae destinatus est, locus religiosus fit, sed quatenus corpus
humatum est.
18
D. 1.8.8pr.-1. Marc lib. 4 reg. Sanctum est, quod ab iniuria hominum defensum atque
munitum est. 1. Sanctum autem dictum est a sagminibus: sunt autem sagmina quaedam herbae,
quas legati populi Romani ferre solent, ne quis eos violaret, sicut legati Graecorum ferunt ea quae
vocantur cerycia.
12
, 1/2014

.
.
. sancta,
(sanctio) . :
(. sancta)
,
:
. , ( .
.) , . .19
170. 223. .. , ,
res sancta. , , sanctum
20
sancire, , , ,
.21

res sancta.

.
.
, .22 .
. ,
19
D. 1.8.9.3. Ulp. lib. 68 ad ed. Proprie dicimus sancta, quae neque sacra neque profana
sunt, sed sanctione quadam confirmata: ut leges sanctae sunt, sanctione enim quadam sunt subnixae. quod enim sanctione quadam subnixum est, id sanctum est, etsi deo non sit consecratum: et
interdum in sanctionibus adicitur, ut qui ibi aliquid commisit, capite puniatur.
20
Serv., ad Aen., 12. 200: et dictum 'sanctum', quasi sanguine consecratum.
21
Ibid., 'Sancire' autem proprie est sanctum aliquid, id est consecratum, facere fuso sanguine
hostiae.
22
D. 1.8.11. Pomp. lib. 2 ex var. lect.
13
, .23 ,
, .
. , sancire
, , sanctum res sancta .
sacer , sanctus , , , , (coniugium, fides, foedus, iusiurandum) ., . .24
XII . .
sanctus sancire
.
IV. res sanctae
, , .

. res sacrae res religiosae, (quodammodo) res sanctae,
.25
divini iuris. . res sacrae res religiosae, res sanctae.
, , res sanctae divini iuris, ,
res sacrae, religiosae sanctae,
.
. e res sacrae res religi-
23
Varro, de l. lat., 5.143: Oppida condebant in Latio Etrusco ritu multi, id est iunctis bobus,
tauro et vacca interiore, aratro circumagebant sulcum (hoc faciebant religionis causa die auspicato) ut fossa et muro essent muniti.
24
F. Fabrini, Res divini iuris, . 523-524.
25
G. 2.2. Summa itaque divisio rerum in duos articulos diducitur: nam aliae, sunt divini
iuris, aliae humani. Divini iuris sunt veluti res sacrae et religiosae. 8. Sanctae quoque res veluti
muri et portae quodammodo divini iuris sunt.
14
, 1/2014
osae res sanctae .

, , , res
sanctae, .26
res sanctae
(quodammodo)
. Ius divinum ius humanum
. , .
res divini iuris sacrae, religiosae sanctae.
. res sanctae res
sacrae res religiosae , ,
res divini iuris res humani iuris . , ,
.
res sanctae
. V 27, one ,
.
. , , res sanctae : EG., 2.1.1.
.
. , ,
. , ,
, , , , (sancta)
26
: F. Fabrini, Res divini iuris, . 517; A. Galante, La condizione giuridica delle cose
sacre, Parte prima, Milano Roma - Napoli 1903 (: A. Galante, La condizione giuridica), . 2.
27
Epitome Gai .
. V . ,
.
. : G. Cervenca : M. Talamnca ., Lineamenti di storia del diritto romano, Milano 1979, . 691-704.
15
.
e e ,
.28 , ,
, .

sancta,

.

res
divini iuris .
(De divisione rerum et qualitate) , . D. 1.8.3
res divini iuris,
res sacrae, religiosae sanctae . K
, ,
.29 res sacrae, religiosae
sanctae e
,
.30 , , res divini iuris .
. , res sanctae divini iuris . ,
. ,
,
res sanctae quodammodo
.31
28
Ep. Gai., 2.1.1.Omnes itaque res aut nostri iuris sunt, aut divini, aut publici. Nostri iuris
sunt, quae in proprietate nostra esse noscuntur. Divini iuris sunt ecclesiae, id est, templa dei, vel
ea patrimonia ac substantiae, quae ad ecclesiastica iura pertinent. Publici iuris sunt muri, fora,
portae, theatra, circus, arena, quae antiqui sancta appellaverunt, pro eo, quod exinde tolli aliquid
aut contingi non liceret. Sed haec omnia in nullius bonis sunt, ideo publici iuris esse dicuntur.
29
D. 1.8.6.2. Marc. lib. 4 reg. , , , . (Sacrae res et religiosae et sanctae in nullius bonis sunt.)
30
I. 2.1.7. Nullius autem sunt res sacrae, religiosae et sanctae: quod enim divini iuris est, id
nullius in bonis est.
31
D. 1.8.1pr. ... sanctae quoque res, veluti muri et portae, quodammodo divini iuris sunt.
16
, 1/2014
res sanctae res divini iuris, , .

res divini iuris. res
sanctae .32
res sacrae, religiosae sanctae .33
res sanctae divini iuris. ,
, , res sancte divini iuris.
Res sanctae divini iuris
. sacer, .
: , , , , . , ( ) , () .
, ,
.34
res sanctae .

,
. .35
, , .
Res sancte (res inaugurate) -
32
D. 1.8.6.2, D. 1.8.9.3.
I. 2.1.7.
34
D. 1.8.11. Pomp. lib. 2 ex var. lect. Si quis violaverit muros, capite punitur, sicuti si quis
transcendet scalis admotis vel alia qualibet ratione. nam cives Romanos alia quam per portas egredi non licet, cum illud hostile et abominandum sit: nam et Romuli frater Remus occisus traditur
ob id, quod murum transcedere voluerit.
35
D. 1.8.8.2. Marc lib. 4 reg. ( ) . (In municipiis quoque muros esse sanctos Sabinus recte
respondisse Cassius refert, prohiberique oportere ne quid in his immitteretur); D. 1.8.9.4. Ulp. lib.
68 ad ed. , , , . (Muros autem
municipales nec reficere licet sine principis vel praesidis auctoritate nec aliquid eis coniungere vel
superponere.)
33
17

.
.
. (templa)36
, . (templa caelestes) .

-, -. (templum terrestre)
,
.
, , .37 pomerium .
, .
,
.38

. .
.
.
: : (
?) ; ,
.39
,
. .40
. res sanctae res divini
36
Liv. 8.5.8; Cic. de domo, 137.

Tao: Fabrini, Res divini iuris, . 542.
38
: S. arki, A. Malenica, Pravne teorije i institucije
antike, 2 . Novi Sad 2004 (: S. arki, A. Malenica, Pravne teorije), . 100-101.
39
Dion., 2.74. de terminis agrorum legislatio: iubens unumquemque terminare agrum suum
et lapides in finibus ponere, eos Iovi Termino sacravit; si quis vero terminos sustulisset vel transtulissset, deo sacrum esse fecisset, sanxit.
40
D. 7.4.21. Mod. lib. 3 diff. Si ususfructus civitati legetur et aratrum in ea inducatur, civitas
esse desinit, ut passa est Carthago, ideoque quasi morte desinit habere usum fructum.
37
18
, 1/2014
iuris. , res sacrae res religiosae.41 divini iuris.42

, divini iuris.43 res sanctae fas, .
. , , ,
res sacrae res religiosae.44

, , . ,
res sanctae divini iuris
res sacrae res religiosae.
,
divini iuris. divini iuris
, res divini iuris
, .
, , res sacrae , res religiosae , , res sanctae ,
. , ,
divini iuris.
res sanctae (quodammodo)
divini iuris
,
. res divini iuris
sacrae religiosae .
divini iuris.
41
E. Fantetti, L'inquadramento classico delle res ''sanctae'', Labeo, II, 1956, . 94-102.
S. Sollazzi, ''Quodam modo'' nelle Istituzioni di Gaio, St. et doc. hist. et iuris, XIX, 1953,
. 109 .
43
A. Galante, La condizione giuridica, . 2.
44
A. Galante, La condizione giuridica, . 2.
42
19

, ,
,
, .
, , res sanctae ,
. , ,
:
,
.
, . , .
. , ,
. II ,
, ,

,
(quodammodo divini iuris). V , ,
.
res sancta.
ius-a divinum, . , (ecclesiastica iura),
,
.

res divini
iuris, res sacra, res religiosa res sancta
,
. Sancta je , , , , piae causae. Res sacra

,
20
, 1/2014
,
45 .

/, , .46 , res religiosa .
.
.
.
, .
45
( 438. .), ,
(CT. 16.10. De paganis, sacrificiis et templis), . 320.
(CT. 16.10.1pr. ). 341. (CT. 16.10.2), 346. /354?/ (CT.
16.10.4) .
356. (CT. 16.10.6).

.
46
I. 2.1.8. Sacra sunt, quae rite e per pontifices deo consecrata sunt, veluti aedes sacrae et
dona quae rite ad ministerium dei dedicata sunt...
21
Antun Malenica, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus

University of Novi Sad
Faculty of Law Novi Sad
Res sanctae in Roman pre-Christian period

Abstract: After the introductory remarks on ius divinum and the origins of
the terms res sacra and res religosa the author analyses in his article the origins of the technical term of the Classical Roman law res sanctae and whether
res sanctae of the pre-Christian period should be set aside from the classical legal category res divini iuris which, according to the sources, consists of res sacrae, res religiosae and res sanctae. Roman jurists of the classical period wrote
about the roots of the term res sancta, but they did not address the latter question, however, it is addressed by the contemporary doctrine.
When the roots of the term res sancta are in question, the author firstly reverts to the text D. 1.8.8pr.-1 in which Marcian says that the term 'sacred' (lat.
sancta) originates from the plant called yarrow (lat. sagmen) which was carried
by the representatives of Roman people as a symbol of their inviolability, and
afterwards to the text D. 1.8.9.3 in which Ulpian connects the term sancta to a
kind of the penalty (lat. sanctio) which protects that what should be inviolable.
The author, however, finds that a text of the grammarian Servius offers a better
foundation for the reconstruction of the origins of the term res sancta. Namely,
Servius, when commenting on the text of Aeneid written by Virgil in the late old
era, says that the word sanctum in Aeneid has the same meaning as if when it is
said that something is dedicated to gods by means of blood (ad Aen., 12,200: et
dictum sanctum, quasi sanguine consecratum) and that in Aeneid the word
sancire, precisely speaking, denotes that something is made sacred, in other
words dedicated to gods, by spilling the blood of a sacrificed animal lengthwise
(Ibid., Sancireautem proprie est sanctum aliquid, id est consecratum, facere
fuso sanguine hostiae.)
The author emphasises that the oldest ritual mentioned by Romans, in
which such a way of spilling blood could have occured, was the ritual of establishing the holy borders of the city of Rome. According to this ritual the borders were marked by a plough drawn by holy oxen. Since the ritual necessarily
had to involve the sacrification ceremony for gods, it is not hard to assume that
the augurs sprinkled the drops of blood of the sacrificed animal while walking
22
, 1/2014
behind the plough that was marking the future borders of the city. This marking
of borders of a city, temple or land plot with blood drops is the most specific
meaning of the word sancire written about by Virgil and Servius and it is, according to the author's opinion, the root of the word sanctum by means of which
the technical term of classical law res sancta was constructed.
About the question of whether res sanctae in the law of pre-Christian period were res divini iuris the author primarily indicates that there is a vast array of understanding in the doctrine: that they were res divini iuris, that they do
not belong to that category and that they are between divine and profane things.
After source analysis the author concludes that: 1. There is no legal or literary
text in which it is said that res sanctae are not res divini iuris. 2. Gaius (G
.2.8.), by observation that res sanctae are in a certain way (quodammodo) of
the divine law, does not negate their belonging to the category of things of divine law, but forms two subcategories within this category. Res sacrae and res religiosae belong to one, and res sanctae to the other. With this, Gaius indicates
that, regarding from the angle of layman science, the division of things of divine
law into three kinds, res sacrae, religiosae and sanctae, by which all things are
aligned into the same plane, is not entirely founded. Gaius, no doubt, could not
have said more. Ius divinum and ius humanum were equally important elements
of the legal system of the
classical period, so the pontifical jurisprudence was the one to mould the
rules, terms and legal categories of pontifical law. The res divini iuris category
was not constructed based on one but three criteria. Res sacrae were associated
with heavenly deities, res religiosae with sepulchral gods , and res sanctae with
the religious character of a sanction. 3. The argumentation that res sanctae are
not divini iuris due to their lack of true character of sanctity and the relation to
deity which is present with res sacrae and res religiosae is unacceptable from
the methodological point of view. This may be an observation of contemporary
doctrine on those matters, but it is not an argument based on which one is allowed to conclude that the Romans did not consider them to be things of divine
law, because the sources do not speak of different quality of sanctity among the
res divini iuris.
Finally, the author concludes that the contemporary doctrine of Roman
law as a separate branch of historical jurisprudence should determine, when
sources make it possible, what the attitudes of Roman legal doctrine on classifications of things were like, but must never introduce its own criteria of classification. Because of this, a properly posed question when it comes to res sanctae
must be: how did Romans regard the city walls, city gates and land borders during their millennium-long history. According to the author, evolution is visible
in this respect. When the first city borders were established upon the foundation
23
of Rome, Romans undoubtedly considered them divine. It could not have been
different when the power of religion of that time is kept in mind, as well as the
religious character of the border marking rituals. In the 2nd century .D., which
is about nine hundred years after the foundation of the city, during which a new
cultural and even religious ambience was created and it was significantly different from the one at the time of the foundation of Rome, the same things were
divine only in a certain way (quodammodo divini iuris) for Gaius the jurist. For
jurists who comprised the Epitome of Gaius in the late fifth century, in the cultural ambience dominated by Christianity, those things were no longer divine,
not even in some way, but they were profane and lined up among things in public property. This is also the final point in the evolution of the pagan term res
sancta. Coined within the frames of the old ius divinum, this term could not
earn its place in the new law of the Christian church. In this law, which founded
the new juridical system of the institutionalised church (ecclesiastica iura), within the term divine there was no longer room for mundane things as city
walls, city gates and land borders. This is confirmed by the constitutions in the
Theodosian and Justinians Code.
Key words: res sancta, res sacra, res religosa, res divini iuris, ius divinum,
pagan regligion, Servius, Marcianus, Ulpianus.
24
, 1/2014
347.65(497.11)12
doi:10.5937/zrpfns48-5577

1

:
. , ,

,
.
,
, .
: , ,
.
1.
,
()2 .3
130
(1349. ), -

(. 179046), ,
.
2
: nomos
kanon . : . ,
, . 14.
www.alanwatson.org, 12.12.2012. .
3

. , : . , , , . XLIX,
, 2002, . 28.
25
, (. 2543)
. , ( 1985. ) . ,4
.
, ,
.
55. : (21.
); (22. );
(23. ); (24. ); (25. ); (29. ); (30. ); (32. ); (33. ); , (35. ); (37. ).5 6
2.
, XIII . .7 1219. , , 800 ,
. - , ,
,
,8
.9
4
. , - , , . 2/1993, . 20.
5
. : . , , 4, , 1895, . 250414.
6

, : ,
( 35), , , ( 37).
7
, , :
(), (), (), (), (). : . , - ....., . 21.
8
: . , ....., . 30.
9
. , op. cit., . 42.
26
, 1/2014
,
. , , ,
. , , ,10 ,
, , .11
70 : 6, , 44, 20, .
- ( VI ), ( 40 , 870 879. ), ( XI XII ), ( 550. ), ( 1200. ).12

(. ),13
, , , .14
, , ,
, .15
10
. , , , 1939, . 27.
11
: 6, 8, 11, 109 196 . : . , (XII XV ), , 1957, . 131146.
12

.
, (: . , - ....,
. 17), (: . ,
, , V, , 1883, .
189; . , op. cit., . 26; . , , ,
2002, . 54).
13
, : . , , , 2000.
14
. , op. cit., . 4; . , , . 720. www.alanwatson.org, 12.12.2012. .
15
. , - ...., . 18.
27
, (. 2543)
. : ( 1252. ), ( 1262. ), ( 1305. ), ( 1340. ), (

1371. ), ( XIV ), ( 1510. ),
( XVI ), () ( 1552. ), ( ),
( ) ( 1615.
).16

(. , ,17
,
18), (corpus
iuris utriusque), , XIII , , , , .19
, . : ,20 21 22 (Codex Tripartitum)
16
: . , , , 1932, . 2829.
17
, : . , op. cit., . 1112; . , op. cit.,
. 3538.
18
, : . , ibidem, . 3841.
19
: . , - ...., . 19.
20
( 1349. , 1354. ) .
, 60 ( IX ). ,
, , . , , : . .
, , , 1993, . 8285.
21

, , 1335. . ,
. 24 (),
. , , , ( ), . ,
1348. 1349. .
, : . , op. cit., . 55; . . , , , 1989, . 181.
28
, 1/2014
, .23 .
, : . XVII ( 1220. ), 6, 8, 11, 109 196 ,
1380. 1382. ,
1804. , . 93 94
1844. .24
3.
) 21. (..)

()
.25
, ,
, .
14 , 12 , .26
27

, , . ,
,
.28
, , ,
,
.29 30
22
33 .
(Nomos Georgikos, VII ).
, , ,
( 726. ) . , : .
, ibidem, . 5455; . . , ibidem, . 180181.
23
: . , op. cit., . 45.
24
Ibidem.
25
: 21 (..), 1(..). : . , op. cit., . 323.
26
: 21 (..), 2 (..) 3 (..) . : ibidem.
27
: , . : 21 (..), 7
(..). : ibidem, . 324.
28
: 21 (..), 9 (..). : ibidem.
29
: 21 (..), 10 (..). : ibidem.
29
, (. 2543)
, ( ), , ,
.31
, ,
.32
.33 , , , , .34
, , , , , .35
, , , .36 , , .
.37 38
, , .39
, , ,
.40
) 22. (..)

,
, 22. , 55. ,
30
, , 22
23, 55. .
31
: 21 (..), 11 (..). : ibidem, . 324.
32
: 21 (..), 9 (.) 12 (..). : ibidem, . 324.
33
: 21 (..), 7 (..). : ibidem, . 324.
34
: 21 (..), 15 (..). : ibidem, . 326327.
35
: 21 (..), 16 (..). : ibidem, . 327.
36
: 21 (..), 12 (..). : ibidem, . 324.
37
: 21 (..), 12 (..). : ibidem, . 324.
38
,
, , , , , . : . ,
, , 1888, . 5.
39
: 21 (..), 12 (..). : . , op. cit.,
. 324.
40
: 21 (..), 13 (..). : ibidem, . 326.
30
, 1/2014
( 14 25 , , 12 25 ,
), , .41
mortis causa, , ,

42 . ,
.43
, . , , , , ,
.44
) 23. (..)

,
.
, , , .45

, ,
, , ,
1/3 .46

, ,
.47
) 24. (..)
41
: 22 (..), 2 (..). : ibidem, . 327.

Ibidem.
43
: 22 (..), 4 (..). : ibidem, . 327.
44
: 22 (..), 8 (..). : ibidem, . 328.
45
: 23 (..), 1 (..). : ibidem, . 330.
46
Ibidem, . 329330.
47
: 23 (..), 2 (..). : ibidem, . 330.
42
31
, (. 2543)
.
, . , , ,
.48
, , ( ),49
. , , ,
, , .50
,
.51
) 25. (..)

, 25. , 55.
, .
, , : ;
, ;
, , , ,52 53 ,
, ,
.54

.55 : , ; -
48
331.
49
: 24 (..), 1 (..) 2 (..). : ibidem, . 330
: 24 (..), 3 (..). : ibidem, . 331.

Ibidem.
51
: 24 (..), 4 (..). : ibidem, . 331.
52
: 25 (..), 1 (..), 2 (..), 3 (..) 4 (..) . : ibidem, . 334.
53
, testamentum nullum.
, , , : . , , . III,
, , 1900, . 113114; M. Horvat, Rimsko pravo, Zagreb, 1977, . 327328; A.
Romac, Rimsko pravo, Zagreb, 1981, . 379380.
54
: 25 (..), 3 (..). : . , op. cit., . 332.
55
, testamentum ruptum. , , : . , op. cit., . 115119; M. Horvat, op. cit.,
. 327328; A. Romac, op. cit., . 379380.
50
32
, 1/2014
, ,56 , .57 58
, ,59 .60
, .
, , .61
62
,
,
. ,
,
, .63
) 29. (..)

29. , 55. ,
, .
, , , .

, . , ,
.64
56
: 25 (..), 1 (..) 2 (..). , , , , ,

. : 25 (..), 6 (..). : . , op. cit., . 331332.
57
: 25 (..), 1 (..). : ibidem, . 333.
58
, , capitis deminutio. , : . , op. cit., . 113114; M.
Horvat, op. cit., . 327328; A. Romac, op. cit., . 380.
59
: 25 (..), 5 (..). : . , op. cit., . 332.
60
: 25 (..), 4 (..). : ibidem, . 333334.
61
: 25 (..), 2 (..). : ibidem, . 332333.
62
, testamentum destitutum. , : . , op. cit., . 114115.
63
: 25 (..), 2 (..). : . , op. cit., . 332
333.
64
: 29 (..), 2 (..). : ibidem, . 345346.
33
, (. 2543)
, , , .65
.66
) 30. (..)

30, 55. .
, .67
, , .68
, , , (, ) , .69
, .
.

. ,
, , .70
( ) , ,
.71
65
: 29 (..), 3 (..) 4 (..). : ibidem, . 346.

, . , : M.
Horvat, op. cit., . 329.
67
: 30 (..), 2 (..). : . , op. cit., . 346.
68
, , 3 (..) : ,
. : ibidem, . 347.
69
: 30 (..), 4 (..). : ibidem, . 347.
70
: 30 (..), 5 (..). : ibidem, . 347.
71
: 30 (..), 6 (..). : ibidem, . 347.
66
34
, 1/2014
, , , ,
.72

. , ,

.73
, , , .74
, , , ,
, ,
.75 .76
, , .77 , , ,
( ), 1/4 . , , , , .
, .78
, , , , .79
, , . -
72
: 30 (..), 7 (..). : ibidem, . 347348.

: 30 (..), 8 (..) 9 (..). : ibidem, . 348.
74
: 30 (..), 10 (..). : ibidem, . 349.
75
: 30 (..), 11 (..). : ibidem, . 349.
76
: 30 (..), 12 (..). : ibidem, . 349.
77
: 30 (..), 18 (..). : ibidem, . 350.
78
: 5 (..), 5 (..). : ibidem, . 265.
79
: 30 (..), 13 (..) 16 (..) : ibidem, .
349350.
73
35
, (. 2543)
, , .80
: , , ,
,
, .81
) 32. (..)

32. , 55.

,
. , , .82
.83
, ,
.84
: , .85
, , ,
, , . ,
, , .86
) 33. (..)

, 33, 55.
.
, ,
80
81
: 30 (..), 15 (..). : ibidem, . 349350.

: 30 (..), 1 (..) 17 (..). : ibidem, . 346
350.
82
: 32 (..), 1 (..). : ibidem, . 353.

Ibidem.
84
: 32 (..), 2 (..). : ibidem, . 353.
85
: 32 (..), 3 (..). : ibidem, . 353.
86
: 32 (..), 4 (..). : ibidem, . 353354.
83
36
, 1/2014
. ,
,
, , , .87
, : ;
;
();
.88
.89
,
, .90
, , , .91
,
, , ,
.92
, , , , ,
.93 , ,
,
.94
, ,95 .96
, ,
, ,
, . , -
87
, , , : . , op. cit., . 5051.

: 33 (..), 1 (..). : . , op. cit., . 355.
89
: 33 (..), 2 (..). : ibidem, . 355.
90
: 33 (..), 3 (..). : ibidem, . 355.
91
: 33 (..), 4 (..). : ibidem, . 355.
92
: 33 (..), 5 (..). : ibidem, . 355356.
93
: 33 (..), 6 (..). : ibidem, . 356.
94
: 33 (..), 7 (..). : ibidem, . 356.
95
: 33 (..), 9 (..). : ibidem, . 356357.
96
Ibidem.
88
37
, (. 2543)
, , ,
.97
, , , , ,
.98 ,
, , , , , .
,
.99
,
, 18 .100 ,
18
, , ,
.101
, , ,
.102
- .103
, ,
.
, ,
, .104
, ,
: ,
;105
,106 .107
97
: 33 (..), 10 (..). : ibidem, . 357.

: 33 (..), 11 (..). : ibidem, . 358.
99
Ibidem.
100
: 33 (..), 13 (..). : ibidem, . 360.
101
: 33 (..), 14 (..). : ibidem, . 360.
102
: 33 (..), 15 (..). : ibidem, . 361.
103
: 33 (..), 16 (..) : ibidem, . 361362.
104
: 33 (..), 17 (..). : ibidem, . 365.
105
: 33 (..), 18 (..). : ibidem, . 365.
106
: 33 (..), 19 (..). : ibidem, . 365.
98
38
, 1/2014
,
, : ;108 ;109 110 , .111

. ,
, , ,
.112 , ,
,
. .113
) 35. (..)

35. , 55.
(), , .114
, ,
, .
, .115
, ,
.
: , ,
, , .116
, ,
, .117
107
: 33 (..), 20 (..). : ibidem, . 365366.

: 33 (..), 21 (..). : ibidem, . 366.
109
: 33 (..), 22 (..). : ibidem, . 366.
110
: 33 (..), 23 (..). : ibidem, . 366.
111
: 33 (..), 24 (..). : ibidem, . 366367.
112
: 33 (..), 29 (..). : ibidem, . 369.
113
: 33 (..), 30 (..). : ibidem, . 369.
114
- - . : . , - ......, . 17.
115
: 35 (..), 6 (..). : . , op. cit., . 377.
116
: 35 (..), 4 (..). : ibidem, . 376377.
117
: 35 (..), 1 (..). : ibidem, . 376.
108
39
, (. 2543)

. ,
,
.118
. , , , ,
. , , , , .119 , , ,
, .120 ,
, , .121
.
, , , .122
) 37. (..)

, 37, .
, ,
, , , , , (),
, ,
.123 , , , ,

, .124
,
118
: 35 (..), 7 (..). : ibidem, . 377.

: 35 (..), 2 (..). : ibidem, . 376.
120
: 35 (..), 3 (..). : ibidem, . 376.
121
: 35 (..), 8 (..). : ibidem, . 377.
122
: 35 (..), 5 (..). : ibidem, . 377.
123
: 37 (..), 1 (..). : ibidem, . 379.
124
: 37 (..), 2 (..). : ibidem, . 379380.
119
40
, 1/2014
.125
4.
,
,
, .
,
, ,
.126
,
,
. , , ,
, , .127 , . ,

(). ,
( ), , . , ,
.128
, , ,
.129
125
: 37 (..), 3 (..). : ibidem, . 380.

, : . ,
, , . 12/1999, . 189.
127
: . , , , , 1928, . 137, . . 2; . , , III , , , 1935, . 119.
128
, : . , op. cit., . 193195; . , op. cit., . 13; . , , , 1923, . 1012.
129
: . , ibidem, . 190.
126
41
, (. 2543)

, ,
-
.
, ,

, , ,
. , .
42
, 1/2014
Nataa Stojanovi, Ph.D., Full Professor

University of Ni
Faculty of Law Ni
On Succession in the Nomocanon of Saint Sava

Abstract: The author's attention is focused on the rules establishing the institution of succession in the Nomocanon of Saint Sava. Through a prism of provisions dedicated to legal, testamentary and forced succession, the author sheds
light to the characteristics in regulating inheritance-law relationships in the
medieval Serbia, particularly focusing her attention to the degree of applicability of individual solutions in practice. The author advocates for the return to
roots, reaffirmation, and for a comprehensive study of almost completely forgotten civil society rules contained in the Nomocanon of Saint Sava.
Key words: medieval Serbian law, Nomocanon of Saint Sava, institution of
succession.
43
, (. 2543)
44
, 1/2014
502/504(497.11)04/14
doi:10.5937/zrpfns48-5775

?1
( 123 )
:
.
?
123 ,
.
. ,
, .
: , , , , (, ), , , .

. , ,
,
. .
. , , , ?
, .
179079,
45
, ... (. 4552)
, ,
.
. , , ,
, , .
, ,
, . .
,
123 . ,
123. :
. i -i
; - ;
, ;

; , -i ,
i ;2 ;
, -i .3
:
. - , -
. ,
.
; , - , ,4
, .
; - .5
123 :
;
; ,
; , , ,
, , ,
; , ,
.6
XVIII : .
, , 1349-1354 ( ), 1898, . 94 ( 2004).
4
: .
5
, , . 220.
6
, 1349 1354 ( ), 1960, . 123.
3
46
, 1/2014
123 , 7 8 ?
XIII 9, 10.

XVI XIV , . 1862. , , 1870. . ,
1914-1918.
, ,
. 1934.
. 1870. ,
1872 , 1898.
. 1953. .
, 1349. 1354. ,
, , VI, 1980, .
38-43.
8
1700. (, ).
, .
1820. ,
. . , . , .
69-72.
9

1241/42. , . () ,
1254.
( ). 1295, 1303,
( Neueberghe) 1326,
. ( ), , 1999, . 649. . , , - , , .
, , . 221.
10
: ,
, I, . 254-271; ,
I, 1955; II, 1962; Kovaevi Desanka, Dans la Serbie et la Bosnie
mdivales; Les mines dor et dargent, Annales, Economies, Socits, Civilisations 2 (1960),
pp. 248-258; , ,
1-2 (1976), . 91-97; irkovi Sima, Dubrovani kao preduzetnici u rudarstvu Srbije i Bosne, Acta historico-economica Iugoslaviae 6 (1979), str. 1-20 = ,
, , 1997, . 113-134; irkovi Sima, The Production of Gold, Silver
and Copper in the Central Parts of the Balkans from the 13th to the 16th Century, Precious Me-
47
, ... (. 4552)
, . 123 11
- , 1349. , 135 . , , , ( ) , ,
12, . ,
( ), ( ) ( ).
.
, (
, ). , (
; - ).
123, ?

. , , , , , ,
.13 (
Brger), valturchi.
tals in the Age of Expansion, Stuttgart 1981, pp. 41-69 = , , , .

79-103; - , (XIV-XV
), , 1996, . 165-173; - , , 2002.
11
, , , ( ),
1965, . 122-127.
12
c , 152 :
( , ). (1282-1321). , , . 119 238.
13
1302. ,
( , , ). 9.
1387, ,
: , (
, :
). , . ,
( ), 1912, .
160, III 200, V.
48
, 1/2014
,14
137, .15 123 ,
.

, .16

,17 (, ) , . , , , . 123 . .
14
1412.
. 11.
1959. ,
, , ,
. , , 1962. , , 126, 24, 1985. Nicoara Beldiceanu, Les
actes des premiers sultans conservs dans les manuscrits turcs de la Bibliothque nationale Paris II, Paris La Haye 1964, pp. 245-254. Branislav urev, Turski prevod Rudarskog zakona za Novo Brdo despota Stefana Lazarevia, Kada i
kako su nastali despota Stefana zakoni za Novo Brdo, Djela Akademije Nauka Bosne i Hercegovine 65 (37), Sarajevo 1987, str. 41-53. , 1638.
, , , , , ,
, , XI, 2005.
15
137 : ;
, , ; ( , ,
. ). ,
( )
, . (). ,
, . 104 227.
16

. , , . 123 (
123).
17
, , II,
, , 42/1, 2012, . 417-424.
49
, ... (. 4552)
,
,18
.

, .
123,
1349. ,
.
,
( )

,
. ,
() (). 19
, (, ) .
123, , ()
( ). , , . , , (
).
18
,
. , 1330. : ,
( ,
). , , 1926, . 112.
, 81
: ; ,
, ( ,
, , ). , , . 65 194.
19
XVIII ( 8),
, (.
145-162). - Sima irkovi, Between Kingdom and Empire: Duans State 1346-1355 Reconsidered,
Byzantium and Serbia in The 14th Century, Athens 1996, pp. 110-120.
50
, 1/2014
( )
,
. ,
.
( , ),
. , 123 , ,
, .
51
, ... (. 4552)
Sran arki, Ph.D., Full Professor

Could We Talk about Environmental Protection

in Mediaeval Serbia?
(Interpretation of the Article 123 of Dushans Law Code)
Abstract: The Saxons (in Serbian Sasi), i.e. German immigrants, who
were engaged in mining and metallurgy, had cleared forests and squatted in the
same way as the original Serbs; Emperor (Tsar) Dushan (Duan) was determined to stop this. From henceforth (i.e. State Council from the year 1349, which
promulgated the first part of the Law Code), the Saxons may not clear and that
forest which they clear shall not belong to them, nor shall they settle people there, but it shall stand empty, so that the forest grow. Emperor has allowed to Saxons such timber as they needed for fuel or constructional work. And if they have unlawfully taken any land from any lord (vlastelin), let the lord sue them according to the law of the Sainted King (i.e. King Milutin, Dushan grandfather).
Key words: Dushans Law Code, Saxons, forests, market towns, Sainted
King, lord, clearing.
52
, 1/2014
339.543.64:061.1EU
doi:10.5937/zrpfns48-6073

1
: ,
, , , , , .
:
() 2913/1992 12. 1992. , () 2454/1993 2. 1993.
() 2913/1992 , , ()
450/2008 23. 2008. ( )
() 1186/2009 16. 2009. .
: , ,
1.

( : ) 2 . ,
. , , ,
( , , -

( ) .
2
, .
53
, (. 5371)
, ). , , , ,

. , , ( , )
( ). 3
, . , ()
2913/1992, () 450/2008 ,
() 1186/2009 () 1076/2001.
2.

.
02.10, (General Customs Rules),4
(. DG TAXUD), ,
.5 :
- () 2913/1992 12. 1992. ;6
- () 2454/1993 2. 1993.
() 2913/1992 ;7
- () 502/1999 12. 1999. () 2454/1993 ()
2913/1992 ;8
3
,
: ,
, . 1/2012, . 101-117.
4
Directory of European Union legislation in force Customs Union and free movement of
goods.
5
http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/index_en.htm.
6
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community
Customs Code, Official Journal L 302, 19.10.1992, p. 1 50.
7
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the
implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs
Code, Official Journal L 253, 11.10.1993, p. 1-766.
54
, 1/2014
- () 993/2001 4. 2001.
() 2454/1993 ()
2913/1992 ;9
- () 2286/2003 18. 2003. () 2454/1993
() 2913/1992 ;10
- () 450/2008 23.
2008. (
);11
- () 1186/2009 16. 2009. ;12
- () 1076/2001 31. 2013. () 2454/1993 ()
2913/1992 , ; 13
- () 1099/2013 31. 2013. () 2454/1993 ()
2913/1992 .14
Commission Regulation (EC) No 502/1999 of 12 February 1999 amending Regulation

(EEC) NO 2454/93 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC)
NO 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, Official Journal 65, 12.3.1999, p. 1-49.
9
Commission Regulation (EC) No 993/2001 of 4 May amending Regulation (EEC) No
2454/92 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92
establishing the Community Customs Code, Official Journal L 141, 28.05.2001, p. 1128.
10
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2286/2003 of 18 December 2003 amending Regulation
(EEC) No 2454/93 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC)
No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, Official Journal L 343, 31.12.2003,
p. 1 123.
11
Regulation (EC) No 450/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April
2008 laying down the Community Customs Code (Modernised Customs Code), Official Journal,
L 145, 4.6.2008. p. 1-64.
12
Council Regulation (EC) No 1186/2009 of 16 November 2009 setting up a Commuunity
system of relies from customs duty (codified version), Official Journal L 324, 10.12.2009, p.
23 57.
13
Commission implementing Regulation (EU) No 1076/ 2013 of 31 October 2013 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council
Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 estblishing the Community Customs Code as regards the
temporary import, export and re-import of portable music instruments, Official Journal L 292,
01.11.2013., p. 1 2.
14
Commission implementing Regulation (EU) No 1099/2013 of 5 November 2013 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council
Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, Official Journal L
294, 06.11.2013, p. 40 - 41.
55
, (. 5371)
- () 1357/2013 17. 2013. () 2454/1993

() 2913/1992 . 15

.
. , VII 1994. VII 1994. . - .
VII 1994. VII O
1994. .
.

.16

:
VI , 1 ,
:
1)
;
2)
;
3)
.

, 184 , , .
,
185 187 . -
15
Commission implementing Regulation (EU) No 1357/2013 of 17 December 2013 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council
Regulation Official Journal L 341, 18.12.2013, p. 47-49.
16
. , -
,
, , . 7 9/2012, . 522 538.
56
, 1/2014
, , , .

,
188 .
,
.

, :
- (
124 128 );
- ( 145
160 );
-
(. 238 ).
,
( 84. 1 ()
166 ):
- ( 91 97 );
- ( 98 113 );
- ( 130 136 );
- ( 137 144 );
- ( 166 181
).
.
VI
, 2
, :
1) ;
2)
.

, .
, 130.
,
57
, (. 5371)
, , ,
.
.
, ,
.
,
, .
, .
, ,
,
, , .

.
, 131 .
: 1)
,
; 2)
, .
130 132 , .
,
, , ,
.
. 130 58
, 1/2014
,
,
.
- , , , ,
,
.

, 133
: 1) ; 2)
-, .

: 1) ,
; 2) ,
, ; 3)
, ; 4) .
, . ,
, 144

,
, . 148
, . 162
, ,
, ,
, . 168
, 59
, (. 5371)
, .
a 1186/2009 () 918/83
28. 1983.
17
18 .19
1186/2009 .
, 1186/2009 :
1) 12 ,

, ,
, . ,
( 3. 11);
2) ( )
,
, , .
, , ,
1. 000
. 12 ,
17
Council Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 of 28 March 1983 setting up a Community system
of relies from customs duty, Official Journal L 105, 23.4.1983, p. 1-37.
18
() 918/83 : V
() 1186/2009 (
).
19
() 918/83 : Laurence W. Gormley, EU Law of Free
Movement of Goods Customs Union, Oxford, 2009, . 313.
60
, 1/2014
, , , , , , , ,
(
12. 16);
3)
, , , ,
, ,
,
.

(
),
.
( 17. 20);
4) ,

, ( 21 22):
5) , 150 ,
, , ( 23 24);
6)
, ,
,
45 , .
, ,
: 1) : 50 ; 25 (
), 10 , 50
, ; 2)
: 22%,
61
, (. 5371)
80% : ,
, , 22%, , ,
, : 2 ; 3) : 50 : 0,25 (
25. 27);
7)
-
,
,
, . ,
. , 12
12 ,
, , , , .

( 28. 34).
8) , , ,

( 35. 38);
9) , ,
, ,
( 39 40);
10)
,

62
, 1/2014
2007/74/ 20. 2007.

(. 346, 29.12,2007.,
. 6). 6. 1.
2006/112 () 28. 2006.
(. 347, 12.11. 2006)
( 41);
11) , I
(,
II ) , ,
II ( : ,
, . , , ,
, , ; :
, ,
.
) , 3 II, .
,
, . , , , ,
, ; ,
, . ).
,

,

.
,
,
,
, ,

.
63
, (. 5371)
, , 246. . ()
2913/92
,
, , ,
, ,
,
, .
, , , , .

,
.

- ,
, - -

.
,
, , , ,
,
. , ,
, 64
, 1/2014
.

.

.

( 42. 52);
12)

247 () 2913/92 ,

,

.
, , ( 53);
13) , , , ,
( 54. 56);
14) ,
,
, 65
, (. 5371)
, ,
,
. ,
, , , ,
, ,
( 57 58);
15)
. ,

( 59);
16)

( 60);
17) , , ,
, ,
,
,
III,
, , ,

. ,
( 61. 80);
66
, 1/2014
18) , , ,
, ,

, ,
; , ,
( 81);
19)
, , , ,
, , ,
,
, ,
,
,
, ( 82. 84);
20) ,
,
, , ,

( 85);
21) ,
,
67
, (. 5371)
, , ,
, ,
, . , ,

( 86. 94);
22) ,
, , ,
,
( 95. 101);
23)
, ( 102);
24) ,
( 103);
25) , : ; ; ;
;

;
;
, , , , .;

; ,
, ,
, , .; ,
, ,

;
; ,
68
, 1/2014
, ; , ,
; , , ;

; ,
, ,
( 104);
26)
,
( 105);
27)
, ( 106);
28) ( 107. 111);
29)
, ,
, ( 112);
30) , , , ( 113).
, 1186/2009 :
1)
10 ( 114);
2)

( 115);
3)

(
116. 118);
4)
69
, (. 5371)

( 119 120);
5)

( 121).
() 1076/2013 () 2454/93
() 2913/92
,

. , 569 () 2454/93 () 2913/92

.
, ,

, ,
233. () () 2454/93 () 2913/92 ,
, ,
233, 579 ()
2454/93 () 2913/92
.
3.

, . ,
. .
, , ,
. .
70
, 1/2014
Mile Vranje, Ph.D., Full Professor

On Reliefs from Customs Duty in the European Union

Abstract: Reliefs from customs duty, that means, reliefs from paying customs are, most certainly, one of the main topics in the field of customs system
of the European Union, which attracts attention of not only financial experts but
also businessmen and citizens. The problems of reliefs from customs duty in the
European Union are regulated by four main instruments: Council Regulation
(EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs
Code, Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down
provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92
establishing the Community Customs Code, which was changed several times,
Regulation (EC) No 450/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of
23 April 2008 laying down the Community Customs Code (Modernised Customs
Code) and Council Regulation (EC) No 1186/2009 of 16 November 2009 setting
up a Community system of relies from customs duty.
Key words: reliefs from customs duty, importation of goods, European Union.
71
, (. 5371)
72
, 1/2014
177.9:502/504
doi:10.5937/zrpfns48-5831

: , , . ,
. , , .
.
: , , , .
, ,
.1
, ,
, , . , ,
. (: ), 9. 1992. 21. 1994. .
196 .2 ,
,
. 179079 .
2
http://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetailsIII.aspx?&src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XXVII~7&
chapter=27&Temp=mtdsg3&lang=en 2014.
73
, ... (. 7389)
,
. 10. 2001. .
, 11. 1997.
,
16. 2005. 192
. ( )
17. 2008. . ,
.
2008. 2012. , .

. , ,
.
. ,
. ,
, 15. 2012. .3
, , ,
.
,
.
.
. , , ,
,
, .
,
.
, .
74
Ibid.
, 1/2014

,
, . . 1(5) , , . , ,
. (,
)
, ,
. , , . .
. ,
,
.
,
, , , , , ,
, . , , .
,
, ,
, , , , , .

.
,
.
. ,
, .
, 75
, ... (. 7389)
. , .

. ,
1840 , 70% , , , , , .4
1,100 , 66 ,
23 .5 ,
.6 Jeanne 3000 2004 . 7 Ivan 90%
.8
, .9
2009 , ,
, ,
, . , 296,000 , .10 .11 , , , , -
4
. Mumma, D. Hodas, Designing a Global Post-Kyoto Global Change Protocol that
Advances Human Development, Georgetown International Environmental Law Review, 20,
2007-2008, . 639.
5
Ibid.
6
L. M. Braman, P. Suarez, M.K. Van Aalst, Climate change adaptation: integrating climate
science into humanitarian work, International Review of the Red Cross, vol. 92, 2010, . 698
7
Inuit leader Sheila Watt-Cloutier's testimony before the Inter-American Commission on
Human Rights, http://www.ciel.org/Publications/IACHR_WC_Mar07.pdf. Site visited on March
2012.
8
Ibid.
9
Ibid.
10
Opening Remarks by Ms. Navi Pillay at the Human Rights Council Seminar The Adverse Impacts of Climate Change on the Full Enjoyment of Human Rights, 23-24 February 2012,
http://www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=11872&LangID=e
2014. , , M. Beniston, Climate change and its impacts:
growing stress factors for human societies, International Review of the Red Cross, vol. 92, 2010,
. 557.
11
V. Kolmannskog, L. Trebbi, Climate change, natural disasters and displacement: a multitrack approach to filling the protection gaps, International Review of the Red Cross, vol. 92, 2010,
. 713.
76
, 1/2014
. 12
.13
2009. 1862 , 21. .

2 . . ,
, , . , 2
.14 . ,
.
,
, ,
.
, , 4 , . , .

. , , , , .
, , . , ,
, ,
12
Ibid. . 715
B. Docherty, T. Giannini, Confronting a Rising Tide: A Proposal for A Convention on
Climate Change Refugees, Harvard Environmental Law Review, 33, 2009, str. 349-403.
14
http://unfccc.int/2860.php
13
77
, ... (. 7389)
,
, . , .

.
.
.
. , ,
.
2012.
8% 1990. .

1990 . , 2012. 93% 1990 .
, 92%
1990. .
, 2011. ,
, 2009.
22,4%
1990. .15 ,
, 2011-2012 10 .16 , ,
. ,
, , ,
,
.
,
.17
15
Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol, Annual compilation and accounting report for Annex B Parties under the Kyoto Protocol for 2011,
Durban, 28 November to 9 December 2011, . 18, . 9. http://unfccc.int/resource/
docs/2011/cmp7/eng/08.pdf. 2014.
16
http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/arep/gaw/ghg/documents/GHG_Bulletin_No.9_en.pdf
17
S. Walsh, H. Tian, J. Whalley, M. Agrawal, China and Indias participation in global
climate negotiations, International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics,
online 10. 2011.
78
, 1/2014
. ,
, .
. , . , , .18
, 14 . 19
, ,
, , .

, . ,
, ,
, . .

, , , , , ,
, , .,
.20

. 3 (1)
: ,
18
C. R. Sunstein, Of Montreal and Kjoto, A Tale of Two Protocols, Harvard Environmental Law Review, 1, 2007, . 1.
19
B. Curry, Sh. McCarthy, Canada formally abandons Kyoto Protocol on climate change ,
The Globe and Mail, 12 decembar 2011, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canada-formally-abandons-kyoto-protocol-on-climate-change/article2268432/ 2014.
20
Sixth compilation and synthesis of initial national communications from Parties not
included in Annex I to the Convention, . 47, 48 FCCC/SBI/2005/18/Add.5.
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2005/sbi/eng/18a05.pdf
79
, ... (. 7389)
. , .
. , , , .

, . ,
.
,
.
. , , ,
.
,

.
, ,
, .
.
. Mumma D. Hodas
: per
capita per capita.21
per capita , .
.
. , , .22 .
-
21
. Mumma, D. Hodas, Designing a Global Post-Kyoto Global Change Protocol that

Advances Human Development, Georgetown International Environmental Law Review, 20,
2007-2008, . 640.
22
Ibid.
80
, 1/2014
,
. , , , , .
.23 Ratio
, ,
.
,
, .24 (the Clean Development Mechanism) .
.
, e

. (61,22%), (13,38%), (8,30%), (6,42%)
(1,56%). 9,08%.25
,
,
.

,
.
,
.
1985. 1987. .

,
. , ,
.
() 2009 ,
23
Ibid.
. Mumma, D. Hodas, op. cit., 641
25
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/publications/pub_cdm_eb_annualreport_2013.pdf
24
81
, ... (. 7389)
.26 95%
. , 2050. .
,
, , , .27
, 0,3 10 . , ,
, , 10 .
.
. . ,
, .
, .
, .
, .
.
.
,
, ,
, .
.28
26
Ozone Secreteriat, UNEP, Handbook for the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, Nairobi, 2009.
27
S. J. DeCanio, Economic Analysis, Environmental Policy, and Intergenerational Justice
in the Reagan Administration, The Case of the Montreal Protocol, International Environmental
Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics 3, 2003, . 313, T. Nss, The Effectiveness of the
EUs Ozone Policy, International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics 4,
2004, . 59. B. J. Gareau, A critical review of the successful CFC phase-out versus the delayed
methyl bromide phase-out in the Montreal Protocol, International Environmental Agreements:
Politics, Law and Economics,published online 12 February 2010.
28
T.E.R.B. West, Environmental Justice and International Climate Change Legislation:
A Cosmopolitan Perspective, Georgetown International Environmental Law Review, 25, 2012,
. 129.
82
, 1/2014
. - , , ,
.
3 (4) ,
. , ,

,
.

.
.
,
,
. ,
,
. ,
, ,
.
, ,
.29

, ,
. , ,
, , .
29

. , ,
, , , . . , , 2011, . 74-76.
83
, ... (. 7389)
, , 15 2009 , .30
,
.31 , ,
.32
. ,
. .

, ,
, .
,
,
,
.

.
, , .33
, , .34
, , .35
30
Human Rights Council Panel Discussion on the Relationship between Human Rights and
Climate Change, 15 June 2009, Palais des Nations, Geneva, . 66, . 11. http://www.ohchr.org/
EN/Issues/HRAndClimateChange/Pages/HRClimateChangeIndex.aspx
2014.
31
Ibid.
32
R. Etinski, Human Rights Protection in view of Climate Change Impacts, Nouva Revista
de Drepturile Omului, No. 1, 2012, . 20 27.
33
S. aji, Pravo na zdravu ivotnu sredinu i Evropski sud za ljudska prava, Pravni
ivot, br.12, IV/2012, 277-290. I. Krsti, Zatita ivotne sredine u jurisprudenciji Evropskog suda
za ljudska prava, Pravni ivot, br. 9, I/ 2012, 645-661.
34
Budayeva and Others v. Russia, (. . 15339/02, 21166/02, 20058/02, 11673/02
15343/02), , 20. 2008.
35
Communication No. 167/1984, Lubicon Lake Band v. Canada, Views of 26 March 1990.
84
, 1/2014

, , ,
, .
,
, .
//63/117 10. 2008.
, 1966. ,36
, .37
, .38 , ,
, , ,
, . , , , . , .
, , ,
, . , , ,
. , 2
, , , ,
. .
14 , , ,
, ,
-
36
Doc.A/63/435
5. 2013. http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src
=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-3-a&chapter=4&lang=en
38
. , ,
,
, 3/2009, .33-47.
37
85
, ... (. 7389)
.
.

. 3
, .
,

,
. ,
. , , , , , , . , ,
. 3 (4)
, . , ,

,
. , , ,
. .
, ,
, , ,
.
, . , ,
, , 14 ,

, .
86
, 1/2014

. , ,
2015 , 2013. , , ,
. 2014. . 39
, , 25
1998., 40 , ,
. .
,

. , .41 .

, , ,

. ,
39
http://www.un.org/climatechange/blog/2013/11/25/un-climate-change-conference-in-warsaw-keeps-governments-on-a-track-towards-2015-climate-agreement/#more-3443
40
30. 46 , . United Nations,
Treaty Series , vol. 2161, p. 447. http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?mtdsg_no
=XXVII-13&chapter=27&lang=en http://www.unece.org/ fileadmin/DAM/env/pp/documents/cep43e.pdf
41
. ,
, , 2/2013, .79-92.
87
, ... (. 7389)

.
, ,
.

. , , .
.
. .
, , , .
,
,
.
88
, 1/2014
Rodoljub Etinski, Ph.D., Full Professor

New Concept of Equity and Human Rights as a Factor

of Efficiency of Global Fight against the Climate Change
Abstract: Climate change, caused by anthropogenic factor, is one of the
biggest global challenges. Universal interest for slowing climate change by
adequate reduction of global emission of greenhouse gases and universal interest that all nations become capable to overcome effects of global change is
beyond dispute. Global and local allocation of expenses of realization of the
mentioned interests is a matter of global and local disputes. The Conference of
Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change is searching for
new formula of equitable distribution of the expenses that would be acceptable
for all. The formula should reconcile efficient reduction of global emissions and
securing sustainable development for all. International protection of human
rights offers a possibility to turn attention to interests of individuals in the context of climate change.
Key words: equity, human rights, efficiency, climate change.
89
, ... (. 7389)
90
, 1/2014
347.51:504.61
doi:10.5937/zrpfns48-5715

1
: 1993 .

. , , ,
, , ,
, , .. .
,
, , . .

. , , .
, . ,
, . , . , .
, ,
, . ````, -
, .179079

91
, ... (. 91103)
````.
.
: , , ,
,
,
, 1993

( ).2

. ,
, .3
.3 ()
()4
. ,
(.35 ).
.
.5
1.
. 6 ,
,7 . , , , , , , -
Convention on Civil Liability for Damage Resulting from Activities Dangerous to the Environment
3
Explanatory Report t.1
4
, .2 ,
, , ,
.( Incident means any sudden occurrence or
continuous occurrence or any series of occurrences having the same origin, which causes damage
or creates a grave and imminent threat of causing damage.)
5
Tako Bernasconi Christophe, Civil liability resulting from transfrontier environmental damage : a case for Hague Conference?, Hague Yearbook of International Law 1999, str.53
6
Bergamp Lucas, Liability and Environment, Hague 2001, str.30
7
Tako Benasconi C., op.cit.,str.50
92
, 1/2014
, , ..
,
.8
,
.
(, , ),
,
.9 ,
.10 , ,
.
()
, , .11 ,
,
, . ()
.
.12

.1 , , . . , ,
, .
, .13
.4 .
, -
Explanatory Report l.1

Bernasconi C., op.cit., str.51;
10
Larson Marie Louise, The law of Environmental Damage, Stockholm 1999, str.220
11
Ibidem
12
Larson M., op.cit., str.221
13
Ibidem
9
93
, ... (. 91103)
. , . , . . ,
, .
2.
.2 (7) ,
,
, . , , ,
.
, , .14
,
.
( ). ( )
.15
,
.16
, ( . , ).17 , , ,
.18 ,
, . ,
. .19 .2 (10)
. , , -
14
Explanatory Report l.2 (7)

16
Bernasconi C., op.cit., str.51
17
Brans Edward, Liability for Damage to Public Natural Resources, Hague 2001, str.10
18
Ibidem
19
Ibidem
15
94
, 1/2014
, , , . .

.
. .20 , .2 (9) , , , , (
w). .
.21 .
,
. ,
22, .23
. .24 ()
.25 . , ,

.26

. 27,
. ,

20

Explanatory Report l.2 t.40
22
Ibidem
23
24
25
Brans E., op.cit., str.373
26
Ibidem
27
Vidi napomenu br.3
21
95
, ... (. 91103)
, .28
.29 , (off site). ( . )
(on site), . ( )
.30
3.
, , .
(.2 ).
()
, .31
() . , ,
.
, .32

. , , , . ,
. . ,
,
.33 ,
.34 ,
.35
28
Explanatory Report l..2 t.41

30
ibidem
31
32
Ibidem
33
ibidem
34
Bergkamp Lucas, Liability and Environment, Hague 2001, str.330
35
Ibidem
29
96
, 1/2014
4.
. (.6 ),
(.7 ).
.
.
.
,
, .
,
.36 , , . .37
.6.2.3
.
, .

. .
. ,
, ,
(,.6.4. ).
.
, ,
-
36
Richardson Benjamin, Environmental Regulation through Financial Organizations, Hague 2002, str.168
37
97
, ... (. 91103)
.38
.39

,
, .
.40
(.11 )
. .41

.

,
. , , , , .

, .42 .

. (.6.1.
). , , , , .43 ,
,
.
.44 ,

38

40
ibidem
41
42
43
44
39
98
, 1/2014
.
.
,
,
.
,
. . .
10 , ,
( ) .
.45 , . .46 , , , .47
`` ``. ,
,
( . ),
.48

. ,
, .
. ,
, , , ,
.49
. 8 . .
, .
45
Bernasconi C., op.cit., str.50 -51

Ibidem
47
48
Bergkamp L., op.cit., str.31
49
Wilde Mark, Civil Liability for Environmental Damage, Hague 2002, str.58-59
46
99
, ... (. 91103)
. 8 ,
, ( ,
). , ,
, .50

. ,
, .51
.

, ,
.52 .53

. .54
`` `` .55
.
.56

,
.
.57 , ,
.
,
.
50
Lefeber Rene, Transboundary Environmental Interference and the Origin of State Liability, Hague 1996, str.280
51
Lefeber R., op.cit., str.282
52
53
Ibidem
54
55
Bergkamp L., op.cit., str.31
56
Ibidem,
57
100
, 1/2014

. , , (state of the art).
(.35 ).
,
.58
.
,
.59
, , . .12
, ,
, . , . ,
.60
5.

.
```` ``
``.61
, ,
, .
````, ````.62
-
58

Richardson B., op.cit., str.175
60
61
Bernasconi C., op.cit., str.51; Larson M., op.cit., str.229
62
59
101
, ... (. 91103)
.63 ,
,
, , ( , , , ).64 , ,
.
.65

.
63
Bernasconi C., op.cit., str.51

Ibidem
65
5.03.2014 www.convention.coe.int.
64
102
, 1/2014
Zoran Arsi, Ph.D., Full Professor

Convention on Civil Liability for Damage Resulting

from Activities Dangerous to the Environment
Abstract: The Convention aims at ensuring adequate compensation for damage resulting from activities dangerous to the environment and also provides
for means of prevention and reinstatement. It considers that the problems of
adequate compensation for emissions released in one country causing damage
in another country are also of an international nature. The system of the Convention is based on objective liability taking into account the "polluter pays"
principle. However, specific rules are provided concerning the fault of the victim, causation, joint liability of the operators of installations or sites for damage, and a compulsory financial security scheme to cover liability under the Convention.
Key words : environment, dangerous activity, operator of dangerous activity, liability
103
, ... (. 91103)
104
, 1/2014
534.83:347.8]:061.1EU
doi:10.5937/zrpfns48-5677

1
: , . ,
,
.
.
ETS .
.
, ETS .
: ETS sistem, Jedinstveno evropsko nebo

, , .2
, .

, . ,
1
``, ``, . 17097, .
2
http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/environment/noise_pollution/l21180_en.htm
105
, ... (. 105118)
, .
.3

, 2011 4 , 60% 2050.5
, .
CO2 ,
50%
. ,

,
. - ,

.
2020.
70% 2005. .6 .
, . ICAO (International Civil Aviatin Organization).
ICAO, . ,
CO2 . ,
.
3
, , , , . , , Europsko prometno pravo
, Zagreb, 2011. . 435..
4
White paper ,Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area - Towards a competitive and
resource efficient transport systemCOM(2011)144 final) predvidja stvaranje zajednickog transportno prostora (Single European Transport Area )
5
http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/environment/noise_pollution/l21180_en.htm
6
Reducing emissions from aviation European Commission , http://ec.europa.eu/clima/ policies/transport/aviation/
106
, 1/2014
191
28 ,
.7 , y .
y- () 1997. (
),
,
(greenhouse effect), y I ( - ). y 2001. .8 y .
170 ( ), 2005. ., , y .
(IET).
(International Emission
Trading - IET) x I ( ) ( ) . ( ) ( ).9

90% , . y .
30% ,
.
, y ,

7
ICAO ( )1944. , 1947. ,
.
8
,
(CERSPA), 1/2012. .197.
9
op cit, .200.
107
, ... (. 105118)
y
, ,

.
ghg (CER-).
CER- . ,

. ,
y (
).O (Guidance Document),
, CERSPA (
- CER-).
( ) CER- .10
u ICAO,
.
. y
2002.11 CO2 CO2
.
,
.
, ICAO. ,
.
. 2005.
ETS (greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme).12
10
V. R. OSullivan, CERSPA: A new template agreement for the sale and purchase
of Certified Emission Reductions (CERs), dostupno na site-u www. lawtext.com, p. 122. u
www.lawtext.com)
11
Council Decision of 25 April 2002concerning the approval, on behalf of the European
Community, of the Kyoto Protocol to theUnited Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change and the joint fulfilment ofcommitments thereunder(2002/358/CE) ,OJL 130, 2002)
12
BARTELS, Lorand. The Inclusion of Aviation in the EU ETS. WTO Law Considerations.
Issue Paper No. 6. Genebra: International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development
(ICTSD). 2012. 55p. Program je uoblicen kroz Direktivu 2003/87 EC(FUS NOTA OJ L 275 2003
Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a
scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending
Council Directive 96/61 EC.
108
, 1/2014

12000 .
, , ,
.

. 2008
2008,13 ETS 2012.

ETS , . ETS
,
.
,
. ,
ETS 2012, 97% , .
2008. ETS . , ETS .
ETS 2006. , .

.
21. 2011. ETS . 23 , , , , ETS .14
: ETS
13
Directive 2008/101/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November

2008 amending Directive 2003/87/EC so as to include aviation activities in the scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community , 2009 OJ L 8.
14
Case C-366/10 Air Transport Association of America and Others v Secretary
of State for Energy and Climate Change)
109
, ... (. 105118)
. ETS ,
.15 ETS
- .
2012. 26
ETS ( ,
, , , , ) ETS
ICAO, ETS .16
ETS ,
( Airbus, British Airways, Virgin Atlantic, Lufthansa, Air France, Air Berlin and Iberia).17
2013. ETS . ICAO 2013. .
2013. ICAO
2016. MBM (Market
based maeasure) 2020.18
ETS .
, ICAO ,
. ICAO ETS
, ICAO.
ETS y . 2014. ETS
. 19
.
, ETS
15
30. 2007 . http://www.state.gov/e/eb/rls/othr/ata/e/eu/114768.htm

Richard. EU aviation climate charge faces limited opposition. BBC News Europe. 23 fev.
2012. Disponvel em: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17143264.
17
http://www.institutocarbonobrasil.org.br/noticias/noticia=729913.
18
36-22 dod I,Resolution A 36-22 dod I., http:/www.flightglobal.com/news/
articles/in-focus
19
http://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/Documents/A36_Res22_Prov.pdf
16
110
, 1/2014
ETS .
ETS :

28
ETS.
2013. .
2014.
ETS , ETS .
1%
ETS . ICAO
.

, ICAO20
. . 1971.
.21
1973.
. 80/51 89/629.22 . . -
20
ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization, , 191 .
http://www.icao.int/about-icao/Pages/default.aspx
21
XVI
1971,The Convention on Intenational Civil Aviation Cikago 1944 http://www.icao.int/
publications/pages/doc7300.aspx
22
1980, OJ L
018, 1983. OJ L 117
1989 OJ L 363.
111
, ... (. 105118)
, .
ICAO 1977.
. . 2007. .23
.
50%
.
.
.
. open skies
, . ,

. ,
.
,
-. 24
, .
open skies .
open skies , ..
.

.
, 2003. .

2007. .
23
http://www.state.gov/e/eb/rls/othr/ata/e/eu/
, , , , . , , op cit . 414.
24
112
, 1/2014
2007, 2009. 2011. .25

2007.

.

.
. . British Airlines New York .
. .
, .

. , ,
,
.
.
, (Lufthansa Jet Blue,)
.

.
1999 925/1999.26

2002. .

. ,
, ICAO
ICAO .
25
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/air/international_aviation/country_index/united_states
_en.htm
26
Council Regulation EC No 925/1999, 1999 OJ L 115.
113
, ... (. 105118)
2002/30 a,
.27
.
28 . 2011.
29
,
. .
2002/49 EC 30
,
.

,

, .
, , ICAO
. Balanced
approach 2001.31 ,
.
. ,

ICAO (
75% 50 ), -
27
Directiva 2002 OJ L 85.

Report from the Commission to the Council and the Euroean Parliament, Noise operation
Restrictions at EU Airports COM 2008 66.
29
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the establishment of ruls and procedures ith regard to the introduction of noise-related operating restrictions
at Union airports within a Balanced Approach and repealing Directive 2002/30/EC, COM
2011828
final.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/com/com_
com(2011)0828_/com_com(2011)0828_en.pdf )
30
2002/49 OJ L 189 Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental nois
31
Resolution A 35-5,www.un.org/documents/ga/res/35/ares35.htm
28
114
, 1/2014
,
.
,
.

(European Common Aviation Area) 2004.
,
,
.
.
11 2006
.32
ECAA ,
ECAA , .33 ECAA 29 2006. 2009.
.34
, , , , ,
. , , , , ,
, . ,
.
32
ECAA Multilateral Agreement between the European Community and its Member States,
the Republicc of Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, The Republic of Bulgaria, The Republic of
Croatia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, The Republic of Iceland, The republic of
Montenegro,The Kingdom of Norway, The Republic of Serbia and The United Nations Interim
Administration Mission in Kosovo on the Establishment of a European Common Aviation .
33
- , ETIHAD 49% ,
, .
34
. , 12/2010.
115
, ... (. 105118)
, . . 50 .
(. )
.
2013. 35
,
. ,
.
, , . . 2011. ,
. .
42 ,
, , . , ,
.36
.37 , 2015. 2019. (,
, ),
, , .
35. http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/transport/air_transport/tr0003_en.htm)
36 http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/transport/air_transport/tr0003_en.htm
37Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions of 25 June 2008:
Single European Sky II: towards more sustainable and Single European Sky II better performing
aviation (COM (2008)389 final, not published in the Official Journal http://europa.eu/ legislation_summaries/transport/air_transport/tr0003_en.htm
116
, 1/2014

2012. . , - - .
.

, .
,
, .

, . ,
, .
.
ETS . . , ETS
.
117
, ... (. 105118)
Duanka urev, Ph.D., Full Professor

Major Problems of Air Traffic are Inclusion of Aviation

in the European Union Carbon Emission Trading Scheme
and Noise Protection
Abstract: In 2008, aviation activity was included in the European Union
Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS), imposing legal obligations on all airlines
around the world, not just those in the European Union. Considering this scenario, the aim of the article is to reflect on the admissibility of the unilateral imposition of obligations justified by environmental concerns.
Aircraft noise has been a sensitive issue for residents in areas near airports since jet aircraft became widely used in the 1960s and 1970s. This has led
governments and industry to seek constant improvement in the level of noise generated by individual aircraft, notably by reaching agreement at global level
(ICAO) on the introduction of increasingly stringent standards
ey words: geeenhouse gas emissions trading scheme,European Common
Aviation Area
118
, 1/2014
347.736:347.998(497.11)
doi:10.5937/zrpfns48-5807
1
:

.
,

.

.
,
,
.
, .
, , .
,
,
,
.
.

.
: ,

( ) 2014. .
119
, (. 119135)
. , .
(2006-2009),
. (2006)2
(2009)3.
.4
, . , ,
.

.5
.
. , .

:
o
( ) , ;

;
, , . 46/2006.
, , . 104/2009, 99/2011 .
71/2012 .
4
., .:
(2004), 1. " ", : , 4 , 2004, 253-272
5
: , , ,
, 1997, 231-239.
3
120
, 1/2014

;

;
.
,
, :
(1); ,
(2); , (3).
1.

. ,6
.7 ,
, .8 .
, , : 4 ( , . 74-79), 5 ( , . 8087), 6 ( ,
. 88-93) 7 (
, . 94-100).
74
. 74, 2
, , 142: . ( ); Martin Aebi, Harold Frey, Impact of Bankruptcy on International Arbitration Proceedings - A Special Case Does not Make a General Rule:
Note - 31 March 2009 - Swiss Supreme Court, ASA Bulletin, Kluwer Law International, 2010,
Volume 28, Issue 1, 113.
7
, . 77, . 1.
8
, . 77, . 2.
121
, (. 119135)
(a contrario),
.9
94 :

94

, , ,
.
,
.
, , 15 ,
.
,
.
,
.

( ),

.
, .
.
.
,
.
94
.
, , -
, . 74, . 2: , , ,
,
.
122
, 1/2014
.10
,
, ,
.
.11

. ,

.12

, ,
. ,
,
.13 , ,
5, . 1 . :
,

.

.
,
.
, , ,
.
.
.
6
. .
10
ClearStar, DFT
117II94,98. : Stefan Michael Krll, National Report for Germany
(2007) : Jan Paulsson (ed), International Handbook on Commercial Arbitration, Kluwer Law International 1984, Supplement No. 48, February 2007, 14.
11
, . 94, . 2.
12
, . 349 1986.
13
, . 10.
123
, (. 119135)

. 80, 1 :

. , .
,14
, .

. . , .
,

.15 , , .16
.17
, , , .18 , . , , .
, , , . ,
( , ) ,
.19
14
, . 2.
Ibid., . 111.
16
Ibid., . 93, . 1.
17
Ibid., . 113, . 2.
18
V. Lazi, Arbitration and Insolvency Proceedings: Claims of Ordinary Bankruptcy
Creditors, Electronic Journal of Comparative Law, 3 December 1999. :
www.ejcl.org/33/art33-2.html, 4.3.1.
19
, . 115 .
15
124
, 1/2014
, .

, , , .
17 :

117

,
116. ,
115. .
.....

15 .
1. , . ( )
,
, ,
. , ?
. ()
, .
( )
, . , , ,
.20 , , .

20
, . 118, . 2.
125
, (. 119135)
. , , ,21
,
.

.22
, j .
(vis attractiva concursus) ,
.
. , ,
. ,
, , , .
( ,
) , . ,
, .

.

, ,
21
,
, : [t]he expectation of those who agree to have their disputes resolved by arbitration that the dispute will
be resolved by the arbitral tribunal to which they have agreed under the supervision of the relevant court is no less legitimate than that of those who expect their disputes to be resolved in and
by a court. Josef Syska and Elektrim S.A. v. Vivendi Universal S.A. et al. [2008] EWHC 2155
(Comm), fn. 53 et seq.
22
, . 91, . 3 4, . 118, . 2; - , , . 72/2011, 49/2013 74/2013 , . 57.
126
, 1/2014
. ,
, ,
,
. 23
. , , , . ,
.
,
,
.24
,
, . , , , . ,
14
.
, . 1346/2000
. , (lawsuits ) ,
, ( which seek to determine
23
. 64.
, . Com.,
13.06.2006, Socit Prodim v. Berth s qual., Rev. arb. 2006.864; Com., 02.06.2004, Socit Industry et autres v. Socit Alstom Power Turbomachines and Com., 14.01.2004, Prodim v.
Logidis, Rev. arb. 2004.591, n. Ancel. . : Yves Derains, Laurence Kiffer, National Report for France (2013) : Jan Paulsson (ed), International Handbook on Commercial Arbitration,
Kluwer Law International 1984, Supplement No. 74, May 2013, 198.
: Robert Briner, Paolo Michele Patocchi, National Report for Switzerland (2008) :
Jan Paulsson (ed), International Handbook on Commercial Arbitration, Kluwer Law International
1984, Supplement No. 51, March 2008, 14.
24
127
, (. 119135)
the existence, validity, content or amount of a claim).25

(lawsuit pending) 4, . 2 15
.26
, .
,
.27 , , .28
:
, .29
. :
.30 ,
, ,
.
, ,
. ,

, .
. ,

? , 117, 3,
25
Miguel Virgos, Francisco Garcimartin, The European Insolvency Regulation: Law and
Practice, 2004, 76.
26
osef Syska and Elektrim S.A. v. Vivendi Universal S.A. et al. [2008] EWHC 2155
(Comm), fn. 52.
27
, . 80, . 1.
28
. : Y. Derains, L. Kiffer, 16.
29
, . 116, . 7.
30
, . 80, . 3. , . 112, . 5
.
128
, 1/2014
,
14 ?
, .
2.

. ,
, .

.
, , e .
,
.
,
. ,

. 89 90 , . .31

, . ,
. -
31

. . , , , ,

. Vivendi c/ Elektrim DFT 4A_428/2008. :
M. Aebi, H. Frey, 113123.
129
, (. 119135)
, . ,
.

.32 ,33
.
( , 34). ,
,35
. , ,
, , ,
. .

, ,
( ),
,
.

. ,
.36 -
32
, . 88.
, . : Jean-Franois Poudret, Sbastien Besson, Comparative Law of International Arbitration, Sweet & Maxwell, London, 2007,
505.
34
, . 74, . 1.
35

. V. Lazi, 3.2.
36
, . 28, . 1.
. ,
.
33
130
, 1/2014
.37
.
111 . ,
.38
,
( )
. ,
.

.

. ,39 .
,
, , .40 .
90, 1, 3, .
, ,
,
, , ,
37
, . 118, . 1.
Ibid., . 111, . 3.
39
, ,
, . 2/2014, . 54, . 1.
40
Josef Syska and Elektrim S.A. v. Vivendi Universal S.A. et al.: The parties have contracted
for arbitration. They ought to have it. Moreover, where international arbitration proceedings are
already afoot, the creditor claimant may have staked much time and effort, in incurred much
expenses, in asserting its rights. Josef Syska and Elektrim S.A. v. Vivendi Universal S.A. et al.
Judgment of 9 July 2009, [2009] EWCA Civ 677.
38
131
, (. 119135)
117
.
,
.41
,
.
.42
. ,

,
.
.43

.

, .44

. , ,45 ,
.

.
7 , -
41
. 117, . 1 . 35, . 13.

In re White Mountain Mining Co., L.L.C., 403 F.3d 164, 168-70 (4th Cir. 2005); In re
U.S. Lines, Inc., 197 F.3d 631, 639-41 (2d Cir. 1999).
43
V. Lazi, 4.3.2.1. . 29 (
: http://www.dutchcivillaw.com/legislation/bankruptcyact022.htm).
, ,
.
Gerard J. Meijer, Marike R. P. Paulsson, National Report for The Netherlands (2012) : Jan
Paulsson (ed), International Handbook on Commercial Arbitration, Kluwer Law International
1984, Supplement No. 71, October 2012, 18.
44
, . 55, . 1.
45
- , , . 85/2005, 88/2005, 107/2005,
72/2009, 111/2009, 121/2012 i 104/2013, . 236.
42
132
, 1/2014
,
, . , ()
( ), .
, .
(),
,
,
.
3.

, . ( 116, 7 ),
.
.46 .47 ,
, .

.48

, (.
),
.49 .
46
, . 118, . 3.
, . 64, . 1.
48
- , , . 31/2011, 99/2011
. 109/2013 , . 13 14, . 1.
49
, . 117, . 5.
47
133
, (. 119135)

,
. ,
.
. , . ,
. , .
. , , ,
.
, .
,
. (),
, .

.
134
, 1/2014
Maja Stanivukovi, Ph.D., Full Professor

Serbian Law on Bankrupcy and Arbitration

Abstract: The paper identifies gaps existing in the current Bankruptcy Act
of the Republic of Serbia with respect to arbitration, and proposes ways to bridge them by literal and teleological interpretation. Gaps are identified as regards the validity and enforceability of the arbitral agreement subsequent to the
opening of the bankruptcy proceedings, the effects of opening of the bankruptcy
proceedings on the pending arbitral proceeding, and the effects of an arbitral
award in bankruptcy proceedings.
In the authors view, these gaps may be bridged by appropriate statutory
interpretation. For example, arbitration agreement should not become automatically inoperative by the fact of opening of the bankruptcy proceedings over
one of the parties to the agreement. Although the court has exclusive jurisdiction for conducting the bankruptcy procedure, this exclusive jurisdiction does
not extend to disputes on contested claims of bankruptcy creditors, nor to
claims of third parties related to the right of exclusion of things from the bankruptcy estate. The author advocates a broad interpretation of the term litigation used in the Act, so that it may include also the arbitral proceedings.
Arbitral proceedings that are pending will need to be stayed as a result of
opening of the bankruptcy procedure over the debtor, until the bankruptcy administrator has been appointed and after he has had sufficient time to get acquainted with the claims. The proceedings may be continued when these conditions are met, provided that the claim was contested, without arbitral tribunal
having to wait for the bankruptcy court to order the claimant to resume the proceedings. After opening of the bankruptcy proceedings, however, the bankruptcy
creditor may no more seek condemnatory relief against the bankruptcy debtor
in the arbitral proceedings, and should consequently rephrase its claims as declaratory claims.
Arbitral award deciding on the contested claim will have effect towards
the bankruptcy debtor, but also towards all other creditors of the bankruptcy
debtor, since it should confer the bankrupcy creditor with the entitlement to
seek an amendment of the final list of ascertained claims.
Key words: bankruptcy, arbitration
135
, (. 119135)
136
, 1/2014
343.2:17
doi:10.5937/zrpfns48-5795
,

,

- 1
: ?
- ?
. ?
. , .
, , .
: , , , , .
?
, ,
sacralita della vita umana.2 , ,
',
'' .179079 2014. ,
.
2
M. Chiodi, TRA CIELO E TERRA, il senso della vita a partire dal dibattio bietico, Cittadella Editrice, Assisi, 2002, 6.
137
; , ... (. 137151)
, , . ,
, : , ,
.
.
. .3 A
,
: molto frequente, non solo in Italia, ma anche nella bioetica soprattutto anglofona, la distinzione tra bioetica laica, che
sarebbe letica della qualit della vita, e bioetica cattolica, che sarebbe letica
della sacralit della vita. Questa semplicistica opposizione, che non evidentemente del tutto priva di significato, ha per il grave limite di dimenticare che
impossibile parlare di una bioetica laica, cos come di una bioetica cattolica.4
, (, , , , ).

, . , , .5 ,
, , , , ,
, ,
.6 , ,
, 7, , ,
. 8
. , ,
, , . ,
,
, ,
N. Hartmann, Etika, Nakldna Ljevak, Zagreb, 2003, 9.

M. Chiodi, Etica della vita, Le sfide della practica e le questioni teoriche, Glossa, Milano,
2006, 39.
5
T. Matuli, Metamorfoze kulture, Glas Koncila, Zagreb, 2009, 687.
6
N. Hartamnn, Etika, 71.
7
Ibid., 9.
8
Ibid., 71.
4
138
, 1/2014
, .9
, ,
. ,
,
, . ,
.
. , , . , ,
. -
.
1. , ?
, ,
: ? . : Certo, la bioetica pressata da dilemmi urgenti, come quelli posti dallo sviluppo tehnicoscientifico soprattutto nellambito della prassi medica, ma questo non esime dalla riflessione, bens richiede il suo sforzo. Lurgenza e lattualit dei problemi
non dovrebbe nuocere alla qualit della teoria proposta, ma anzi dovrebbe favorire il comprendere quali siano gli interrogativi cui si vuole davvero rispondere.
Un altro fattore che, insieme a questo, nella bieotica non ha avvantaggiato una
riflessione sui grandi temi dellesistenza come la vita, la salute, il nascere e il
morire, il mancato chiarimento del suo statuto epistemologico, che risulta ancora oscillare tra la scienza, nel senso moderno del termine, la psicologia, il diritto e il sapere etico, di cui pure la bioetica risulta essere stata un potente fattore
di propulsione.10
. , o , . , ,
.
11,
. , -
Ibid., 10.
M. Chiodi, TRA CIELO E TERRA, il senso della vita a partire dal dibattio bietico, 7.
11
V. Valjan, Bioetika, Svjetlo rijei, Sarajevo-Zagreb, 2004, 50.
10
139
; , ... (. 137151)
,
....12
, , . , , , , ,
....13 14, .
,
: ,
.15 magna questio.16 calls all in
doubt17, . ,
, ,
: Io sono la via, la verita e la vita.18

,
, ,
, , .19
, ,
,
, .20
? . , ,
.
,
.21 -
12
V. Valjan, Bioetika, 50.

Ibid., 63.
14
,
Evangelium vitae. : V. Valjan, Bioetika, 51.
15
M. Scheler, Philosophische Weltanschauug, Bonn, 1929., 62; G. Marcel, Lhomme problematique, Pariz, 1965., 73-74. : V. Valjan, Bioetika, 64.
16
Augustin, Confessioni, Roma, 1981, cap. IV.
17
H. Kuhse, The Sancity-of-Life Doctrine in Medicine. A Critique, Oxford University Press,
Oxford, 1987, 3. : M. Chiodi, TRA CIELO E TERRA, il senso della vita a partire
dal dibattio bietico, 16.
18
M. Chiodi, TRA CIELO E TERRA, il senso della vita a partire dal dibattio bietico, 7.
19
N. Hartmann, Etika, 70.
20
Ibid.
21
M. Vidal, Kranska etika, akovo, 2001, 88.
13
140
, 1/2014
, . , .
. ,
? Lumen Fidei, : -
.22
.23 ? ,
, .24 , ,
.25 ?
,
, . ,
26, . , ? ?
, . ,
.
, , , - .
, . , . , , . .
, 27,
, . , . ,
28 -
22
, , 2013, 5.
Ibid.
24
V. R. Potter, Bridge to the Future, Prentice-Hall, Engglewood Clifts, 1971, 48.
: V. Valjan, Bioetika, 13.
25
26
Ibid., 71.
27
, .,
, , .1, , 2013.
28
: Z. Leroti, Rje urednika, u V. Zsifkovits, Politika bez morala?, kolska knjiga,
Zagreb, 1996, 12.
23
141
; , ... (. 137151)
. , ,
, ,
, ,
, .29
30
, . ? :
, (Heinirch Luitpold Himmler) ,
100 , 500, 1000. , , ,
.31 . (Thomas Aquinas), .32 ,
.33

, .
, , .34 , , , . , . ?
. , 35 . . : ?.36 ,
29

V. Zsifkovits, Politika bez morala?, 32.
31
Ibid., 30.
32
Ibid., 38.
33
Ibid., 36.
34
Ibid., 37.
35
V. Zsifkovits, Politika bez morala?, 49.
36
Ibid., 82.
30
142
, 1/2014
?
? ,
. , ...,
.37 ,
. - , ,
.38 ,
.39
.40
,
, ....41
.
compromise between moral ideas and practical possibilities.42
, ?

. : ,
-, .43
. ,
. , . ,
.44
.
45: , ; ,
37
Ibid., 86.
Ibid., 87.
39
Ibid., 88.
40
Ibid., 92.
41
Ibid., 94.
42
D. L. Rhode, Ethics in Practice, Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York, 2007, 3.
43
M. Vidal, Kranska etika, akovo, 2001, 222.
44
Ibid.
45
, , .,
38
143
; , ... (. 137151)
; (desaparecidos, ); , ,
; , , , .46 ,
,
.
. ? . ,
, .
,
. .
, , ,
.47
.
,
. , 48, ,
, , ,

.49
(Marciano Vidal)
. ,
, , .50
. , , , .
, .
, .
, .
,
, , .4, , 2013.
46
Ibid.
47
48
M. Vidal, Kranska etika, 223.
49
50
144
, 1/2014
, .51
2.
?
,
. ,
,
. .
.52 , , .
. ( ) ( );
( ), ( ).53
, - . ,

.
,
.54
,
. .55 , .56
51
Ibid., 223-224.
53
Ibid., 226-227.
54
, 7.
55
Ibid.
56
52
145
; , ... (. 137151)
? ?
? ,
, ,
.
,
. .57
...58,
, , .
, .
59,
.

60, ,

.
.61
.62 , , , , .63 ?
, .

.
,
, -
57
T. Matuli, Metamorfoze kulture, 688.

59
Ibid.
60
Ibid., 689.
61
Ibid., 695.
62
Ibid.
63
Ibid.
58
146
, 1/2014
, .64
,
65

. ,
.66 ....67
. . ?
, ?
,
, .
, . ,
, , ,
,
? .
, ,
. , ,
, . , , . , ,
. , ,
, ,
. , . ? , , .
. , ,
64

T. Martuli, Metamorfoze kulture, 695.
66
67
Ibid.
65
147
; , ... (. 137151)
. ,
. -
. ? .
.
. - , , , . -
? . ,
, , , , , , , - .
- , , .
- ,
, . ? - ,
. ? , .
. -
? , . ,
, -
, .

.

. . , , . ,
, ? - . ,
148
, 1/2014
,
,
- - ,
, , . , , , .
. ,
, . .
. ?
,
? , .
, . ,
, . , , .68
.
. -
, .

.
. . ,
, , 69,
.
? , . ?
. , - -
68

, ., ,
, .4, , 2013.
69
149
; , ... (. 137151)
, .
. ?
, .
, , .
, , .

- -,
.
.
. ,
.
, .
.
. - , . , : , ,
, , , , , .70
70
150
N. Hartmann, Etika, 40-41.
, 1/2014
Marko Trajkovi, Ph.D., Associate Professor

University of Ni
Faculty of Law Ni
Dragia Draki, Ph.D., Associate Professor
Bioethics as a Human Trait of Common Theory of Law

and Criminal Law Theory
Abstract: What would be common theory of law without its human features? What would be criminal law theory without its human traits? It would be a
mere form of expression of law. What are todays best examples of the relation
between humanity and law? Nowadays there is series of bioethical issues that
provide human aspect to jurisprudence and legal practice. Bioethics offers to
the law a real opportunity to rebuild its human content, to go beyond the form
and follow the path of humanity.
Will the law be subordinated to its form and its procedural side, or it will
meet human demands? It will depend from lawyers themselves.
Key words: law, bioethics, human, humanity, values
151
; , ... (. 137151)
152
, 1/2014
343.63(497.11)
doi:10.5937/zrpfns48-5612

: ()

:
. , , ,
.
.

.

.
, , , . .
.
,
, , .
: , , , , ,
, , , .
153
, :... (. 153174)
,

, .1
I
.
. mala in se,

.
,
.
.2 XVII

(

).
.3 . ( ), .4 25. .5
, , , , . , 1998, . 72.
: Quisquis praesumitur bonus.
: ...et simper in dubiis pro reo respondendum.
, , .
, ,
.
3
, , , , ,
.
4
6. ...
. .
3.
.
5
, 25. :
. ,
2
154
, 1/2014
II
2005. . .
. 2012. ( ) . 2012. :
.
:
, ( ) .
III
? ?
?
. , .

.

.
. .

.
1.
.

,
.
155
, :... (. 153174)
, . , .
1.1.

. . .
. , . - .6
, 2012. ,
,
... . ...
..7 , 2012.
. ...
, ..8
. , ,
, , .

... , ...9
, , , .10
, , , . 415-416; , , , 4. 2011. , http://www.politika.rs/rubrike/

Hronika/Dekriminalizacija-klevete-je-apsurd.lt.html, : 10. 2013. .
7
2012. : ,
-
: , Crimen, . 2, 2012, . 181.
8
, , http://www.parlament.gov.rs/
upload/archive/files/cir/pdf/predlozi_zakona/4108-12.pdf, 18.12.2013. .
9
, , ,
28. 2012. , http://www.novosti.test.mainstream.rs/vesti/naslovna/drustvo/ aktuelno.290.html:408143-Kleveta-nece-biti-krivicno-delo, : 20. 2013. .
10
, , 22. 7. 2011.
, http://www.mic.org.rs/2011/07/22/nuns-pozdravlja-ukidanje-krivicnog-dela-uvrede-i-klevete/,
: 25 2013. .
156
, 1/2014
1.2.
1.2.1.
.11
133.
. 67. . .

.
1990. ,
.
.12
, ,
. .
.
-, . , , ?13 , .
, .14 . ,
.
, 133.
11

: , ,
, . 1, 2012, . 369-381.
12
, , . 676.
13
: , , ,
1911, . 17-18. ,
, .
14
,
, , 2008, . 372-377.
157
, :... (. 153174)
, ( ). . , . ,
133. .
, , , ( )
1.2.2.
, .15
. , , ,

- libel. , . () libel, () slander. common law
.16
, .17
,
.
15
... .:
, , . 2.
16
SilviaTellenbach,
Max Planck
,
2003.
. :
. ,
.

.
. . :
, 9. 2003. ,
, . 2, 2003, . 305-306.
17
: J. W. Cecil Turner, Kenny`s Outlines of Criminal Law,
Cambridge, 1958, p. 208-214.
158
, 1/2014
1.2.3.

.
, ,
.

( ) ( ) e .
// .
, , , .
?
(. ) .
, , ,
.
. . , ,
, .
. . ,
(
) ,
. .

. ,
, 159
, :... (. 153174)
.

.18 , , , , , //. , //
. ,
, , , , . ,
( ).19

2012. ,
.
() . ()
.
,
je , .
, , ,
, .
1.2.4.

. , .
. ,
.
18
Claus Roxin, Strafrecht, Allgemeiner Teil, Band I, Grundlagen, Der Aufbau der Verbrechenslehre, Munchen, 2006, p. 836-840, : , , , . 1, 2010, . 151-152.
19
,
, , . 1-4, 1992, . 73.
160
, 1/2014
,
. ,
, , .
1.2.5. ?
, . .
,
.
,
, // , .
.
.

. .
,
. .

.
. .20
, . .
. ( ,
.) ( .).
, . ,

.
.
-
20
, , , 1998, . 31.
161
, :... (. 153174)
. ,
, ,
. .
, .21
, , ( ).
,
. ,
.22 .

,
, ,
.
. ,
,
.23

, , . ,
,
, .
, ,
?
2.

, , , .

.

. ,
21
, . 57.
, . 2526.
23
, I, . 474-475.
22
162
, 1/2014
, //
.
.
. ( ) :
,

!24

//
. //, , . , , ,
.25
( ) . ?
2.1.

. 26 ,

.
24
, I, . 72.
. ,
: .
26
. , () : , . 461.
25
163
, :... (. 153174)

.
.27
.
.28 ?
, , .
, , . , , ()
().29 . () ( ).
, . . .
,
. .
, .
.

.30 200 , , .
, , (, )
(, ).
.

27
, , , 1998, . 482.
, , . 416.
29
, , , 2012, . 181.
30
, II, . 34.
28
164
, 1/2014
(
). . , . , , , .

. .
,
, .
. ,
, , (
, ) . ministerium () minus ,
.
.
. magister, magistratus (), magis , , , .
.31

. ( ), ( ).
, .
,
,
. , , ,
. -
31
. labor,
opera, studium (): , I, . 59-60,
26.
165
, :... (. 153174)
.

() , .32
, ,
.33
, .

, .34
. , ( )
,
( ) .
() .

.

? .
2.2.
?

.
. , , ,
, , . .35
32
, : , . 32.
, I, . 74.
34
, .
.
35

: , , . 417. , ,
, 177. 2. ...
....
33
166
, 1/2014
,
.36
2.2.1. ,
?
. .
. ,
. .
( ) , , . ,
. ,
.37 , ? .
.
3.
?
.
.
. ,
, .
: ,
, , 9, 10.
36
, . 11.
37

.
. .
. ,
,
.
167
, :... (. 153174)
3.1.

() ( )
, .38
- . : .
. , , .
. ,
.
.
, . , ,
, .
. ?
.

, , .
,
.
( ), , ,
. ?
.
. . ( ), (
, ).
?39
38
, .
.
39
-
1892. ,
.

168
, 1/2014
. ,
.

, .
,
.
3.2.

,
.40 , , .
60-
X
1971. .41
(. ) . (), 8 ( 42, , ,
, . .
? , . ? .
40

.
. , ,
, . .
, , , .
. .
.

, .
41
, . 4. 1971.
551 654.
42

, ,
. .
: [] .
; , ;
.: , II, . 37.
169
, :... (. 153174)
, , ,
).43 44 1% , ,
, , 44,8% ,
12,1% , 11,9% ,
, 8,6%.

79,4% 1%, ... .45
4.
, ,
: // , .

-. , , -.
,
-?
?

239. .
,
.
,
-?
XVII

.

43
, , , . 4, 1971, . 565
5 1962 . 1966. :
-, , , 1971, . 117.
45
, . 121.
44
170
, 1/2014
?
( )
?
, ,
(
. )
,
( ) ?
? ?
, ,
.

, . XXXII
.
, .46
, , , .

.
46

: , ,
, ,
, ,
, , ,
, , ,
, , ,
, ,
, ,
, , , ,
, , , ,
, ,
XXXII
.
171
, :... (. 153174)
1990. .
,

.

. //,
.
,
, . .
( ),
, , . ,

, .

.

- ,
. , . .
. .

.

, ,
.
.
( ) .
.
, , , . ,
, ,
, . .
172
, 1/2014
, , ,
, ,
, .
, ,
(,
, ...).47
47
, II, . 50-51.
173
, :... (. 153174)
Branislav Ristivojevi, Ph.D., Associate Professor

About Justification of Decriminalizing Insult and Defamation:

Criminal (non)Policy of Serbian Legislator
Abstract: In this paper, the author tries to provide a critical view of arguments used by the legislator in the process of decriminalizing insult and defamation. He is of the opinion that there are few such arguments, and after subjecting them to scrutiny the author fails to find justification for any of the arguments, and for some of them he finds that they are not criminal policy arguments. The largest section of the paper is focused on an argument that civil law
protection is sufficient to provide protection for human dignity and finds that
such a thing is not possible by the very nature of the object of the protection because it does not provide protection for a thing but it rather protects equality of
a person with all other persons.
On the other hand, the author provides an analysis of the meaning of the
honor and reputation as values protected by law in modern society and concludes that our legislator has undermined their importance by providing only for
civil law protection of such values. By arriving at a conclusion that the soundness of human spirit is inextricably connected to undisturbed honor and reputation, it compares it to the notion of a healthy body in the area of physical existence. As much as a man strives towards a healthy body, he strives even more
to have a healthy spirit. The cure for a human spirit does not lie in nature as the
cause of illness is not to be found there. The cure for harmed honor and reputation is in providing satisfaction because satisfaction restores shaken self-confidence.
As one of the strong arguments in favor of criminal law protection of honor and reputation, achieve the author points out that there are no other human
values that a man may enjoy even after death, and that honor and reputation
may even after death.
Key words: Honor, reputation, insult, defamation, human dignity, freedom
of speech, criminal policy, legislation, criminal law.
174
, 1/2014
343.541:343.9
doi:10.5937/zrpfns48-5723
. ,

. ,

:
,
. , ,
. , .
.
: , , .
, , XX . (Braithwaite)
,
.1 ,
. 179046, ,

1
Strickland, A., Restorative justice, Petera Lang Publishing, New York, 2004, p. 1.
175
. ; . , ... (. 175187)

.
, ,
. , .2

, ,
(Conrad Brunk), . ,
, . , ,
. ,
, ,
.
, , ,
. ,
, ,

. ,
.3
(Marshall) ''
, ,
.''4
(Nils Christie) ,
(, ), ()
. ,
() . '' -
, ., , .,
,
,
, , 2012. , . 90.
3
Zehr, H., Gohar, A., The little book of restorative justice, pp. 59-60. :
http://www.unicef.org/tdad/littlebookrjpakaf.pdf, 09.11.2013.
4
, ., , ., , , , 2006. , 101.
176
, 1/2014
, .''5
'' '' (Albert Eglash) 1977. , ,6

.7 (Braithwaite) ,
.8

.
, ,
.
,
. , .9

(restorative justice conference),10 (pretrial diversion),11 ,
5
, ., , , 1, 10, , , 2007. , 27.
6
: Gavrielides, T., Restorative
justice practices: from the early societies to the 1970s, Internet Journal of Criminology, 2011.
:
http://www.internetjournalofcriminology.com/Gavrielides_Restorative_Practices_IJC_November_2011.pdf, , 09.11.2013.
7
, ., ,
, , , 2009. , . 400.
8
Strickland, A., op. cit., p. 2.
9
Miller, S., After the crime: The power of restorative justice dialogues between victims and
violent offenders, New York University Press, New York, 2011, p. 12.
10
: Elrod, P., Ryder, S., Juvenile Justice: A Social, Historical, and Legal Perspective, Jones & Bartlett Learning, Burlington, 2004, pp. 177-179.
11
: Strickland, A., op. cit., pp. 66-67.
177
. ; . , ... (. 175187)

(Chemical Awareness Program), (Theft Awareness Program),
(Tobacco Awareness Class)12 .
,
, .
.
, . , , ,
.

.13 , .
.14

, , , -
12
:
http://www.ci.oakdale.mn.us/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC=
%7BC613119C-F306-40AF-B8B2-B8090E8EA2DA%7D, 02.11.2013.
13
,
, .
. ,
. , , , , .
. , . ,
. 4
. ,
. ,
. : , ., , , 2012. , . 3.
14
Miller, S., op. cit., p. 12.
178
, 1/2014
. ,

. ,
.

, ,
( )
, .15 ,
.
, . ,

,
.
, , ,
,
.16 , . , , ,
.17
, ,
. ,
. , . ,
, ,
15
McGlynn, C., Westmarland, N., Godden, N., Is restorative justice possible in cases of sexual violence? Lea school researching briefing no. 1, p. 2. : https://www.dur.ac.uk/resources/glad/ResearchBriefing1-Isrestorativejusticepossibleincasesofsexualviolence.pdf,
29.10.2013.
16
:
http://nicolewestmarland.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/48537299/Clare%20McGlynn%20presentation.pptx, 30.10.2013.
17
McGlynn, C., Westmarland, N., Godden, N., loc. cit.
179
. ; . , ... (. 175187)
,
. ,
.
, .18

, RESTORE (Responsibility and Equity for Sexual Transgressions Offering a Restorative Experience), (),
.
: 1) 18 ; 2) ; 3) , 4)
.
.19

, ,
RESTORE . Case study .

2010. . , (Lucy).
.

. , ,
,
, .
18
Sisti, D., Caplan, A., Rimon-Greenspan, H., Applied Ethics in Mental Health Care: An
Interdisciplinary Reader, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2013, p. 156.
19
Ibidem
180
, 1/2014
, . . ,
: .
, , .
,

. , ,
.
, .
. ,
, ,
.
.
, , .
, , .20
. , , . ,
, , . , . ,
,
. ,
.21
, , . ,
, (Joanne Nodding), ,
20
:
http://nicolewestmarland.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/48537299/Clare%
20McGlynn%20presentation.pptx, 30.10.2013.
21
McGlynn, C., Westmarland, N., Godden, N., op. cit., p. 3.
181
. ; . , ... (. 175187)
.
. ,
, ,
, . , . , : , . : -, . .22
.
. , ,
. .
. ,
, .
,
. , ,
. , .23
, , ,
.
, ,
. , .
, : 1) ; 2)
; 3) ; 4)
, 5) , , ,
. ,
, , ,
. , . ,
22
: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/jan/27/restorative-justice-confrontedrape, 31.10.2013.
23
Ibidem
182
, 1/2014
, .
. ,
.
,
.
. , .24
, . ,
, , 85% , , ,
27%.25 ,
.26

,
. ,
,
, . .
, .27
24
Ibidem
: http://news.sky.com/story/900271/crime-victims-turning-to-restorative-justice,
01.11.2013.
26
: http://www.noviolence.com.au/public/seminarpapers/marykoss.pdf,
09.11.2013.
27
, ., , ., , ., , " ", , , 2013. , . 225.
25
183
. ; . , ... (. 175187)
. ,
() ,
,
.
,
,
.28 , . ,
, , .29

, ,
. , , ,
. , .
. ,
, , , . ,
.30

. ,
2008. 2012. 0,6
0,8%,31
, .32
. , 80% , 50% -
28
, ., , , , , 2013. , . 601-602.
29
, ., ., , , , , 2009. , . 472.
30
, ., op. cit., . 603-604.
31
:
http://webrzs.stat.gov.rs/WebSite/repository/documents/00/01/06/86/
SK122013715.pdf, 05.11.2013.
32
70%
. . : , ., , ., ,
, , 2011. , . 200.
184
, 1/2014
.33
,
. , , ,
.34 ,
. , .
, . ,
, .
,
. , ,
,
.
, . 2005. , ,
. ,
,
283. , .
,
, ,
33
: http://www.womenngo.org.rs/sajt/sajt/izdanja/autonomni_zenski_centar/silovanje_prirucnik_za_zene/za%20zenu.htm, 06.11.2013.
34
Ibidem
185
. ; . , ... (. 175187)
, ,
.
, , , , .
,
.
,
, .
186
, 1/2014
Darko T. Dimovski, Ph.D., Assistant Professor

University of Ni
Faculty of Law Ni
Miomira P. Kosti, Ph.D., Full Professor
University of Ni
Faculty of Law Ni
The Application of Restorative Justice in Cases

of Sexual Delinquency
Abstract: Starting from the definition of restorative justice by many writers
on the criminal mind, the authors emphasize that there are two models of restorative justice - diversion and therapeutic. While the essence of diversion model
of restorative justice is "turning" of the criminal proceedings and the imposition
of alternative criminal sanctions, the therapeutic model is reflected in the conviction of the defendant, paying particular attention to the victim, aimed at empowerment and overcoming all the adversity of the crime. Further, the authors
present two cases of therapeutic restorative justice model to illustrate its importance. Finally, the authors emphasize the need to introduce a therapeutic model
of restorative justice in the criminal legislation of the Republic of Serbia.
Key words: restorative justice, sexual delinquency, rape.
187
. ; . , ... (. 175187)
188
, 1/2014
343.232(497.11)2014(094.5)
doi:10.5937/zrpfns48-4898

1

:
. ,
, . - ,
. .
2013. ,
.
: , ,
2005. , 2013.
2013.
( , . 65 25.
2013), 2. 2013. 1. 2014. .2
1
( ), .
2

( 196.
4) -
189
, ... (. 189207)
2005. ,
. ,
, . ,

. ,

. ?
138. 1. 3,

. , , ,

,
. ,
,
30 ,
.4

. , - . .
.
.

. ,
, -
: ,
, .
: ( , .
101/2005, 116/2008 111/2009) 2. 2013. ,
1. 2014. .
3
, . 124/2012.
4
, 159.
190
, 1/2014
. ,
. ,
,
. , , ,
, . ,
,
.
: , , , .
, .
, ,
,
. , . ,

, ,
.
,
,
. . , . : ) ; ) ; ) . , .
, . 1810. : ) ; ) ; ) .
, .
,
1852.
1871. . , 1913. ,
191
, ... (. 189207)
. . ,
: , ,
(. ).
, XIX

. , , , , , ,
. - , - -.
1925. .
( 1882. )
. ( , , . )
. 1947.
. ,
. , 1953.
.5
.

, ,
,
,
, 6, - , ( , ,
, ),
,

5
6
28-29.
192
II, , 1989, . 1273-1274.

. : I , , 1997, .
, 1/2014
, ,
.7
, , ,
, - . , . , ,
, . , , , .

, , , .

, . , -

. ( ), ,
. ,

( ). , ,
.8
( ), .

. ,
:
, .9
.
. , -

.
. : , ,
2004, . 2.
8
. : I , , 2013, . 40.
9
. : , , .
10-11, , 1986, . 49.
193
, ... (. 189207)
. , , , , , . , .
,
, , , ,
,
(. ), ( . , ).10
. , . . ,
,
( ).
.11
, ,
. , , .12
2005.
2013.
, , . 2005. ( 2),
, 2013. ( 2)
.
10
. : , , 2002, . 567-568.
. : , , , 2008, . 20.
12
: , , 1983, . 285.
11
194
, 1/2014

2005.
2013.
. 2005. , 1. 2014.
,
( 1. 2010. ), . , , 2005.
,
,
, , , ,

, .
, 2013.

, ,

,
. 2013. ,
( ,
, ,
).
, .
.

. , 195
, ... (. 189207)
,
, , .
, ,
,
.
,
,

, .
, , . ,
, ,
.
,
,
.
, .
,
. , .13

2013.

. ,
13
196
2013. , . 100-111.
, 1/2014
,
. ,

. , ,
( 3. ), . , 2013. , . 2005. ,
(, ,
), 2013. : . ,
.
2013.
. :
, .
. , ,
, ,
.
,
. ,
. ,
,
,
.
. 20 360 . , , , , ,
, .
,
197
, ... (. 189207)
. : ) 5 000 150 000

; ) 50 000 2 000 000 ;
) 10 000 500 000 . , ,
. ,
1 000 10 000 , 5 000 50
000 , 10 000 100 000 .
, ,
15 ,
, . , , , .

, . , , 1 000 ,

. ,
, , , ,
,
, 1 000 , 360 . .
.
, .
, , : , , , , 198
, 1/2014
.
.
, , : 1)
,
; 2) , ; 3)
.
, . ,
,
. ,

.
1 25
.
. . .
, . ,
, , .
14, 16
. : ( )
199
, ... (. 189207)
.
, ,
, , , ,
,
. 14
2013.

, .
, , . 2005. , 2013. , . , : 1) ; 2) ; 3) ; 4) ; 5) ; 6) ; 7) ; 8) ,
; 9) ; 10) ; 11)
; 12)
.15

2013. . , 2005.
,
. , 2013. -
14
15
200
2013. , . 32-50 . 73-83.

2013. , . 51-67.
, 1/2014
,
: 1) ; 2) .
,
,
. ,

: 1) , , ; 2)
; 3) , .
,
170. 171. . .
, . , , , ,
.
,
.16

,
() -
( , . 111/2009). 2013. , ,
.
16
2013. , . 167-178.
201
, ... (. 189207)
.
,
: 1)
; 2) ; 3) ,
; 4)

; 5) , ,
- ( ); 6) .
. ,
, .
, ,
.17

2013.
2013.
, .
2013. ,
XXXIII ( 291 300),

. ,

( , .
85/2005).
. ,
,
60 ,
17
202
2013. , . 233-238.
, 1/2014
,
.
, , ,
.
,
, .
.

,
.
, ,
.
, , , , .

, ,
. , , , , , .
, - ,
,
, .
.
( 14 ), , , ,
.
,
.
203
, ... (. 189207)

2013.

. : , ,
, .
2005. ,
.
2005. , : 1)
; 2)
; 3)
; 4) .
2013. : )
,
; ) , ,
, .
2005. .18

. 2013. ,
. ,
.
18
204
2013. , . 280-284.
, 1/2014
, : 1) , , ; 2)
; 3) ; 4)
, ; 5) .
: 1) , ,
, , ; 2)
, ; 3) , ; 4)
; 5)
; 6) ; 7) , ; 8)
; 9) .
,
.
,
, . ,
,

, .
,
, .
, .

, , , ,
,
205
, ... (. 189207)

. ,
,
.
, 2013. , , -

, . ,
() .
.19
, 1.
2014. ,
. ,
- , .20 , , 2013. ,
.
,
. ,
,
22. .
19
20
206
2013. , . 324-336.
. : , , 1998, . 453.
, 1/2014
Aleksandar Martinovi, Ph.D., Assistant Professor

Towards the Beginning of an Application

of the New Misdemeanor Law
Abstract: Administrative law and Misdemeanor law are two different
branches of the legal system. Administrative law is one of the fundamental disciplines f public law, while the Misdemeanor law is much closer to the criminal law and the law of economic offenses, so in the board sense it is a form of
criminal law. According to established academic tradition, administrative and
legal theorists also deal with basic misdemeanors terms, mainly because they
were considered as so-called police offenses in the past. Law on Misdemeanor
adopted in 2013 establishes the infringement procedure as a standard court
procedure, whereby the administrative bodies completely stopped to be competent for their conduct and the imposition of sanctions.
Key words: Administrative law, Misdemeanor law, Law on Misdemeanor
since 2005, Law on Misdemeanor since 2013.
207
, ... (. 189207)
208
, 1/2014
343.232:347.27(497.11)
doi:10.5937/zrpfns48-5860

:
.
. , . ( , ),
lex commissoria,
. , , , ,
.
. , ,
( , ), ( ).
, -
,
, .

( ).
209
, ... (. 209227)

, .

2003. , ,
, . ,
, , . ,
. , , -
- ,
.
: , fiducia, , trust,
,

1.
, , - , ,
.
,
,
, , ,
. .
,
.
(trust)
.
, , . , 210
, 1/2014

.
(trust)
- .
,

. - , ,
. ,
, ,
, .1
- .
, . - , . , , ,
. .2
2. ,
, (settlor)
, (trustee) , (trust property),
(beneficiary), ,
.3
,
, -
1
. , , LVIII/2011, 113-126, 114.
2
Ibid.
3
. Arthur Underhill, A Practical and Concise Manual of the Law Relating to Private
Trust and Trustees, Butterworths, London 1901, 1; Joseph Arnold Nathan, Oshley Ray Marshall,
The Law of Trusts, Stevens, London 1975, 1-2. . . (2011), 115, . 4.

.
211
, ... (. 209227)
.4 ,
.5
use
, (feoffee),
,
(cestui que use).6
,
,
.
. , XV
(equity law).7 , , , (equitable ownership), common law-a (legal ownership),
. Use XIII ,
.8 , , 9 .10 , ,
VII (Statute of Use) use-a common law-u.11
use-a, , .12
, , , 3/1957, 299-312, 301.

5
, , . /
, . . . (2011), 115,
. 4.
6
. Phillip H. Petit, Equity in the Law of Trusts, Oxford University Press, London, 1970,
8; William F. Fratcher, Property and Trust, International Encyclopaedia of Comparative Law, J.
C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), Tbingen 1974, 9. . . (2011), 116, . 8.
7
. . (2011), 117.
8
, use- , . . Frederic
W. Maitland, Equity, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1909, 24-25. . . (2011), 116, . 10.
9
Ibid.
10
. Jill E. Martin, Modern Equity, Sweet and Maxwell, London 1993, 10. .
. (2011), 118, . 16.
11
. . (1957), 302.
12
. . (2011), 118.
212
, 1/2014
, , use-a
use-. (trust).13
3.
, . 26 .14
(private trusts)
(charitable trusts).15
- , - .16
, : express trust,
constructive trust, resulting trust statutory trust. xpress trust , constructive trust
, . resulting trust ,
constructive trust-,
, . ,
,
,
, . ,
(, , ). (statutory trust).17
, , , .
,

.18
.
13
. J. Martin, 11. . . (2011), 118, . 18.

. W. Fratcher, 3-5. . . (2011), 124, . 57.
15
. Henry Hansmann, Ugo Mattei, The Functions of Trust Law: A Comparative Legal
and Economic Analysis, New York University Law Review2/1998, 434-479, 437.
16
. H. Hansmann, U. Mattei, 437; Piero Verrucoli, Non-profit Organizations, Studi di
Diritto Comparato1/1985, 77-91.
17
. . (2011), 121-122.
18
Ibid., 122.
14
213
, ... (. 209227)
,
. ; . unit trust,
; , ;
,
;
; , .19
(secret trust), ;
(real estate trust); (trust mortgage, trust deeds);
(liquidating reorganizing trust), .20
4.

, .

.21 , .22
,
.23 , , .24 a ,
.
(actual notice of trust),
, ,
(constructive notice of trust).25
19
Ibid., 122-123.
. . (1957), 308-309.
21
. . (2011), 118.
22
. P.H. Petit (1970), 307. . . (2011), 116, . 19.
23
. . (2011), 118.
24
. Ugo Mattei, Should Europe codify trust?, Themes in Comparative Law, Oxford,
2002, 239.
25
. . (2011), 119-120.
20
214
, 1/2014
.
: in personam in rem . ,
, , . , , , ( ),
.26
5.
-
, , - , .
, , ,
,
.
, , ,
. ( , ,
,
, , noxae deditio, ,
.).27 (fiducia cum creditore
contracta) , .
(fiducia cum amico contracta).
(
),
. -
26
Ibid., 121.
. , ,
, , 2010, 239.
27
215
, ... (. 209227)
,
.28
, fiducia cum creditore contracta,
, , fiducia cum amico contracta.29

.30
,
XIX . XIX , , , .31
: (Treuhand)
(Sicherungsbereignung).32
,
.33 , .34 ,
.35
,

( ) -
28
. , ,
2/1960, 22-37, 33
29
. . (1960), 26.
30
Ibid.
31
. . (2010), 243.
32
Ibid.

. , (Sicherungsbereignung), 5-6/1993, 619-638.
33
. , ,
, 1926, 337-358, 342-345; . (1960), 29.
34
. Christa Jessel-Holst, Reform des Mobiliarsicherheitenrechts in Sdosteuropa,
Das Budapester Symposium Beitrge zur Reform des Sachenrechts in den Staaten Sdosteuropas, Edition Temmen, Bremen 2003, 66-81, 74.
35
Ibid.
216
, 1/2014
.36 ,
(Gesetz ber Personen
Geselschaftrecht) 1926. .37 (, , ) .38 ,
,
2007. , .39

, 1996.
40 ( - 2009. 41) , 1996.
, , 1996. .42
(. 252-252),
.43
2000. . 2844
.44
, 2002. .45 -
36
. . (2010), 160.
Ibid., 181.
38
. Ugo Mattei, The European Codification Process: Cut and Paste, Kluwer Law International, the Hague 2003, 162.
39
Ibid., 184. . . 2011-2031 (http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr
/affichCode.do?cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006070721&dateTexte=20080121, 28. 2014. ).
, . 1321, ( contre-lettre)
. . . (1960), 29.
40

. , , -
, 1996; ,
, 11/1998, 527-537.
- 2009. . , , ,
10/2011, 511-528; , ,
2/2011, 473-494, 482-491.
41
. . (2011), 476.
42
. . (2010), 195.
43
. , , , 2009, 99.
44
. C. Jessel-Holst (2003), 74.
45
Ibid.
37
217
, ... (. 209227)
, , .46
,
,
. , ,
.47
- ,
, .48

1985. .49
. 1999. .50
51, 2009. .52
(Draft Common Frame
of Reference) 2009.
( ), .53
46
. ,
, Das Budapester Symposium Beitrge zur Reform
des Sachenrechts in den Staaten Sdosteuropas, Edition Temmen, Bremen 2003, 220-245, 235.
47
. C. Jessel-Holst (2003), 74.
48
. U. Mattei (2003), 162.
49
. Hague Convention on the Law Applicable to Trust and on their Recognition,
1985. . 1992. ,
. ,
-
. . Hague Conference on Private International Law
(http://www.hcch.net/index_en.php?act=conventions.status&cid=59, 24. 2014.).
50
. David J. Hayton et al.Principles of European Trust Law,Kluwer Law International,
W.E.J. Tjeenk Willink 1999.
51
International Working Group on European Trust Law.
52
. Towards An EU Directive on Protected Funds, . S. Kortmann et al., Kluwer
Law International, W.E.J. Tjeenk Willink 1999.
53
Principles, Definitions and Model Rules of European Private Law Draft Common Frame
of Reference (DCFR) - Outline Edition, . Christian von Bar et al., Sellier - European Law
Publishers, Mnchen, 2009.
218
, 1/2014
6. ?
, .
, 1929. ,
.54 ,
, .

.55
, .
, .
.56
, , , .
2003. ,
,
. , ,
. ,
,
. , . , ,
,
, , ,
, , , .57
54
. . (1960), 30.
. . (2010), 202.
56
. . 445 a , , .
29/78, 39/85, 45/89 - 57/89, , . 31/93
, . 1/2003 .
. ,
, 10/1998, 383-395, 388-389.
57
. , . . 263/96 29.
1997. , , . 1/1997 (. . (1998),
392.); . . 199/97 . 6539/95. (. 55
219
, ... (. 209227)

, 58 59,
. 973. . 1. .60
.
.61

. ,
, .
, , , . ,
62, ,
() ( )
, .63
( )
, . , ,
.64
,
,
4/2012, 291-303, 295. . 11.).
58
. , . 652/97 29. 1997.
. , . 1/97, 108. . . (2012), 295-296.
59
. ., 5867/97. (. . (2010), 203, . 802); . 19/94
. 347/96 (. . B , ,
10/1997, 63-77, 65-66.).
60
. , , 3/96. . B. (1997), 68.
61
. . . 3708/2002 26. 2002.
. . , , ,
, 2012, 118, . 649.
62
. . (1926), 347.
63
Ibid.
64
. . (1998), 387; ,
, 10/1998, 811-826, 822; B. (1997), 64; .
(2009), 101; . (2010), 206; . , . (2011), 524;
, ,
LXII/2012, 537-550, 549; . (2012), 302.
: ,
220
, 1/2014
, .
- .
, ,
,
.65
, ,
, .66
7.
- je ? ,
. , ,
67. ,
.
.
,
,
.

, , ?
( ) , .68
1993. ,
1995.
, , 1995.
. B. . (1997), 64. 68.
65
. . (1960), 34.
66
Ibid., 36.
67
U. Mattei (2003),161.
68

,
221
, ... (. 209227)

, . 2003. 69,
70, ,
.71 , , , -
, . . M , , 3-4/1982, 365-383. (
IV , 1931. ).
69
,
, . 57/2003, 61/2005, 64/2006 - . 99/2011 - . ).
70
. Ulrich Drobnik Chista Jessel Holst,
-
, . , ,
2007, 171.

, ,
(
2003. ,
, ),
,
. . ,
2006, -
, . ,
, 2007, 13-16, 16. ,

. . . (2012), 493.
71
(
2012. )
(. 633-654.). ,
, ,

(. 654.).
,

, (
) , . (. 653.). ,
(, , , , .). ,

.
222
, 1/2014
, ,
( ) ,
(
)
. ( , .
)
, ,

,
. , , , . ,
, , . .
(
, )
, ,

.
, , , .72 , , .73
, ,
, .

( , , ,
, ,
, .). ,
, . , . , , ,
-
72
73
. . (2003), 234; M. (2009), 98.

. . (2003), 242.
223
, ... (. 209227)
. , ,
, , - , - (, ,
, , ).
, , ( , )74, - , ,
. , ,

.75
,
, , , , , ,
2013. 2014. .76 , ,
77 ( -
74
. . 2011 .
( ,
. 46/2006, 51/2009 31/2011)
,
(. 21); ,

, (. 33), .
( , . 85/2005 31/2011) . 27 29.
76
. 2013. vi V. trvny Polgri Trvnyknyvrl ( . V 2013.
), Magyar Kzlny ( ), . 31/2013.
77
. 6:99 .
75
224
, 1/2014

78), ( )
79.
78
. . 2002/47/EC
(Directive 2002/47/EC of the European Parliament and
of the Council on Financial Collateral Arrangements),
. L 1618143 27. 2002. . . 2009/44/EC
(http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:02002L0047-20090630&qid=
1395999116053&from=HR, 28. 2014.).
(
) (. 2. . 1.),
, .
(. . 1. . 2.).
79
. 6:310-330 .
225
, ... (. 209227)
Attila Duds, Ph.D., Assistant Professor

On the Expedience of Statutory Regulation of Fiduciary

Transfer of Property in Serbia
Abstract: No case of fiduciary transfer of property is explicitly governed
by the effective Serbian law. Only the fiduciary assignment of claim is regulated
in the Law on Obligations. One specific kind of fiduciary contracts is however
frequently concluded, the fiduciary transfer of property as collateral. The case
law is all but unanimous that such contracts are to be considered invalid (either
entirely or partially), mainly because they infringe the prohibition of lex commissoria, although there are some decisions in which the reason of nullity is
found in the infringement of the requirement of a valid cause of contract. Even
in the rare cases, in which such contracts are not considered invalid, their legal
effect is rendered equal to the effect of the pledge. The question of admissibility
of fiduciary transfer of property as collateral is thoroughly discussed in the literature.
The majority, under the influence of Dragoljub Aranelovi, claim that
such a contract is valid, on the one hand, since it does not infringe upon any
statutory prohibition, nor is it contrary to public policy or morals. On the other
hand, it is also expedient, since it provides greater security for the creditor than
the pledge.
A contrary standpoint is taken by Andria Gams, who emphasized that European civil law is characteristic of conformity of economic purpose and legal
form of legal institutions, that fiduciary transfer of property is contrary to, hence contemporary law should part with it.
The author of this paper asserts that the positive attitude of Serbian doctrine towards the fiduciary transfer of property emerged in the era in which the legal necessity of pledging chattel without the transfer of its possession was not
satisfactorily solved. He opines that by adopting the Law on Chattel Mortgage
in 2003 ceases the otherwise legitimate need to regulate by statute the fiduciary
transfer of property as collateral or to have it recognized in the case law. However, it seems reasonable to regulate, as a general legal institution, the other
main type of fiduciary contracts, the fiduciary transfer of property for the purpose of managing others assets, that is the institution of trust. In this respect,
the contemporary notion of trust from common law seems to be an appropriate
226
, 1/2014
general model to follow, with some reasonable adjustments to the principles of

civil law, naturally. Trust has proved its merits in common law to such an extent
that, regardless of serious conceptual differences between common law and civil law, some recent projects for the development of civil law have proposed
model rules by which it could be transposed into European civil law, therefore
into Serbian law as well.
Key words: fiducia, trust, fiduciary transfer of property, fiduciary management of others assets
227
, ... (. 209227)
228
, 1/2014
343.14:004.6
doi:10.5937/zrpfns48-5898

1
: ,
. aa ,

/. , ,
.
,

.
: , , .
1.
, ,
, ,
,
1
-
( )
.
229
, ... (. 229250)
2. 3, 14. 2.
(
2. 11. ),
,
4.
2.

16.
, , , .

,

, ( ). , ,
. -
, : . , , 2/2012,177-192; . ,
,
2/2009, 519-536.
3
(.
, . 19/2009).
4
, : . ,
, 1/2013, 291-307.
230
, 1/2014
, , , .

, ,
,
.
16.

, . , , ,
.
, ,
.
,
( 19. ) ( 18. ), (
, , ) . , 16.
/ 18. 19. ,
.
16. 17.

. ,
,
( 16. 231
, ... (. 229250)
), : )

, )
,
.
17.

, , ,
, , , , 16. .
3.

5.
6.

16.
, , . ,
, -

2006/24 (Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in
connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/
LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:105:0054:0063:EN:PDF).
6
: . ,
, 9/2011, 837-853; . , , , 2014, . 50-56.
232
, 1/2014
, , , . , , / , .
,
/
. ,

. 14. 2.
,
, , (
).
4.

, ,
16. 17. .
, :
, ;

/ ; .
,
7.

16. : 299/
233
, ... (. 229250)

, ( )
, , 16. . ,
.
( ) .
. ,
:
1. ;
2. ;
3. ;
4. .

, 16.
. ,
160. , ,
16. 8.
,
; 159. ; 4. 4 ; 60-2.
; 158/ ;
.92/2008; 191. ;
7. ;
126. ; 215
; 12. ;
54. 161/2003; 90. ;
18. 2703() .
8
http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Reports/Html/185.htm.
234
, 1/2014
,
.
, ,
, . ,
,
(
14. .2. ). ,
. , 16. (
),
16. .
, ,
/
.
, , 9, . ,
.
16. . , -

. ,
(ProWeb)

. ,

.
235
, ... (. 229250)
16. 3.

. ,
, .

, ( , ),
,
. ( , ,
) 16. ,

16. , .
16.
,
, .

,
. , ,
( ) ( ) ( ), . ,

16. . ,
,
( 24 ),
236
, 1/2014

. , , , , ,
, .
5.

2008. 10

. , 244. -, ,
, 254, ,
.
, ,
in flagranti,
. , 11. , 132. 30 , ,
. . ,

10
http://www.altalex.com/index.php?idnot=41643.
Codice in materia di protezione dei dati personali. (GU n.174 del 29-7-2003 - Suppl. Ordinario n. 123), http://www.normattiva.it/atto/caricaDettaglioAtto?atto.dataPubblicazioneGazzetta =200307-29&atto.codiceRedazionale=003G0218&currentPage=1.
11
237
, ... (. 229250)
. , 256. .
.
.
,
. ,
. ,
16. , ,

. , 17.

,
.
12. 12 ( )
, , . ,
, .
() , (
)
.
, , . ,
. ,
-
12
238
http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=181616.
, 1/2014
/

( ). , 13.

.
13

,
, , ( 56. ).
60-2 .
, , ,
.

3750 .

, 16. 17.

14

. -
,
100
.
( )
, , ( 94.). ( ) , , 15. ,
13
http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/Traductions/Liste-des-traductions-Legifrance.
Strafprozessordnung, http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stpo/englisch_stpo
.html#p0430.
15
.
14
239
, ... (. 229250)

, . ,
/. ,
,

.
. , 16.
.
, ,
, 100 ,

. , (, , ) ,
100 (
)
, ,
16, ( 96. 113 ) 17.
, ,
. , , .
16
, ,
,
, . ,
, .
.
17

2010.
. ,
96. ,
-.
240
, 1/2014

.
, , ,
, .
, ( .
), . , 163.

, 113 (1)

( , ).
( ) .

.

, . ,

,
17. .
18 . , 125
/ /
, ,
125 ,

. (
) :
, , -
18
Wetboek van
%20Strafvordering.html.
Strafvordering,
http://www.wetboek-online.nl/wet/Wetboek%20van
241
, ... (. 229250)
e ,

e . .
,
(
67. ), aa 16. 17. .
24. 19, ( 20-23), . ,
( 9. ), .

( ),
,
( , , , , ). ,
,
.
. , . 25.
, , . ,
( ).
16. 17. .
20 ( 191. ) -
19
Pakkokeinolaki 806/2011, http://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/kaannokset/2011/en20110806.pdf.

http://legislationline.org/documents/section/criminal-codes.
20
242
, 1/2014
( 192.
). . ( , ),
(
). ,
.
( 192.) ,

.

215 21
.
,
, . ( , ) ,
( ) .
. , ,
, . .

-
21
Lov om rettergangsmaten i straffesaker (Straffeprosessloven)

http://www.ub.uio.no/ujur/ulovdata/lov-19810522-025-eng.pdf.
53/2006,
243
, ... (. 229250)
.
, 102. , 2001.22, 2000.23
1984.24.
, .

.
,
, .
- 2703() 25.

,
. , . ,

. ,

, ,
.

,
22
Anti-Terrorism, Crime & Security Act (ATCS) 2001, http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ ukpga/2001/24/contents.

23
Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) 2000, http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ ukpga/2000/23/contents.
24
Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984, http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ ukpga/1984/60/contents.
25
The U.S. Federal Criminal Code, http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2703.
244
, 1/2014
. , .
.
, ,
.
( ) : ; , ; ;
,
( ); .
,

,
( ,
).

( 26). , , ,
, . ,

,
.

, 27 152. 3.
, , ,
. 152. 2.
,
26
Privacy: An Overview of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act,

https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41733.pdf.
27
, , . 72/2011, 101/2011,
121/2012, 32/2013 45/2013.
245
, ... (. 229250)
( 158160.).
,
.
,

, ,
16. .
17. , 286.
3. (
,
,
,
) , . , , , 17. . ,
, .
, 28. 128. 29 -
28
, , . 44/2010
60/2013 .
29

, .
:1) ; 2)
; 3) , ; 4)
246
, 1/2014
,
, 12 .
,
,
.
, , 128. 5.
,
, , ,
30. ,
je , , , ()
,
31.
6.

, ,
,

.

(
, , ,
; 5) ; 6)
,
( ).

.
30
, 1245/2010 13. 2013. ,
". ", . 60/2013 10. 2013. .
31
: . , ,
, 2014, . 53-54.
247
, ... (. 229250)
),
,
16. 17. , ,

/
,
.
, , .

( )
.
,
(
152. 3. ), , 16. ,
:

, ,

,

. .

,
.
,
.
: , , ,
e , 248
, 1/2014
e .
.

.
17. ,

:

,
... ( ) .
249
, ... (. 229250)
Milana Pisari, Assistant

Expedited Preservation of Stored Computer Data

Abstract: Due to the development and ubiquity of information technology
in everyday life, the number of criminal activities committed using computer
systems and networks has also increased. Traces of the crimes committed in
connection with the misuse of information technologies are in the form of electronic records - computer data that occur as a result of the actions of the perpetrator or as automatically created and stored in a computer system / network.
However, these computer data are subject to change , so it is necessary to adequately ensure their protection. To create an appropriate legal framework to
counter these challenges , the rules of criminal procedure law have to determine the appropriate powers of the competent authorities for the purpose of collecting and providing computer data on the committed criminal offense and the
offender can be used as electronic evidence in criminal proceedings.
Key words: computer data, expedited preservation of stored computer data, electronic evidence.
250
, 1/2014
343.19(497.11)1840
doi:10.5937/zrpfns48-5206

1

: () , 1840. , . 1840, , . ,
,
,
,
.
: , ,
, (1839-1842), .
I
(18151839, 18581860)
1839. .
1
. 179079 , ,
.
251
, ... (. 251262)
, . 2

1839.

, 1840. , ,
. ,
. , 22. 1840,
( )
. 3 .
, , , 31. () ,
.4
,
.
5,
.
, .

,

XIX
,
, , .
,
1838 ( ).
3
. ,
, 1936, . 1737.
4
( = ),
( = -) III/69 (1840), . 2973 25.
1840. ; . 1285 31. 1840;
. 714 31. 1840.
5
. , , 1959; . , , X/1 (1968), . 381396.
252
, 1/2014
, .
II
. , (
) 7.
1840
,
, , , .6 ,
.
.

.

,
.
,
. 3. , .7

.
.
,
, , ,
11. ,
, ,
, ( = ) 5/26,
7. 1840.
7
A, 5/1, . 6 3.
1840.
253
, ... (. 251262)

.8
, , . 10. .

, ,
, 7.
.9

. . , 8.
,
.10
.

,
, , .
,
. , -
8
, 5/20, . 1675 3. 1840; 5/22, . 1912 8.
1840; 5/24-25 . 977 8.
1840; 5/26,
7. 1840; 5/28, . 997
10. 1840; 5/29,
12. 1840; 5/31, . 1006
13. 1840.
9
, 5/7, .
1105 10. 1840; 5/9,
12. 1840; 5/10,
8. 1840; 5/1218, 19. 1840.
10
, 5/2, . 9 8.
1840.
254
, 1/2014
( ).
.

. , 10. ,
, .

.11 ,
, , , , .12

, 12. .13
26. ,
, , .
, . ,
, ( ,
, . .)
.
.14 .
20.
.15 ;
11
, ( = -) VII/88
(1840), . 1, . 56 10. 1840.
12
, 5/6, . 56 10. 1840.
13
, 5/32, . 155 12. 1840.
14
, 5/34, 12.
1840.
15
A, -, VII/88 (1840), . 1, . 4122 20. 1840.
255
, ... (. 251262)
,
.
,
(, . .) ...16

, 5.
,
.
, 14 .

,
. ,
. , .
, , .
,
,
. .
,
.17

18 21. .
,
, , . , , , .19
16
, 5/38, 16. 1840.

. , IV,
1870, . 423 424.
18
(1809, 1849, ), (18351839), (18391849)
.
(1848).
19
14161/275, 21. 1840.
17
256
, 1/2014
*
*
16. . 1840.
.
, . , .
16. , . , .
1840. ,
.
, , ,
. ,
, .20 , , .
,
, .21

.
,

, , , .
20
(1839), , .
, 1839. ,
. . , (1830-1839), 2004, . 460481.
21
, 5/40, 16. 1840. .
. .
257
, ... (. 251262)
27. , 30. .
,
, .
, - . , .
,
,

,
. ,

, ,
, , .22
,
, ,
. , ,
, , a
, ,
. ,
, . , .23
22
, 5/41, , 27. 1840. .
, (sic!) ; 5/42, 30
1840. . , , ,
; 5/47, ,
30. 1840. . ,
; 5/43, ,
30. 1840. . , ;
5/44, , 30. 1840. . ,
. , , ; 5/49, 30. 1840. . ,
, ,
.
23
, 5/41, , 27. 1840. .
, (sic!) .
258
, 1/2014
. ,
, . .24
, .
, .25 , ,
, .26
. , ,

.27
, ;
, ; ,
. , .
, ( , . .).
,
. ,
,
, .
, . ,
, -
24
, 5/42, 30 1840. . , , , .
25
, 5/49, 30. 1840. . , , ,
.
26
, 5/43, , 30. 1840. . ,

.
27
, 5/44, , 30. 1840. . , . ,
, .
259
, ... (. 251262)
.
, .28

, .
, , 30. .

;
.29
. ,
, .30
*
*
*
. . . ,

.
, .
,
, .
, , .
, .
.
28
, 5/4546, , 30. 1840. . ,

. , , .
29
, 5/46, , 30. 1840. . , . ,
, .
30
, 5/47, , 30. 1840. . , .
260
, 1/2014
III
1840
.

. ,

.
, ,
. ;
, .

. ,
.
261
, ... (. 251262)
Uro Stankovi, Assistant

Extraordinary Comittees Inquiry against

Sima Milutinovi Sarajlija
Abstract: The aricle sheds light on the inquiry of Extraordinary Committee, formed in 1840 by prince Mihailo Obrenovi (18391842, 18601868) and
his partisans from State Council in order to examine political crimes committed
by their opposition, so-called constitution-defenders. Having examined archival
materials, the author showed for what time the inquiry lasted, in what phases it
can be divided, what sorts of evidence were collected and the facts about Milutinovis activities that they revealed.
The inquiry can be divided into two major phases. During the first of these
phases, the subject of investigation was the report of Jevrem Obrenovi, president of the State Council, of May 7th 1840 alleging Milutinovi offended the
prince and his family. This part of inquiry was conducted by other state bodies,
on request of Extraordinary Committee and following its instructions. Information on Milutinovis offense were collected via documentary evidence and testimonies of witnesses.
In the second phase, Extraordinaty Committee itself examined Milutinovis defamations against the prince, spoken before the bookshop of renowned
bookseller Gligorije Vozarovi in March 1840 and on the occassion of rebellion
in Kolubara District in June 1840. Extraordinary Committee learned information about Milutinovis activities through testimonies of witnesses and their
confrontation.
The decision of Extraordinary Committee in Milutinovis case can not be
found in archive materials. They do not contain a sort of resolution, stating
whether collected evidence provide necessary material for trial against the suspect or not, issued in all other Extraordinary Committees inquiries. As archive material also fail to provide some of other significant documents, whose existence is mentioned in the acts of inquiry, it seems probable that the resolution
was indeed issued, but lost in a later period. Therefore, detecting a trace which
could lead to this document is an imperative for future researcher who wants to
form a judgment about inquiry against Milutinovi.
Key words: Sima Milutinovi Sarajlija, Extraordinary Comittee, inquiry,
the first rule of prince Mihailo Obrenovi (18391842), Constitution-Defenders.
262
, 1/2014
343.232:343.851(497.11)2014(094.5)
doi:10.5937/zrpfns48-5847

1

:
1. 2014. .

. e

. o
, , ,
.

,
.
: , , , , .
j ,2 ,
1. 2014. .
.
1

( ) .
2
, , . 65/2013.
263
, ... (. 263273)
3 ( ), ,
, ,
. , , .
,4
, , .5
a
o .6
,
.7 ,
, .8
,
.
.9

1 25,10
1 18 .11 ,

.
3
, , . 101/2005, 116/2008,
111/2009.
4
, : 178. .
5
171. 1. 1. a .
6
100. a .
7
: , ., ,
, , 2013. . 65.
:
http://www.usudprek.org.rs/pub/download/M3_Postupanje_sa_maloletn_u_prekrs
_postupku_web.pdf, 13. 2014. .
8
: 324-336. .
9
72. .
10
48. .
11
34. .
264
, 1/2014
1.

.12 ,
.
.13
,14 ,15
.
, , .
,
,
. , .16 ,
. , , ,17 .18

12
52. : ; ;
; ;
; ;
; , ; ;
; ; . : , .,
,
, , 2013. . 107.
: http://www.usudprek.org.rs/pub/download/M3_Postupanje_sa _maloletn_u_prekrs_postupku_web.pdf, 13. 2014. .
13
,
.
14
51. 1. .
15
51. 2. .
16
,
.
17
57. 3. .
18
: 51. 3. .
265
, ... (. 263273)
,19
.20 ,
,21
.22
, . ,
,
, .23
,
, ?
2.

,24
.25 . , .26

.27
. , ,28
19
65. 2. .
57. 2. .
21
63. 2. .
22
55 . 2. .
23
: 86 . .
, . 85/2005, 88/2005-., 107/2005-., 72/2009, 111/2009 121/2012.
24
: Adler, F. Mueller, O.W. C. Laufer, O: W., Criminology, second edition, New York, 1995. . 325-334.
25
: , ., , ,
2013. , . 379 : , . ., ,
, 2013. , . 144146.
26
: , ., , , 2000. ,
. 86.
27
59. 1. .
28
: , ., , , 1/2012. . 369-381. : , .,
20
266
, 1/2014
, . , ,
. , , . ,
.
, ,
,
.29 ,

. ,
.30
, .31
,

, ,
.32 ,
, , .
, , , 2006. . 273-302.
29
83. 84. .
30

: Taft.R. D., Criminology, thirt edition, New York, 1956. p. 286.
31
59. 2. .
32
. 8. 1. ne bis in idem
.
4. ,
, . 72/2011, 101/2011, 121/2012, 32/2013 45/2013.
267
, ... (. 263273)

.33 (visum repertum)
, (papare)
.34 ,
,
.35 , ,
, .36
3.

,
, .
,
, .37 ,
,
. ,
38
,

.39 .40 , , -
33
, ., , , 2008. , . 281.
., . 288.
35
.
36
, , , 217-225. 533. .
37
53. .
38
.
39
59. 3. .
40
, , , : 49.
, , 1/2011. . :http://www.sluzbenilist.me
/PravniAktDetalji.aspx?tag=%7B04562DA3-C0B9-4853-9DA9-8C9B8FC4CDF8%7D 9.
2014. . , , : 21. , 34, . XV, 19.
34
268
, 1/2014
.41 ,
. 3. 59.

. , ,
,
? ,
. , ,
.
, , . , , .
3. 59.
?
, ,

( ),
,
.42

.
, . , . -
2006. , : http://www.mup. vladars.net/zakoni/rs_lat/ZAKON%20O%

20PREKRSAJIMA%20REPUBLIKE%20SRPSKE%20 (Sluzbeni%20glasnik%20RS,%20broj:
%2034.06) .pdf, 9. 2014. .
41
. :
53. . : http://www.zakon.hr/
z/52/Prekr%C5%A1ajni-zakon, 14. 2014. .
42
, , .
269
, ... (. 263273)

, .43

, , 44 . , , ?45

, .46 ,
, .47
. ,48 .49 ,
43

, ,
. : , .,
: ( ) ,
, , 2009. . 185.
44

: , .,
, : , , 1989. . 172. , ., , ., , , 2011.
. 201.
45
.
, , : 176. 1. 4.
, , . 24/2005, 61/2005, 54/2009, 32/2013.
46
60. .
47
, .
48
: 307-323. .
49
, , .
85/2005, 72/2009 31/2011.
270
, 1/2014
, .50 ,51
. , ,
,

,
.

.52
,

. , .53

, . , ,
.
, ,
,
,
.
,
, .
50
: 233. .
13. 1. 4. .
52

. : , .,
, Crimen, , 1/2012. . 64.
53
. : 60. 4. 5. .
51
271
, ... (. 263273)

.
, .
. ,
,

, . ,
.
,

,
, .

.
,
. , ,
. , , .
, , . ,
,
.
, .
272
, 1/2014
Ivan Mili, Assistant

The new Misdemeanor Law and old Issues with Security

Measures Ordering Compulsory Alcohol and Drug
Addiction Treatment
Abstract: The introductory part of this paper presents the basic changes to
the Misdemeanor law, which is in force since March 1. 2014. At the begining of
the paper we will describe the security measures which can be ordered to offeneders and highlight some changes in this area that have been prescribed by the
new law. Next we will point out certain issues which may arise when ordering
compulsory alcohol and drug addiction treatment. While a new law has been
passed which, among other things, increases the number of available security
measures, the old issues still persist when the above mentioned security measures are concerned. Special consideration will be given to whether the security
measures should be carried out in at an institution or at liberty, which is a crucial question when ordering compulsory alcohol and drug addiction treatment.
Key words: misdemeanor, addict, security measure, ordering, carrying out
273
, ... (. 263273)
274
275
276
, 1/2014
17:340.12
doi:10.5937/zrpfns48-4948

:
.
.
, , , .
common law-a

,
- . , .

, .
: , , , ,

.
, .
.
277
, ... (. 277315)
,
.
. .
. ,
, ,
, , , , ,
.

. ( , ,

common
law-a, ).

.
.
,
,
. ,
,
.1
,
,
.2
European Court of Human Rights, 19 April 1994, Appl. No. 16034/90 (Van de Hurk v. the
Netherlands)
2
. European Court of Human Rights, 6 February 2011, Appl. No. 31145/96,
35580/97Wilkinson and Allen v. The United Kingdom); European Court of Human Rights, 8 July
1999, Appl. no. 23927/94, 24277/94 (Srek and zdemir v. Turkey)
278
, 1/2014

.
,

. ,
, . (
, ,
,

).
,
.

, ,
? ,
. ,
? ,
,
, . (
).
, ? , ,
, ?
279
, ... (. 277315)
,3 .

.

.

.
,
.
, , . common
law-a . , , ,
.
Michaela J. S. Morana

.4 common lawa , . , , .
, ,
.
. European Court of Human Rights, 1 October 1984, Appl. No. 8692/79 (Piersack v. Belgium)
4
Michael J S. Moran: Impartiality in Judicial Appointments: An Absent Concept? Trinity
College Law Review, 2007, 5., str. 5-20.
280
, 1/2014
5,
.
, , .
.
, ,
. ,
, , , .
1. common law-a

.6 , Law Lord-
,
. 20.

.7
, ,
,
, ,
: C. Guarnieri P. Pederzoli: The Power of Judges. Oxford University Press, New York, 2002. str. 235.
6
(Constitutional Reform Act), 2005.
7
R. Stevens: The Judges, Their Role in the Changing Constitution. Hart Publishing, Oxford, 2002., str. 169.; V. Bogdanor (ured.): The British Constitution in the Twentieth Century. British Academy, London, 2003., str. 816.; Diana Woodhouse: The Office of Lord Chancellor: Time
to Abandon the Judicial Role The Rest will Follow. Legal Studies, March, 2002., str. 128-146.
281
, ... (. 277315)
.8
,
(Lord Chancellor)
,
. ,
,
.
, . Irvinea : ,
, .9 , ,
. (Irvine)
(Tony Blair),
, (Lord Mackay)
.
, , .
(Kate Malleson)
,
(Irvine) ,
(Mackay) .10
, .
Herbert M. Kritzer; Courts, Justice, and Politics in England. In: Herbert Jacob Erhard
Blankenburg Herbert M. Kritzer Doris Marie Provine Joseph Sanders: Courts Law and Politics in Comparative Perspective. Yale University Press, New Haven and London, 1996., str.
81-176.
9
2. . In: Kate Malleson: Modernizing the
Constitution: Completing the Unfinished Business. In: Guy Canivet Mads Andenas Duncan
Fairgrieve (ured.): Independence, Accountability and the Judiciary. British Institute of International and Comparative Law, London, 2006, str. 152.
10
Kate Malleson. op. cit. str. 151.
282
, 1/2014
, Law Lordovi ,
, .

,
(barrister), ,
.
, , .11
,
. ,
1998.
, .

.
, Law Lord-ova. , ,

,
.
,
2005. , :
;

;
Privy Councila, Councila.

. 1997.
( -
11
Harry Woolf: Judicial Review The Tensions Between the Executive and the Judiciary.
In: LQR, 1998., str. 114., 579.
283
, ... (. 277315)
)
,
. ,
.
(Commission for Judicial Appointments) 2001. ,
,
.
2005. .
2006. (Judicial Appointments Commission)
.
, . 15 ( , ,
, ) ,
. , , ,
.
. , , , . , . .
, ,
. , ,
, ,
. 284
, 1/2014

.
, .
,
. ,
, ,
.
,12
.

. ,
(Wales),
, .

, ,
,13
.
(merit)14
, .
2005. 61-62. .15

.
,
, :
12
2007. .
Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman.
14
, 25. 2005. ,
10. 1981. , 16. 1971. , 9. 1984. .
15
(Constitutional Reform Act) 2005. .
13
285
, ... (. 277315)
a. ;
.
;
. .16
27. 5. : .
: . ,
,
. ( )
, .17
,
,
(AWS 2006)18 (Clarke 2009).

.19
: , ,
,
. . , .20
Kate Malleson (2006.), ,
,
,
. ,
16
2011. .
: , .
18
: : http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100512160448/
dca.gov.uk/consult/jacommission/judges.pdf
19
: : http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100512160448/
dca.gov.uk/consult/jacommission/judges.pdf
20
; , :
http://jac.judiciary.gov.uk/application-process/112.htm
17
286
, 1/2014
.

, ,
.

.
, .
, ,
.
,
.21
,
,
. , ,
,
.22 . (Lady Hale) : .23

21
Kate Malleson: Rethinking the Merit Principle in Judicial Selection. Journal of Law and
Society, March 2006., str. 126-140.
22
Atiyah Summers

. , , ,
. (Atiyah P. S.: Pragmatism and Theory in English Law,
Stevens and Sons, London, 1987. str. 136.).
23
Alan Paterson Chris Paterson: Guarding the Guardians. Centre Forum, London, 2012.
str. 31.
287
, ... (. 277315)

.
common law-a . , 1995.
.24
, . common law-a, ,
.

, . ,
.
, common law-a,
. .
2.
20 000
,
.

,
.

24
288
Judicial Appointments Advisory Board. (JAAB).
, 1/2014
, -
. ,
.

, . , ,
, .
2.1
5 , 25

,
.26
, ,
.
,
, , .
2000- ,
, . ,
, . , .
25
Richterwahlausschuss.
J. Riedel: Recruitment, Professional Evaluation and Careerof Judgesand Prosecutors in
Germany. In: Federico, GDi. Recruitment, Professional Evaluation and Careerof Judges and
Prosecutors in Europe: Austria, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Spain. Editrice Lo
Scarabeo, Bologna, 2005, str. 69-126.
26
289
, ... (. 277315)
, ,
.27
.28
( ) ,
.
,
Bundestag, Bundesrat.
, , .
2.2.
. ,
, ,
. ,
.

,
-
. ,
, .
Baden Wrtenberg, Berlin Brandenburg.
. Baden Wrtenberg
,
Praesidialrat
.
27
T. Edinger: Die Justiz muss eine Stimme bekommen. Deutsche Richtrzeitung, 2003,
str. 188.
28
. Renate Jaeger: Frankfurter Rundschau, 18. septembar 2003.
290
, 1/2014
1. :

- ,
(
(Baden )
Wrttemberg)

.
(Bayern) ,
,
.

.
, .

.
, .
,
.
.
,
.
.
,
.
(Hessen)
.
(Mec- ,
klenburg)- .
,
(Niedersachsen)
.
-- -

. , , .
(Dsseldorf) , .
(Kln) ,
,
. (Hamm)
.
,
,, .
;
,
.
291
, ... (. 277315)

,
,

. ,
.
,
,

, .
,
,
.
- ,
.
,
.
-
(Schleswig-Holstein) .
,
(
).

-
.29 , . , , .30 11 15 . , .31
.
-
(Baden- Wrttemberg)
15 , 6 , 6
( ), 2 ,1
. ( ).
12 , 6
(), 5 , 1 . .
12 , 8
(), 2 , 1 , 1 .
( ).
29
Riedel, op. cit. str. 71.

. . 78.
31
. . 78-79.
30
292
, 1/2014
11 , 5 , 3
( ), 3
.
.
15 , 6 , 3
( ), 3
, 2 . .
13 , 7
(Hessen)
, 5 , .
( ).
12 , 8 , 2
-
( ), 1 , 1
(Schleswig-Holstein)
. (
).

,
, .
- 12 , 8 , 3
- , .
- ( ).
.
. 32
2.3.

, , .

.
.
, . -
32
-

, . ,
.
293
, ... (. 277315)

,
. ,
,
. ,
.
,
, .
- .

. ,
,
, .
(
) , .

, .
.
Thoma, 1951. , .33 Hochschild
34, .35 -
33
BverfG. Jr. (n.F.) Thoma 6, 1957. str. 161.

Udo Hochschild: Von den Mglichkeiten der deutschen Exekutiven zur Beeinflussung der
Rechtsprechung. Zeitshcrift fr Rechtspolitik 2011. str. 65.
35
Das Unwarscheinliche ist nur ein Grenzfall des Mglichen, und wenn es einmal eintritt,
das Unwahrscheinliche, so besteht keinerlei Grund zur Verwunderung, zur Erschtterung, zur
Mystifikation.
34
294
, 1/2014
,
,
,

.
, ,
, , .
1992.
, .

, :

,
.
,
97 . .
. , .

,
.
.
, ,
, . ,

. , ,
, . 295
, ... (. 277315)
. (Haushaltsuntreue)

,

. . ,
. 36

1950-
,
.
,
Peter Mackea,
.37
,
2007. 2009. -.38
(Justizwahlausscuss) ,

(Justizverwaltungsrat)
, (
) .

, . 2009. ,
36
Werner Schmidt-Hieber Ekkehard Kiesswetter: Parteigeist und politischer Geist in der

Justiz. NJW, 1992, str. 1790-1794.
37
Peter Macke: Die Dritte Gewalt als Beute der Exekutive. Deutsche Richter Zeitung.
1999, str. 481.
38
Diskussionentwurf fr ein Landesgesetz der Selbstverwaltung der Justiz (18.03.2009.).
296
, 1/2014
, , .39
(
),
. , , ,
. ,
.
Thomas Schulte , ,

.40
- , , ,
,
.
3.
.
,
.

.41 .42
39
http://www.spd-hamburg.de/cms/2137/?tx_ttnews[pS]=1243807200&tx_ttnews[pL]=
2591999&tx_ttnews[arc]=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=1372&tx_ttnews[cat]=36&cHash=19a7b8191e
9b294df727b766fa5b98ca
40
Thomas Schulte-Kellinghaus: Die begrenzte Macht der Dritten Gewalt- Zur Notwendigkeit der Selbstverwaltung der Gerichte. Zeitshrift fr Rechtspolitik, 2008, str. 205.
41
C. Guarnieri P. Pederzoli: The Power of Judges . A Comparative Stufy of Courts and
Democracy. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2002. str. 32.
42
. Herbert Jacob: Courts and Politics inthe United States. In: Herbert Jacob
Erhard Blankenburg Herbert M. Kritzer Doris Marie Provine Joseph Sanders op. cit. str. 16-81.
297
, ... (. 277315)
3.1.

. , 800 ,
.
. , , .
, , . ,
, . ( , , ). , , ,
.43

, .
.
.
44,
.

, -
43
US District Court, US Court of International Trade, US Court of Appeals Circuit
Courts i Supreme Court of the United States ,
15
. (US Court of Federal Claims, US Bankruptcy Courts, US Tax Courts)
44
1950- (American Bar
Association) .
298
, 1/2014

. , ,
,
.45
,
. Carp Rowland
, .46
,
? ,

.
. , ,
.
.47
.
3.2.

,
45
Jeffrey A. Segal Albert D. Cover:.Ideological Values and the Votes of U.S. Supreme
Court Justices. American Political Science Review, 1989. str. 557.; Theodore W. Ruger Pauline
T. Kim Andrew D. Martin Kevin M. Quinn: The Supreme Court Forecasting Project: Legal
and Political Science Approaches to Predicting Supreme Court Decisionmaking. Columbia Law
Review, 2004. str. 1150.
46
R. Carp R. Stidham: Judicial Process in America. CQ Press, Washington, D.C.,1998.
str. 408.
47
Gregory C. Sisk Michael Heise Andrew P. Morris: Charting the Influences on the Judicial Mind: An Empirical Study of Judicial Reasoning. New York University Law Review, 1998.
str. 1377.
299
, ... (. 277315)

.48 ,
.49 , - ,
.
3.2.1.
19.
,
.
,
, , , .

,
,
. 50

. ,
, ,
-
48
Glenn R. Winters: Selection of Judges. A Historical Introduction. Texas Law Review,
1965. str. 1081-1085.
49
Craig F. Emmert Henry R. Glick: The Selection of State Supreme Court Justices. American Politics Quarterly, 1988, 16. str. 445-465.
Henry R. Glick Craig F. Emmert: Selection Systems and Judicial Characteristics: The
Recruitment of State Supreme Court Judges. Judicature, 1987, 70. str. 228-235.
50
. Kelly Shackelford Justin Butterfield: The Light of Accountability: Why Partisan Elections are the Best Method of Judicial Selection. In: The Advocate, Texas, 2010. str. 73.
300
, 1/2014
.51
.
. ,
.
, .

(partisan), -
(non-partisan), .
(13) - ,
(10)
.
, , ,
.
,
? ,

. ,
,
,
. , , .
, .52 , ,
,
, . , .
51
(Georgia) 1812.
.
52
Bert Brandenburg: Big Money and Impartial Justice: Can they Live Together? Arizona
Law Review, 2010. 52. str. 207-217.
301
, ... (. 277315)
Caperton v.
A.T. Massey Coal Co.
. 1998.
, 50 .

.
, ,
.
,
, .

(due process)
14. . ,
.

,

,
,
.53

, , ,
, . 54
53
Not every campaign contribution by a litigant or attorney creates a probability of bias

that requires a judge's recusal, but this is an exceptional case. We conclude that there is a serious
risk of actual biasbased on objective and reasonable perceptionswhen a person with a personal stake in a particular case had a significant and disproportionate influence in placing the judge
on the case by raising funds or directing the judge's election campaign when the case was pending
or imminent." The inquirycenters on the contribution's relative size in comparison to the total
amount of money contributed to the campaign, the total amount spent in the election, and the
apparent effect such contribution had on the outcome of the election.
54
Robertsa Scalie.
302
, 1/2014
,
, , ,
.

,

.
Michaela S. Kanga Joanne M. Shepherd .
,

, - .55 , (Caperton v. Massay). 50
(1995.-1998.) 28000
470

.
-
. , , ,
. .
, 12-

55
Michael S. Kang Joanna M. Shepherd: The Partisan Price of Justice: An Empirical
Analysis of Campaign Contributions and Judicial Decisions.. New York University Law Review,
2011. str. 70-130.
303
, ... (. 277315)
. .
.

. (retention election), -
.56 1934.
,
.

.

, .
, ,
,
. .57
,
, , .
. 1986.

.
2000- Iowi -
56
Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas,
Maryland, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee,
Utah, Wyoming.
57
Larry T. Aspin William K. Hall: Retention Elections and Judicial Behavior. Judicature,
1994. str. 306-312.
304
, 1/2014

.
, .

. Judy Draper, St.
Louisa 2006. , 27,5
. ,
.
- ,

, .
,
.58

.59

()
Alabama
Arkansas
Florida
Georgia
: 6
: 6
: 8
: 8
: 1
: 1

() (retention)
: 6
: 6
: 8
: 8
: 6
: 6
: 6
: 6
: 6
: 6
Kentucky
Lousiana
: 8
: 8
: 10
: 10
: 8
: 8
: 10
: 10
58
. American Judicature Society, Merit selection: The Best Way to Choose the
Best Judges. www.ajs.org/js/ms_descrip.pdf. : Aman McLeod: If at First You Dont
Succeed: A Critical Evaluation of Judicial Selection Reform Efforts. 107 W. VA. L. REV., 2005.
str. 499.
59
Todd Edwards: Judicial Election in Southern States. In: Regional Resource, The Council
of State Governments. Atlanta, 2004. str. 4.
305
, ... (. 277315)

()
Maryland
:

: 8
: 8
: 1
: 1
Mississippi
Missouri
Oklahoma
Tenessee

-

,

Texas
Virginia
Zapadna
Virdinija
(Virginia)

() (retention)
: 10
: 10
: 8
: 8
: 12
: 12
: 8
: 8
: 1
: 1
: 8
: 8
: 6
: 6
: 10
: 6
: 10
: 6
:
6
: 6
: 6
: 12
: 8
: 9
: 9
: 12

: 12
: 6
: 6
: 12
: 8
3.2.2. . Missourski plan

.
, .
306
, 1/2014
,
, ( ) .
. 60
Roscoe Pound Albert Kales
. Albert Kales

. - ,
,
.
, . 1920. , 1937. .61 1940. Missouri , . Kalesovog
.

. , .62
60
: putting courts into politicsalmost destroyed the traditional respect for the bench ( ...
). Roscoe Pound: The
Causes of Popular Dissatisfaction with the Administration of Justice. Journal of American Judicial Studies, 1937. str. 178-186.
61
American Bar Association.
62
.: Brian Fitzpatrick: On the Merits of Merit Selection. The advocate, Texas,
Winter, 2010.
Rachel Paine Caufield: What Makes Merit Selection Different? Roger Williams U.L. Rev.,
Fall, 2010. str. 765.
Steven Zeidman: To Elect or Not to Elect: Case Study of Judicial Selection in New York
City 1977-2002. Michigan Journal of Law, 2004. str. 791-810.
307
, ... (. 277315)
.

, .63

?
4. .

, , .

, .
. ,
.
( ). , .

, . 1985. .
, .64 ,
-
63
Laura Denvir Stith Jeremy Root: The Missouri Nonpartisan Court Plan: The Least Political Method of Selecting High Quality Judges. Montana Law Review, 2009. str. 711.
64
V. Moreno-Catena J. Pintos-Ager H. Soleto-Munoz: Espagne/Spain In: Fabri et al.
(ured.), str. 207.
308
, 1/2014
. 2001. . (Pacto de la
Justicia) .65

, . 66

.
( Dutroux gy),67
,
. ,
Outreau 21. ,
.
2005.
. ,

.

.68
, (
Carcassonnea
).
65
Attila Bad: Az igazsgszolgltat hatalom alkotmnyos helyzetnek s egyes alapelveinek sszehasonlt vizsglata. In: Tth Judit Legny Krisztin. (szerk.) sszehasonlt
alkotmnyjog, Complex, Budapest, 2006. str. 163-210.
66
Doris Marie Provine: Courts in the Political Process in France. In: Herbert Jacob Erhard
Blankenburg Herbert M. Kritzer Doris Marie Provine Joseph Sanders op. cit. str. 177-249.
67
R. Depr J. Plessers: Belgique In: Fabri et al (ured.), str. 135-159.
68
Algreom Voirainom
,
.
309
, ... (. 277315)
, ,
.
69

Outreau . , ,
(. ), ( , , ).
,
.
,

.
,
. ,
.
,
. .
,
(magistrat du siege).70 (magistrat du parquet),
, , , ,

. (
, ).
69
.
A. Martin: Le Conseil suprieur de la magistrature et lindpendance des juges. Revue
du droit public, mai-juin, 1997, 3. str. 741-78.
70
310
, 1/2014

, .71 .
,
,
, 1950- , .

.

, . ,
(concours), .
. ,
1958. - ,
, , ,
.72
, (Bordeaux). , ,

. ,
71
J. Gicquel: J. Lvolution du Conseil suprieur de la magistrature In: Renoux T.S.

(ured.), str. 201-208.
72
D. M. Provine: Courts in the political Process in France. In: H. Jacob E. Blankenburg
H. M. Kritzer (ured.): Courts, Law and Politics in Comparative Perspective, Yale University
Press, 1996. str. 177-248.
311
, ... (. 277315)
, . (
, , , , , , , ,
). , , . , , -
.
,
. ,73

.74 ,
.75
( ). 20
( , ), 18
.
.
( 70 -
73
31. ,
.

48. . 40.

, -.
74
1.-18. .
75
31
, , ,

-.
312
, 1/2014
),
.
(
) .
, , ,
,
.
.76
5.
Roger Perrot
.
,

. , , .77 , , ,
.

, , . , ,
, . common law-a, - ,

, . , - , ,
,
.
76
77
22.-23. .
R. Perrot: Institutions judiciaires. Montchrestien, Domat Droit priv, 2008. str. 536.
313
, ... (. 277315)

20.
.
,

,
. , ,
.78
.
,
.
common law-a . ,
.

. ,
,
,
.
21.
, , , , .
,
. , , .
78
314
: Canivet Andenas Fairgrieve, op. cit. str. 492.
, 1/2014
Attila Bad, Ph.D., Full Professor

University of Szeged
Faculty of Law and Political Sciences
The Selection of Judges and Judicial Independence

Abstract: This article discusses global trends in the selection of judges,
and provides an analysis of judicial independence and impartiality, concerning
the various means of achieving these interwoven goals and how these means are
implemented by different legal families. Independence and impartiality are undoubtedly considered both critical and fundamental elements, as well as an indispensable part of a fair trial, in all justice systems. Having direct relevance to
both impartiality and independence, is the question of how a judicial post may
be taken in various countries, with different legal systems. The procedures of the
appointment and selection of judges, and in the case of the United States, the
process of judicial election, are also introduced in a comparative approach. The
means of Common Law legal systems are contrasted with methods employed in
continental legal systems toward achieving independence and impartiality,
along with a wide array of examples to demonstrate the advantages and shortcomings of each.
In terms of selection procedures, recent reform in the UK denotes an apparent convergence of common law and civil law, and a tendency toward the adoption of a merit-based method of selection.
A brief historical overview introduces how these procedures have evolved,
as well as the political factors that have influenced or even driven change in the
selection procedures utilized in England, the United States, Germany and France. And finally, the analysis also compares the influence partisanship may have
and may have had on the independence and impartiality of the judiciary branch,
judicial decision-making, and on justice systems as a whole.
Key words: judicial independence and impartiality, merit-based method of
selection, judicial election, mechanism of selection.
315
, ... (. 277315)
316
, 1/2014
808.5:343.1(37)
doi:10.5937/zrpfns48-5427
Tams Ntri, Ph.D., Associate Professor

Kroli Gspr University Budapest
Faculty of Law
LAW AND RHETORICS IN CICERO SPEECH

IN DEFENCE OF CNAEUS PLANCIUS
Abstract: The speech in defence of Cnaeus Plancius was delivered in early
autumn 54 B.C. Cn. Plancius won the office of aedilis of the year 54 by winning
the election, and, as it was not rare in Rome, his competitor, who lost in the
election, M. Iuventius Laterensis charged him of election bribery/fraud (ambitus). Defence was provided by Cicero, whoas was his customrose to speak
as the last one. The close relation between Cicero and his defendant was highly
influenced by the fact that Plancius, who acted in Macedonia as proquaestor,
gave shelter to the exiled politician, which was equal to saving his life in the
orators interpretation. Cicero responds to the allegations of general significance made by the prosecution, in not too exhaustive details, however, he turns
the attention from the accused and his acts to his own person. After brief description of the historical background of the lawsuit, we analyse Pro Plancio
more profoundly to investigate the rhetorical handling of the facts of the case,
which will be compared to Pro Murena examined earlier at several points to
ensure better understanding.
Key words: Roman criminal law; elections; crimen ambitus; bribery; Marcus Tullius Cicero.
The speech in defence of Cnaeus Plancius was delivered in early autumn
54 B.C., immediately before or after the oratio in defence of M. Aemilius Scaurus. Cn. Plancius won the office of aedilis of the year 54 by winning the election, and, as it was not rare in Rome, his competitor, who lost in the election, M.
Iuventius Laterensis charged him of election bribery/fraud (ambitus). As co-prosecutor L. Cassius Longinus took sides with him, defence was provided by Cicero (and as quite often Hortensius), whoas was his customrose to speak as
the last one. The court of justice was chaired by C. Alfius Flavus, of whomin
spite of his peoples party affiliationCicero made positive statements elsew317
, ... (. 317335)
here. The close relation between Cicero and his defendant was highly influenced by the fact that Plancius, who acted in Macedonia as proquaestor, gave
shelter to the exiled politician, which was equal to saving his life in the orators
interpretation. Cicero responds to the allegations of general significance made
by the prosecution, in not too exhaustive details; however, he turns the attention
from the accused and his acts to his own person, and the style of the speech here
is elevated to hymn of gratitude addressed to his friend and saviour, Plancius,
who stood by the orator-statesman from first to last even during his exilium. As
on several occasions earlier and later, he convincingly hammered the conviction
into his audience that his voluntary and self-sacrificing exile saved the people of
Rome from terrible civil war and bloodshed, and he tried to clarify his relation
with the triumvirs far from being free from contradictions, yet stylised into a
harmonic relation in the given situation. By describing his exile and escape in
vivid colours and presenting a stylised figure of Plancius as a heroic saviour, he
aroused the audiences compassion with the accused in a pathetic peroratio
and not without impact since, as it is known, in the proceedings Plancius was
acquitted.
After brief description of the historical background of the lawsuit (I.), we
analyse Pro Plancio more profoundly to investigate the rhetorical handling of the
facts of the case, which will be compared to Pro Murena examined earlier at several points to ensure better understanding. (II.) Although the case was not one of
the events that stirred huge political storms in the last century of the Republic, and
so it was soon forgotten, it can be considered important among charges brought
due to election bribery and lawsuits conducted on this subject to the extent that,
after Pro Murena, Pro Plancio is the secondand the lastspeech delivered by
Cicero in ambitus lawsuits that have been left to us, which provides us with the
opportunity for profound and comparative analysis of the Ciceronian handing of
the facts of the case that he usually applied in crimen ambitus.
I. The historical background of Pro Plancio

Cnaeus Plancius came from a family in the order of knights (ordo equester); he was born presumably in 96 as the son of an honourable and wealthy
publicanus. After he acted as tribunus militum and quaestor, he applied for aediliss office in 55, running together with Iuventius Laterensis, somewhat younger than him, as his opponent. At that time, he won the majority of the votes
cast; however, the election was postponed, and was repeated in the following
year.1 Plancius and A. Plotius won, Laterensis and Q. Pediusthe latter obtained very few voteslost the election.2 Laterensis did what many people did in
1
2
318
Cic. Planc. 50.

Cic. Planc. 17.
, 1/2014
such a case in Rome: he brought a charge of ambitus, i.e., election fraud/bribery

against Plancius. Beside Laterensis, L. Cassius Longinus, brother of one of Caesars later assassins, acted as co- or secondary accuser; the defence was provided by Hortensius and Cicero. As the basis of the charge he did not choose lex
Tullia de ambitu created in 63 during the period of Ciceros consulship but lex
Licinia de sodaliciis created in 55 on Crassuss initiative to sanction use of associations set up for distributing bribes during election campaigns. This law seemed to be more favourable to the prosecutor not because of its sanctionsince
earlier laws held out the prospect of properly strict punishment: ten year exile,
expulsion from the senate, being barred from applying for offices for life and a
certain finebut because of its procedural law aspect. For, in accordance with
this law, the prosecutor could determine the four tribus from whom the judges
had to be selected and the accused could refuse only one tribus, that is, his right
of reiectioright to to expel certain judges without any special reasonwas
considerably impaired compared to usual quaestio proceedings. In the procedure, actually used in practice, first the accused had to name the judges whom he
was related to by marriage and kinship or confidential relation as a member of
the same sodalicium or collegium, in twenty days. Then, the prosecutor selected
one hundred from among the four hundred and fifty judges (editio), who were
not allowed to maintain the above-mentioned relations with the prosecutor; after
that, as part of his right of reiectio, the accused was allowed to reject fifty from
among the designated one hundred judges, within forty days.3
Since it evolved in relation to winning the office of aedilis and not consul,
the lawsuit did not have great political significance; however, Cicero had to cope with a rather critical situation due to his personal relations with the accused
and the accuser4 because both Plancius and Laterensis and his family did significant services and favours to him during his exile.5 As he was more indebted to
Plancius, whom he had supported during his election campaign already, due to
the outstanding officium to him he had to undertake his defence.6 Laterensis obviously took it in bad part,7 and tried to lessen Planciuss services done to and
merits obtained regarding Cicero.8 It was not by chance that Cicero noted at the
beginning of his speech that he hoped that in passing judgment the judges
would appreciate the merits that Plancius obtained with regard to the one-time
consul, all the more because the court of justice consisted of mostly Ciceros
Kunkel 1974b 69. About the role of collegia in the election campaign see Kornemann
1900. 380; Laser 1997. 102.
4
Cf. Cic. Planc. 79.
5
Cf. Cic. Planc. 73. 78.
6
Kroll 1937. 128.
7
Cic. Planc. 72.
8
Cic. Planc. 4. 95.
319
, ... (. 317335)
friends and good acquaintances, which gave hopes for the acquittal of the accused from the first;9 it was just their emotions that the orator wanted to move in
his10 peroratio formulated with huge pathos as usual.
II. Ciceros rhetorical skills in Pro Plancio

To the best of our knowledge, Cicero acted as counsel for the defence at
least on eight occasions in criminal actions due to election fraud/bribery (ambitus), however, not all the speeches were published and only two of them have
been left to us: the oratio delivered in 63 in defence of Lucius Licinius Murena
elected consul and Cnaeus Plancius elected aedilis in 54. It is striking in both
lawsuits that Cicero deals with the state of facts of ambitus and tries to refute
the allegations made by the prosecution in merely one-fourth11 and one-fifth12
or, in the latter case, stricto sensu, one-twentieth13of the oratio. This similarity allows to infer that what we have here is a rhetorical tactics independent of
the specific case, which the judges and the audience actually expected the advocatus to come up with in ambitus lawsuits.14 It might also arouse the attention
that in both speeches Cicero speaks about himself at length, which is not justified by the legal facts of the case at all. The explanation for this is found in the
practice of Roman orators as in Rome it was not only his rhetorical competence
but his entire authority that an advocatus or a patronus made available to the accused or cliens brought before court and thereby guaranteed the authenticity of
the case undertaken and the person defended, by full weight of his personality to
the judgeswhat is more, he identified himself with his acts and fate.15 Accordingly, the opponent, as a matter of fact, worked towards attacking and shaking
the authenticity of both the accused and his defending counsel; therefore, in the
two particular cases the prosecution considered it necessary to speak exhaustively about Cicero too. This custom can bee seen again, for example, in Pro
Cluentio16 and is explained in De oratore.17
In Pro Murena, the orator feels it necessary in the prooemium already to
respond to reproaches against him for having undertaken the case at all.18 As
one of the four accusers, beside Servius Sulpicius Rufus, who lost the elections,
Cic. Planc. 2. 4.
On the peroratio see Cic. Or. 128. sqq.
11
Cic. Mur. 5477.
12
Cic. Planc. 3657.
13
Cic. Planc. 53b57.
14
Adamietz 1986. 102. sq.
15
Thierfelder 1965. 385. sqq.
16
Cic. Cluent. 140. sq.
17
Cic. De orat. 2, 220. sqq.
18
Cic. Mur. 2b10.
10
320
, 1/2014
and S. Sulpicius Rufus junior and C. Postumius, not known specifically, M.

Porcius Catowho took an oath in public before the elections that if the election would be won by any other person than his brother-in-law, Silanus, he
would bring a charge of ambitus against him19criticised Cicero (although as a
consul he created lex Tullia de ambitu20 which held out the prospect of ten year
exile as a new punishment and took firmer action against those who distributed
money) for having undertaken the defence of Murena charged of election bribery. Cicero was highly criticised also by Servius Sulpicius Rufus, the most significant jurist of the age, who considered Murenas defence a betrayal of their
friendship. All this was meant to undermine the authenticity of Cicero as a defending counsel, which would have weakened his defendants position too.21
In Pro Plancio, Cicero notes that in their statement for the prosecution M.
Iuventius Laterensis and L. Cassius Longinus spoke more about him than about
Plancius;22 accordingly, in the third third of his oratio Cicero discusses solely
his own person and the services and favours done to him by Plancius.23 Several
allegations of the prosecutors were involved in the statement of the defence in
the form of remarks; for example, the allegation that in the description of his
own exile Cicero went too far in praising Planciuss merits.24 The merits obtained by the accused with regard to the defending counsel are described in details
not only in Pro Plancio;25 Pro Sestio also contains longer arguments with such
content.26 Obviously, the prosecutors intention must have been to separate
Plancius completely from the judges sympathy towards Cicero owing to his
exile, that is why Laterensis insisted on his allegation that the merits Plancius
had obtained regarding Ciceros exileif they were true at allshould not have
any weight in the judges eyes.27 In harmony with that, the prosecutors recalled
scornfully that Cicero had begged in tears to the judges in vain in defence of Cispius, who also did several services to him.28
The rather trivial commonplaces brought up as argument by Laterensis included the point that Cicero had earlier as a consul caused to involve exile in the
sanctions ordered by lex Tullia de ambitu for no other reason than to be able to
make the peroratio of his defence speeches more efficient.29 Also, he reproac-
19
Plut. Cato min. 21, 3. About Servius Suplicius Rufus see Stein 175. sqq.
Cic. Mur. 5. Cf. Gruen 1968. 120122; Jehne 1995. 66. sq.
21
Adamietz 1986. 104. sq.; Adamietz 1989. 24. sqq.; Brge 1974. 80; Ntri 2008. 9. sqq.
22
Cic. Planc. 3. 58.
23
Cic. Planc. 68. sqq.
24
Cic. Planc. 4. 68. 71. 72. 95.
25
Cic. Planc. 87. sqq.; 90. sqq.
26
Cf. Cic. Sest. 45. sqq.; 49. sqq.
27
Cic. Planc. 4.
28
Cic. Planc. 75. sq.
29
Cic. Planc. 83.
20
321
, ... (. 317335)
hes the orator for his years of study on Rhodos in order to point out that the moral looseness of eastern provinces must have been dear to Cicero.30 It is rather
double-edged criticism by the prosecutor that Cicero failed to exploit the point
inherent in Laterensiss stay on Crete: the play on the words island and chalk
(creta).31 For applicants for offices made their clothes more shining and white
by chalk, which was prohibited by law very early, in 432.32 Furthermore, he
condemns Cicero for addressing a letter on his consulatus to Pompeius, the
commander, probably with unpleasant content, highly stressing his own merits,
which circulated in Romewe have no further information on its content as it
has not been left to us.33 Similarly, he criticises Ciceros decision that he had
gone into exile instead of undertaking fightattributing all this to Ciceros cowardice.34 He does not omit to emphasise that Cicero is not acting by free will
at the time when the speech is delivered eithersuggesting dependence on
Pompeius.35 All this, although has nothing to do with the facts of the case, served to undermine the authority of the defending counsel and thereby the authority of his defendant.36
The personal motivation of the prosecution is clear since in Rome a prosecutor did not have to be objective and unbiased at all.37 In the charge of ambitus the accusers who had lost the elections might have been driven by the
motive that if the accused elected for the given office were convicted, they
could take their place38 as it did happen in 65 in the case of L. Aurelius Cotta
and T. Manilius Torquatus after P. Cornelius Sulla and P. Autronius Paetus
elected consul had been convicted. There were good chances for Servius Suplicius Rufus and Marcus Iuventius Laterensis hoping for the same in the
event that Murena and Plancius were convicted. Anyone who decided to bring
a charge, as a matter of fact, exposed himself to personal attack by the defending counsel.39 It was not by chance that Torquatus referred to Ciceros tyranny and autocracy (regnum) in court of justice in the lawsuit against Sulla40
as Cicero was not sparing with attacks against the prosecutor, tribune L. Labienus in Pro Rabirio perduellionis.41
30
Cic. Planc. 84.

Cic. Planc. 85.
32
Cf. Liv. 4, 25.
33
Cic. Sulla 67.
34
Cic. Planc. 8690.
35
Cic. Planc. 9194.
36
Adamietz 1986. 105.
37
See Mommsen 1899. 366. sqq.; Kunkel 1962. 11. 131. sq.; 136. sq.
38
Jones 1972. 62.
39
40
Cic. Sulla 21. sqq.
41
Cic. Rab. perd. 6. 9. 11. 20. sqq.; 25. 29. sqq.; 35.
31
322
, 1/2014
The attacks against Cicero were of great weight in the Plancius lawsuit and
in several cases hit Cicero in sensitive points: Cassius brought up Ciceros attempt at entering into alliance with Pompeius, which, however, failed,42 Iuventius reproached Cicero for undertaking Cispiuss defence, and in connection
with that he parodied the famous quo usquem passage43 of the first Catilinaria;44 similarly, they ridiculed his pathetic perorationes.45 All this, however, was
dwarfed by their suspecting him of leaving Rome in 58 and going into exile out
of cowardice and sacrificing his freedom to flatter the triumvirithe orator responded to it in natural and deep indignation.46 Briefly but resolutely, he attacked his enemies at the time, Clodius, Gabinius and Piso.47
Furthermore, in both lawsuits against Murena and Plancius, Cicero had to
cope with the difficulty that the adverse parties in the lawsuit, that is, the prosecutors, were his good friends. He supported Sulpicius in his election struggles,
and maintained relations with Labienuss family since his exile, however, Murenas acquittal was definitely in the interest of the State because that was the only
way to ensure that at the beginning of the year two dynamic consules could take
over control over the state organisation undermined by the conspiracy, and it is
an undeniable fact that Plancius did much greater service to Cicero by providing
him with shelter in Thessaloniki than Labienuss family. Therefore, the orator
could not use the well-tried strategy of stressing his defendants merits by dealing the opponent a devastating blow; instead, he had to find some middle-ofthe-road solution by which he could both clear the accused and was not compelled to start a serious attack against the prosecutor.48 It was not by chance that
Quintilian noted that in Pro Murena Cicero acknowledged Sulpiciuss all virtues and although he praised him, he advised him not to apply for consulatus.49
The fundamentum ac robur totius accusationis,50 that is, the attack against
Cato was justified just by the unquestionableness of his motifs and singular authority. It was just this authority that made the senators at the session of the senate held a few days after Pro Murena was delivered, on 5th December 63, in the
Concordia Temple51 join what Cicero summed up in the fourth Catilinaria, in
opposition to Caesar, who proposed life imprisonment of the conspirators,52 af-
42
Cic. Planc. 85.

Cf. Cic. Cat. 1, 1.
44
Cic. Planc. 75.
45
Cic. Planc. 76. 83.
46
Cic. Planc. 90. sq.
47
Cic. Planc. 86. sq. Cf. Kroll 1937. 131.
48
Adamietz 1986. 107.
49
Quint. inst. 11, 1, 68.
50
Cic. Mur. 58. Cf. Classen 1985. 163. sqq.; Adamietz 1989. 203. sqq.
51
Cf. Plut. Cic. 21.
52
Sall. Cat. 51, 143.
43
323
, ... (. 317335)
ter Cato had also demanded death penalty for the traitors,53 which was executed
that evening in Tullianum. It was just this that Cicero tries to defend against in
his ironic attack against Catos cold stoicism so that the statesmans unbelievable authority, that is, purely his name should not be detrimental to the accused.54
Acknowledging Catos moral greatness, he endeavours to present his standpoint
taken in the particular matter as a trait alien to life, alien to the spirit of Roman
people in order to take the edge of the charge and ruin the image in the judges
that anyone Cato has resolved to bring a charge against must be by all means
guilty.55 It is not by chance that the edited version of Pro Murena left to us does
not contain detailed refutation of the charges made by Servius Sulpicius junior
and Postumusas the arguments brought up by them were not backed by moral
authority similar to that of Cato, Cicero was not compelled to take the sting out
of their argument by delicate shading.56
In legal terms, it does not belong to the charge and its refutation either to
compare the life and activity of the competitors, having lost in the election
struggle, acting as accusers in the ambitus lawsuit, to that of the winners of the
election, the accused parties of the lawsuit. Cicero, however, in response to the
allegations of the prosecution, touches on the conduct of life of the accused parties (reprehensio vitae),57 the comparison of the eligibility, authority and worthiness of the office of the accused parties having won and the accusers having
lost in the elections (contentio dignitatis).58 Only after that does he deal with the
crime of election bribery/fraud rather briefly and try to refute the relevant charges (crimina ambitus)in the case of Pro Murena, also by inserting, before the
fact-based, yet rather taciturn and not really convincing refutation,59 the response to the motifs of the charges brought up by Cato.60
The examination of the conduct of life of the accused parties (vita anteacta) is of a highly critical tone in the statement of the prosecution in both cases.
Cato reproached Murena for his stay in Asia and the presumption that he took
pleasure in eastern luxury,61 his sympathy for dancing, which was not worthy of
a free Roman citizen in the eyes of the Romans62however, none of these criticisms was connected with the crime of ambitus. The prosecutors reproached
53
Sall. Cat. 52, 236.

Cic. Mur. 67.
55
Cic. Mur. 6066.
56
Adamietz 1986. 108.
57
Cic. Mur. 1114; Planc. 3035.
58
Cic. Mur. 1553; Planc. 5. 5867.
59
Cic. Mur. 6677.
60
Cic. Mur. 5477; Planc. 5357.
61
Cic. Mur. 12.
62
Cic. Mur. 13.
54
324
, 1/2014
Plancius for the charge of bigamy, ravishing an actress, Atinia,63 releasing a prisoner from prison unlawfully64 and the too resolute action taken by his father,
Plancius senior for the sake of publicani.65 These allegations were not connected either directly or indirectly with the actual charge, ambitus. However, accumulation of charges not supported by factsmore exactly, as Cicero often stressed it: abusive language and defamationwas general practice in any lawsuit,
not just ambitus lawsuits, as a tool of influencing the climate of opinion against
the accused.66
In ambitus lawsuits it was traditional to compare the competitors dignity,
eligibility for office (contentio dignitatis) both by the prosecution and the defence. In Pro Murena this constitutes a rather lengthy, independent part;67 in Pro
Plancioreferring to the sensitivity of just the accuser, Laterensis68Cicero
rejects the use of this tool;69 later on, however, albeit, emphatically in response
to Crassuss counts of the indictment, he uses them anyway.70 By all that, the
defending counsel tries to achieve a double result: on the one hand, he wants to
prove his defendants high eligibility for the office to be filled; on the other
hand, he explains the causes of his election victory. Simultaneously, he gives
explanation for the accusers election defeat, arguing that it was due to the defeated partys fault and not to his defendants acts, even less to possible bribe.71
Accordingly, in the part of Pro Murena that can be called contentio dignitatis,
discussion of Sulpiciuss defeat was given an important place too,72 and in Pro
Plancio it is after the seeming rejection of the opportunity of contentio73 that the
orator comes to Laterensiss election defeat on two occasions.74 The structure of
contentio is identical in both speeches: Cicero discusses the career of the competitors in chronological order.75
In Pro Murena, in response to Sulpiciuss argument that he outdoes Murena in social background, the orator underlines the significance of individual achievements,76 and to the fact that he was announced first in the election of the
63
Cic. Planc. 30.

Cic. Planc. 31.
65
Cic. Planc. 32.
66
Cf. Cic. Cael. 325; Sest. 614; Sulla 6975; Rab. Post. 79; Font. 41.
67
Cic. Mur. 1553.
68
Cf. Kroll 1937. 129.
69
Cic. Planc. 6. 16. 17.
70
Cic. Planc. 5867.
71
Cf. Adamietz 1986. 109.
72
Cic. Mur. 4353.
73
Cic. Planc. 6.
74
Cic. Planc. 730. 4953.
75
Adamitz 1986. 110.
76
Cic. Mur. 15.
64
325
, ... (. 317335)
quaestor he opposes the point that what must and can be investigated on the merits is nothing else than the achievements attained in office filled in the same
yearand in this respect none of them excelled.77 In response to Supliciuss argument that he would have been more worthy of consuls office because he
stayed in Rome from first to last, while Murena stayed in the east as commander, Cicero points out that it is not presence but merits that count.78 At this
point, in studiorum atque artium contentio, the orator opposes soldiers activity to lawyers activity and involves the art of rhetoric as a third element in
the comparison, and this way jurisprudence as a profession dealing with unnecessarily overcomplicated, insignificant matters is given the third place only.79
Praise of res militaris is a response to Catos criticism that Murenas merits as
commander are insignificant, if for no other reason, because the war in Asia
was fought against women and not men.80 Cicero beats off the argument of
victory obtained in the first place in the election of praetores by the topos of
the unpredictableness of public opinion,81 and underlines the magnificence of
the games arranged by Murena, and opposes it to the fact that Sulpicius had
not arranged any.82
Furthermore, Cicero emphasises that the electors appreciated Murenas role
fulfilled in administration of justice, contrary to the severity engaged by Sulpicius
in this respect, which arose from the nature of the field he controlled, and that the
commanders activity in the provinces also provided him with great support, whereas the jurist was not willing to assume any task outside Rome.83 After discussing the causes of Murenas victory, he comes to the direct causes of Sulpiciuss
defeat. Electors clearly noticed that Sulpicius did not strive for winning the elections in the first place, instead, he dealt with the opportunity of bringing a charge
in case he would lose and collecting evidence against his rivals, which suggested
that he did not see many chances for victory.84 Furthermore, he fought for making
lex Calpurnia, which sanctioned ambitus, stricter, and in this effort he was supported by Cicero as consul and friend by creating lex Tullia de ambituyet, this
had not made him sympathetic to electors either.85 Finally, the critical political situation, i.e., general fear of Catilinas possible victory, favoured Murena, whom
citizens considered a firm support against threatening danger, while they did not
77
Cic. Mur. 18.

Cic. Mur. 19. sqq.
79
Cic. Mur. 2230.
80
Cic. Mur. 31.
81
Cic. Mur. 35. sq.; Planc. 7. sq.
82
Cic. Mur. 3742.
83
Cic. Mur. 42.
84
Cic. Mur. 43. sqq.
85
Cic. Mur. 46. sqq.
78
326
, 1/2014
presume that the anxious and hesitating Sulpicius would take such a firm action.86
To sum it up: Cicero took the position that Murenas victory arose from his own
excellence and the faults made by his rival, Sulpicius but by no means from unlawful practices and bribery.87
In the Plancius lawsuit Cassius criticised and condemned Ciceros defendant,88 while he appreciated Laterensiss merits and competencies.89 Whereas
the opponent underlined Laterensiss nobilitas and deemed him worthy of the
aediliss office owing to his social background, Cicero (just as Plancius in
Murenas lawsuit) emphasised individual virtus, merits, aptitude in the case of
homo novus.90 A homo novus, in other words, a person whose ancestors did
not get higher offices (cursus honorum), was in certain respects in a disadvantageous position in the struggle for winning given offices compared to the
members of the nobilitas because the latter could proudly refer to their ancestors deeds carried out for the benefit and greatness of the people of Rome.
The homines novi who achieved the highest degree of public dignity, in several cases as it can be observed in the example of Cato maior or Cicero followed ancient ideals more consistently and, one should say, with neophyte
enthusiasm. Prior to Cicero, it was in 94 when a homo novus, more specifically, C. Coelius Caldus, was elected consul. At the same time, Ciceroin order to win the peoples support and make advantage out of disadvantagevoiced the rather populist view that members of the nobility handled the consuls
office as their own privilege, and proudly emphasised his own merits, by
which he was able to get the highest dignity of the State (res publica) even
against the nobility.91
Anyway, regarding Laterensis he used the tools of humanitas and urbanitas as the accuser did not belong to his personal enemies.92 In the case of Plancius, Cassius challenged lack of triumphi, military achievements, rhetorical and
jurist competencies that is, there are good chances that he used the arguments
that Cicero formulated in Pro Murena with regard to various professions. In response, Cicero as defending counsel expounded that the opportunity of triumphus would become available, for that matter, through holding given offices, and
that by his activity on Crete and in Macedonia he did prove his military aptitude, and that he had never claimed to have knowledge obtained in rhetoric and
jurisprudence, instead, he could show prominence in character, which was much
86
Cic. Mur. 48. sqq.

88
Cf. Cic. Planc. 58. sqq.
89
Cf. Cic. Planc. 63.
90
Cic. Planc. 59. sq.
91
Cic. leg. agr. 2, 3
92
Kroll 1937, 129.
87
327
, ... (. 317335)
more appreciated by the people of Rome than professional knowledge.93 At the

same time, Cicero lessens the weight of Laterensiss merits obtained in Cyrene
also to his detriment by an ironical dialogue narrated in relation to his activity as
proquaestor in Sicily, with the morals that Laterensis would believe in vain that
he had carried out significant deeds in remote provinces, the public might have
not even heard of his being away from Rome.94
To take care of the sensitivity of the opponent who otherwise maintained
good relations with him, Cicero discusses the reasons for Laterensiss election
defeat separately from contentio dignitatis,95 and gets down with it primarily
by the topos of the unpredictableness of public opinion and unreliability of
public judgment.96 The tricks of winning mercy of the people were discussed
in details by his brother, Quintus Tullius Cicero in Commentariolum petitionis
where he expounded that applicants should formulate what they have got to
say in accordance with electors desires and needs rather than their own conviction, and pointed out that promises made kindly are more important than
keeping such promises.97 Apparently, it was just this that Plancius forgot
about, and before the court of justice consisting of senators and knights Cicero
could safely refer to the shaky and unreliable value judgment of the people,98
and, to completely reduce the edge of the attack against Laterensis, he declared that if the people had had firm conviction, had orientated themselves in
terms of merits and values in forming their opinion, then they would have
elected Laterensis aedilis.99
The people blamed Laterensis for not making efforts to win their favour
and for relying on the advantages provided by his social background only in
winning the election.100 Similarly, giving up the fight for tribunes office already commenced in 59 was to his detriment because the public considered it
indifference,101 and asserting his high-born origin might have evoked antipathy
instead of sympathy in the plebs.102 Later on, Cicero returns again to the thought
that Laterensiss defeat was caused by lack of humbleness to be engaged to the
mercy of the people (supplicare, se submittere).103 The consequences of Laterensiss faults were increased by the circumstances that supported Plancius: the
93
Cf. Cic. Planc. 61. sqq.

Cic. Planc. 65.
95
Cic. Planc. 730.
96
Cic. Planc. 8. sqq.
97
Cf. Comm. pet. 45. On Commentariolum petitionis see Till 315. sqq.
98
Cf. Cic. Planc. 9.
99
Cic. Planc. 7.
100
101
Cic. Planc. 13.
102
103
Cic. Planc. 4953.
94
328
, 1/2014
support of his home town,104 the commitment of publicans ranged on his side by
his father, the leader of the publicani,105 and Ciceros help, who thereby thanked
Plancius for the favours he had done to him during his exile.106 Furthermore, his
activity in Africa, on Crete and in Macedonia,107 and his successful tribunes activity was in favour of Plancius.108
It should be noted with regard to publicani, that they made it possible that
state administration with a low headcount had to be maintained in Rome because well-to-do publicani, most often from the order of equites, constituted a company for the economic implementation of important goals in the life of the State
(for example, construction of water pipes, providing the army with arms). The
late age of the Republic used the terms knights and publicans often as synonyms; however, overlapping between the two categories by no means meant
identity: some publicans had assets between forty thousand and one hundred
thousand sestertii, while the extent of knights census was set as four hundred
thousand sestertii. In the company of publicans the members assumed burdens
and shared benefits in proportion to their share; the most propertied were accountable to the State for implementing the enterprise usually by their landed
estate; on behalf of the State the magistratus entered into a contract with them.
The key task of publicans was their role assumed in taxation in the provinces:
they paid the amount of tax determined for the given province to the state treasury in advance, and on the leased territory during the lease period they could
freely collect the amount they had paid in advance. The governors, as a matter
of fact, often abused their position and imposed unlawful burdens on provinces;
so, inhabitants were compelled to take out loans from publicans, who usually
disbursed the amount demanded at usurious interest rates. Accordingly, judgement of publicans was disputed; in his letter to his brotheras a matter of fact,
in a statement not addressed to the general publicCicero himself called them
the greatest burden of provincial administration.109 In several cases publicans
supported the election of persons favourable to them by covering a major part of
their campaign costsit was not by chance that Ciceros brother, Quintus tried
to convince him that he should win publicanis benevolence to support his own
consul campaign.110 Cicero called publicans the flower of the order of knights of
Rome,111 the knights themselves strong support of the rest of the orders.112
104

Cic. Planc. 23.
106
107
108
Cic. Planc. 28. 61.
109
Cic. Q. fr. 1, 1, 32.
110
Comm. pet. 3.
111
Cic. Planc. 23.
105
329
, ... (. 317335)
C. Gracchus already relied on knights actually as an order, and entrusted Asia

province to them as publicans.
In Pro Plancio a peculiar element of contentio dignitatis is the projection
of the personality of the two candidates to their hometown, Tusculum in the case of Laterensis and Atina in the case of Plancius. Tusculum was a distinguished
settlement south-east of Rome, where several consuls families came from. Therefore, it is understandable that the inhabitants of Tusculumas numerous men
who had held consulship lived in the towndid not attribute special significance to Laterensiss aedilitas; consequently, they did not make many efforts to
help him to win the desired office. Atina, lying not far from Ciceros hometown,
Arpinum, was far from being so respectful and notable; so, its inhabitants made
more efforts to help one of the citizens born at their settlement to win the aediliias since thus glory fell on them too, which the inhabitants of Tusculum had
plenty of.113
Therefore, by contentio dignitatis Cicero tried to shed light primarily on
the fact in both speechesby analysing both the virtues and strengths of the
winner/accused and the faults and failures of the loser/accuserthat his defendants had not been in need at all of trying to influence the outcome of the election by bribery as there were sufficient arguments that made them sure of their
victory. Thereby he indirectly proved that the charge of ambitus was unfounded.
Secondly, however, contentio dignitatis served to enable him to prove to the
judges, as public opinion representing electors, that the winner of the election
was by all means more suitable for the given office than his opponentthe enumeration of faults and failures committed during the election campaign was also
meant to support the above as reasons for the train of thoughts that a person
who controls his election campaign with more aptitude will hold the office more
efficiently. Based on all that it can be inferred that the orator wanted to convince the judges also of the point that not only should the winner be acquitted for
lack of crime but the results of the elections should not be invalidated due to the
persons eligibility and the accusers ineligibility either.114
Refutation of the charge of ambitus on the merits is very short, almost insufficiently concise in both speeches.115 The reason for that can be looked for,
on the one hand, in the fact that from both lawsuits only Ciceros speeches have
been left to us, so neither the statements of the prosecution, nor the rest of defence speeches are known to us, and as in both lawsuits Cicero rose to speak as
the last one as was his custom, we could presume that the defending counsels
112
Cic. Verr. 2, 2, 7.
114
Adamietz 1986. 113.
115
Kroll 1937. 132.
113
330
, 1/2014
taking the floor before him had already refuted the legally relevant counts of the
indictment on the merits of the case, point by point. At the same time, it can be
presumed that Cicero would have somehow referred or alluded to these refutationshowever, no traces of that can be found. It is highly probable that both
the prosecution and the defence set out from arguments related to person, and
counts of the indictment that could be specifically supported and refuted did not
play any considerable partif for nothing else, due to the low number of proofs
arising from the character of the cases. Defending counsels much rather tried to
proveall the more because the dividing line between ambitus sanctioned by
law and morally contestable and legally acceptable ambitio could not be sharply
drawnthat in the course of winning the electors favours no scandalous, exaggerating steps contrary to traditions and customs were taken.116 Due to the indistinct dividing line between ambitus and ambitio we can possibly accept Krolls
statement that these Ciceronian speeches can be considered, for that matter,
praise of properly and moderately exercised ambitus too.117
In Pro Murena Cicero argued that whereas Cato disapproved any kind of
search for electors favours, that is, entourage, hospitality and distribution of
free tickets to circus and theatre performances, Murena, in the course of all
these steps, took care of complying with and respecting generally accepted customs to sufficient extent: he recruited entourage not for money and theatre
seats and feasts were made possible by his friends generosity, which was not
prohibited by law or unwritten law either.118 In Pro Plancio he could simply
respond to the charge that Plancius entered into coitio, that is, alliance allowed
by law with the other winning candidate, Plotius: originally it was Laterensis
who wanted to enter into alliance with Plancius, however, it failed. At this
point, it is possible to presume the cause behind the argument of the prosecution: it was not Laterensis that the agreement set out in the coitio favoured.119
The circumstances of distributing money in Circus Flaminius, the origin and
function of the money could not be determined exactly and could not be proved, so this charge seemed to be weightless too120at least in Ciceros narrative. And for lack of proper evidence, Cicero could easily consider all the other statements gossip and defamation.121
Thus, based on all that, Plancius did not amount to the state of facts of lex
Licinia, and demanding the application of this law was nothing else than a bad
faith manoeuvre from the first by the prosecution to make the situation of the
116
Adamietz 1986. 114.

Kroll 1937. 132.
118
Cic. Mur. 6877.
119
Kroll 1937. 133.
120
Cic. Planc. 55.
121
Cic. Planc. 5357.
117
331
, ... (. 317335)
accused more difficult.122 The provision of lex Licinia that set forth that the prosecution could designate four tribus, of which the judges were selected, was
used by Laterensis contrary to the spirit of the law,123 since he left out just the
Voltinia district where bribes had purportedly taken place, and whose judges for
this reason could have judged the case with greater overviewCiceros above
opinion was obviously shared by Hortensius too, who expounded it in his own
defence speech on the day before Ciceros oration was delivered.124 It was undoubtedly impossible to prove Plancius guilty of communis ambitus because
this would have required to certify that distribution of money was carried out in
an organised form, directly launched by the candidatein other words, gratia
and observantia of allowed extent only helped Plancius on the side of his
friends and supporters.125
Basically, Pro Murena and Pro Plancio are made of identical elements, although the elements are arranged somewhat differently. Both the prosecution
criticises the defending counsel, Cicero and Cicero resolutely criticises and attacks the accusers, Cato, Suplicius and Laterensis, not sparing sarcasm. On the
one hand, the prosecution endeavours to make the person of the accused, having
won the elections, inauthentic during reprehensio vitae, and thereby support the
necessity of ambitus. On the other hand, the defence tries to prove ineligibility
of the defeated accuser through contentio dignitatis to convince the judges thereby that the losing party can reproach nobody else than himself for his defeat,
and for this reason the winner had not only not committed any fraud or bribery
during the election campaign, but he was not in need of it either. It clearly explains this tactics when we consider that in case the winner was convicted, then
the loser placed behind obtained the office that constituted the subject of the
dispute; that is, if the counts of the indictment proved true, it guaranteed, in addition to conviction and punishment of the accused, that the accuser, having lost
the elections, could win the office not obtained by votes. The fact-based refutation of crimina ambitus crowned this argument only but had no exclusive value
for the outcome of the lawsuit, all the less as the judgment in the action-at-law
unambiguously contained a political decision too. The jurors voted not only on
guilt and innocence but on the fate of the office to be fulfilled; therefore, their
vote was influenced, in addition to the case of ambitus, by their conviction developed of the eligibility of the accuser and the accused, that is, the parties opposed as competitors in the election struggle.126
122
Kroll 1937. 134.

Cic. Planc. 42.
124
Cic. Planc. 37.
125
Cic. Planc. 44. sq.
126
Adamietz 1986. 115.
123
332
, 1/2014
In both cases the orator builds his statement by combining these elements
in accordance with the circumstances. In the prooemium of Pro Murena he
immediately responds to the objections of the prosecution that are aimed at
Cicero undertaking the defending counsels tasks as a consul in office and thereby betraying his friendship maintained with Sulpicius,127 and in the peroratio he uses the dignity of his office as a weapon that can be used for the sake
of his defendant.128 Before addressing specific charges, he believes it is useful
to convince the judges that Murenas conduct of life is irreproachable and he
is eligible for the office,129 which he emphasises in a lengthy contentio dignitatis in an enlarged form by stressing Murenas merits and questioning Sulpiciuss aptitude, and by underlining the faults and failures made by him during
the election campaign.130 The attack against Cato, cast in humorous form, takes the edge of the charges, by which he presents the objections brought up
against Murena as the outcome of the philosopher-statesmans too anxious
conscience and approach alien to life.131 Emphasis of the imminence by Catilinawhich Suplicius, otherwise having excellent traits and values deserving
acknowledgement by all means from a human viewpoint, would not be able to
efficiently opposereinforces Murenas position. So, Cicero as a consul defends his elected successor in officeas the verdict of acquittal showssuccessfully, and the defence rests on three pillars: Murenas aptitude, Sulpiciuss
ineligibility and failures, and realistic recognition of the dangers of the situation in current politics.
In Planciuss lawsuit the prosecution also started a co-ordinated attack
against the counsel for the defence and former consul, Cicero because the accusers believed that they could achieve their goal against Plancius only by weakening Cicero. Accordingly, Cicero highlights Planciuss merits and services by
which he supported him during his exile, in the prooemium already, and builds
the entire third part of the speech: the refutation of the charges made by Cassius132 and Laterensis133 and the peroratio134 on them. Thus, the significance of
the identity of the defending counsel far surpasses that of his defendant in this
case too, and it can be stated that Planciuss acquittal was owing almost exclusively to Ciceros moral weight, independently of the acts and failures of the accused. From among contentio dignitatis and exploration of the causes of Late-
127
Cic. Mur. 110.

Cic. Mur. 86. 90.
129
Cic. Mur. 1115.
130
Cic. Mur. 1553. On the irony in Ciceros Pro Murena see Haury 1955. 155.
131
Cic. Mur. 6066.
132
Cic. Planc. 6871.
133
Cic. Planc. 72100.
134
Cic. Planc. 101104.
128
333
, ... (. 317335)
rensiss election defeat, first, the second element appears,135 on the one hand, to
take care of Laterensiss sensitivity, and, on the other hand, to reduce his accusers drive by enumerating the faults committed. Only after that comes Cicero
to clearing his defendants conduct of life,136 as it were forcing the accuser into
defence position, because heaccording to Ciceros argumentattacked Plancius by distorting the provisions of lex Licinia de sodaliciis, that is, in unfair
manner.137 This tactics highly reminds one of the criticism against CatoCicero
strives to convince the judges that the prosecutors action, although it might
seem to be lawful, is by all means seriously unfair. Laterensiss accusers position could have been by no means strengthened by the somewhat condescending, patronising encouragement by which Cicero urged him not to give up hope: successes in public life will certainly not keep him waiting in the future if he
learns a lesson from his faults and takes the advice he has just received.138 After
having properly prepared the field, the orator refutes the actual charge of ambitus by lapidary conciseness, all the more becauseas Cicero argues henceforth
in the contentio dignitatisPlanciuss favourable opportunities and aptitude,
and the support provided by him, among others, to him as exiled former consul,139 made it unjustified from the first for his defendant to use unlawful
tools.140
From the Ciceronian practice of ambitus lawsuits it can be unambiguously
ascertained that the judgment and, as its antecedents, the role of the prosecution
and the defence orientated itself primarily in terms of political aspects. The
party who brought the charge was often a competitor beaten in the elections,
who could not only expect the proceedings to impose sanctions on unlawful
practices through the conviction of his one-time competitor, the accused in the
lawsuit, but, based on Roman practice, could certainly count also on obtaining
the office that he had not been able to obtain by winning the electors over, as a
benefit of the lawsuit. Consequently, when deciding the issue of guilt or innocence, the judges deliberated the past, conduct of life of the accuser and the accused, i.e., the winner and loser of the elections, the necessities demanded by
the situation of current politics, the eligibility of the parties concerned andas
Pro Murena and Pro Plancio convincingly proves itthe political weight of the
patronus who took action for the sake of the accused.141
135
Cic. Planc. 530.

Cic. Planc. 3035.
137
Cic. Planc. 3648.
138
Cic. Planc. 4953.
139
Cic. Planc. 6871.
140
Cic. Planc. 5867.
141
Adamietz 1986. 117.
136
334
, 1/2014
,
Kroli Gspr

: (Cnaeus Plancius) 54. . .,
. .
54. , , . / (ambitus).
.
, , , , . ,
, . ,
Pro Plancio, , , ,
Pro
Muren.
: ; ; crimen ambitus; ; Marcus Tullius Cicero.
335
, ... (. 317335)
336
, 1/2014
343.241(439+497.11+497.5)
doi:10.5937/zrpfns48-6139
. ,

: .

( ,
), ,
: , , ,

.
, . ,
.
,
.
.
2013. ,
, . , ,
,
. ,
,
, ,
337
. , ... (. 337379)
.
25 ( 20 ).
20 25 .

.
, , ,
.
:
2013. , , , , .
(1989-90. )
,
. - ,
. .1
. 1978.
1600 ,
.

( 25. 2012.)
1. 2013. .
, , 1878. (Csemegi-kdex) 1961. 1978. .
Fidesz-KDNP-a
Ferenc Kondorosi: A bntetpolitika reformja* http://www.bvop.hu/download/bsz0601reform.pdf/bsz0601 (: 7. 2014.).
338
, 1/2014
2010-2014. , ( ) , Jobbik
.
, , .
, ,
, .
: ,
, , , ,
, , .2

.

, , , .
465 -, 116 (374 ).3 33 ( , 11 29 , -
- ), .4

.
, , -
Klmn Gyrgyi: Az j Bntet Trvnyknyv kodifikcijnak trtnete, http://ujbtk.

hu/dr-gyorgyi-kalman-az-uj-bunteto-torvenykonyv-kodifikaciojanak-tortenete/
3
C. 2012. (2012. vi C. trvny a Bntet
Trvnyknyvrl).
Magyar Kzlny 92. szm. (Magyarorszg hivatalos lapja) 2012. jlius 13. 13450
4
Kzigazgatsi s Igazsggyi Minisztrium Sajt Osztly, Sajtanyag 2013. jlius 1-jn
hatlyba lp Magyarorszg j Bntet Trvnyknyve. Igazsgos, tettarnyos s kvetkezetes - az
ldozatok vdelmben www.kormany.hu/download/2/ff/e0000/SAJTANYAG.pdf. ( 7.
2014.).
339
. , ... (. 337379)
,
.5
,
20 25 ,
25
( 20 ). .
, (
),
.
0,8 , 0,5 , . ,
, ,
. (, ,
) .
,
- : . . . ( ,
offshore-, , ).
,
,
.
.
- : . , ,
, . -
: Krisztina Karsai (szerk.): Kommentr a Bntet Trvnyknyvhz: Kommentr a

Bntet Trvnyknyvrl szl 2012. vi C. trvnyhez. Complex Kiad Budapest, 2013.
340
, 1/2014
,
.
,
, ,
, , .
,
. ,
.
(,
). : ( ), ( 18 ) . 18 , 18 .

.6

. (. ),
. , , , .
.
: (gemeinnutzige Arbeit, travail dinteret general, Community Service), ( ,
),
( ) . -
6
Zsolt Szomora: A gyermekek rdekt srt s a csald elleni bncselekmnyek. In: Karsai
Krisztina (szerk.): Kommentr a Bntet Trvnyknyvhz: Kommentr a Bntet
Trvnyknyvrl szl 2012. vi C. trvnyhez. Budapest: Complex Kiad, 2013. str. 432-450.
341
. , ... (. 337379)
. Ferenc Nagy

, .7
( )
, , .
,
, .
,
.
,
.
2012. 28
. (2000. 450.673 , 2009. 394.034 ),
.8 2010. ,
. ,

: . .9
,
, 25 . ,
. ,
,
.
, . . -
7
Ferenc Nagy: Gondolatok a hossz tartam szabadsgvesztsrl s az eurpai brtnnpessgrl. Brtngyi Szemle 2013/1. http://ujbtk.hu/dr-nagy-ferenc-gondolatok-az-eletfogytigtarto-szabadsagvesztesrol/ (: 7. 2014.).
8
IRM Statisztikai s Elemz Osztlya: Az ezredfordult kvet bnzsi helyzet alakulsa,
2010.
9
: Lszl Heka: Ustavnopravni poredak Maarske u
svjetlu Ustava iz 2011. godine. Pravni vjesnik Osijek br 3-4., Osijek 2013. str. 157-185.
http://vjesnik.pravos.hr/preuzimanje/2013-3_4.pdf
342
, 1/2014
. ,
.
,
20 ,
.
,
, .
51 ,
. 2014.
,
.
, , () .
,
( ), .
.
40 , 100 , .10

. .
( , . 72/11, 101/11, 121/12, 32/13
45/13), (
, . 85/2005, 72/2009 31/2011), (
, . 72/2009 101/2010).
10
A Magyar Helsinki Bizottsg vlemnye a Bntet Trvnyknyv 2012 februrjban

kzztett tervezetrl. http://helsinki.hu/uj-btk-velemeny (: 7. 2014.).
343
. , ... (. 337379)
( . 125/2011)
1. 2013. . ( . 152/08), ( . 143/12),
( . 143/12), (
. 84/11, 143/12),
( . 151/03, 110/07, 45/11, 143/12). , ,

- ( . 152/08, 76/09, 80/11, 121/11,
91/12, 143/12, 56/13, 145/13)
( U-I-448/2009, U-I-602/2009, U-I1710/2009, U-I-18153/2009, U-I-5813/2009, U-I-2871/2009), .11
I.
. 5. III. ,
.
III. 14. ,
.12 , ,
. , ,
( 18.).
III. . 20.
( ).
11
Ksenija Turkovi Aleksandar Maravelski (ured.): Komentar Kaznenog zakona i drugi
izvori novoga hrvatskog kaznenog zakonodavstva. Pravna biblioteka. Komentari, 10. Narodne
novine. Zagreb 2013. http://www.share-pdf.com/d2c833abb13c42a8b87e3d1cd965df1d/2013-0418%20Komentar%20KZ%202011%20-%20radna%20skupina.pdf ( 5. 2014.).
12
( , . 85/2005., 88/2005.
, 107/2005. ., 72/2009., 111/2009.,121/2012 104/2013).
344
, 1/2014
1.
14. ,
12 . 16.
14. (160. . 12.), (161. ), (164. . 8), (365. . 1.4.)
(366. . 2.3.) 12.
. , 14. . ,
- .
14 , 12-13 ,
, 9-10 .13
20. 1989. , .
2008. 2013.
12-14 ,
.14
2006. (, )
.
:
( 85/2005.) . ,

;
- -
13
Sajtanyag 2013. jlius 1-jn hatlyba lp Magyarorszg j Bntet Trvnyknyve

Igazsgos, tettarnyos s kvetkezetes - az ldozatok vdelmben www.kormany.hu/ download/2/ff/e0000/SAJTANYAG.pdf ( 7. 2014.).
14
.
345
. , ... (. 337379)
.15
(), (
Jugendgerichsgesetz 11. 1974. ,
30. 1990. ), (Ordonnance No. 45-174
du 2. fev. 1945., 2002-1138 9. 2002.
) ( 1998. ).16 ( 4. 3. ).

,
,
. ( 7. ).17
2.
IV. , , , ,
. ,
,
.
(
21-22.).18 , ,
-
15
Dragan Jovaevi: Poloaj maloletnika u novom krivinom pravu Republike Srbije.

Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta u Splitu God. 45 (2008), Broj 3 (89). str. 465-486. str. 465.
16
Dragan Jovaevi: Novine u krivinom zakonodavstvu o maloletnicima u svetlu restorativne pravde. In: Temida. Maj 2007, str 15-23. str. 15.
17
, . .
125/11, 144/12.
18
(P. Novoselec: Opi dio kaznenog prava, Pravni fakultet
Sveuilita u Zagrebu, Zagreb, 2009., str. 206.),
. (M. Babi: Krajnja nuda u krivinom pravu. Pravni fakultet u Banjoj Luci, Banja Luka, 1987., str. 81.). : I. Martinovi:
Trajna opasnost kao oblik istodobne opasnosti u okvirima krajnje nude. Hrvatski ljetopis za
kazneno pravo i praksu (Zagreb), vol. 17, broj 2/2010, str. 867-891. str. 869.
346
, 1/2014
, , .

. : ,
( ), (
) .

, , . ,
.19

,
.
,
. (,
), .
. ,
.20 ,
, ,
. ,
( ,
), , ,

.
: ( -
19
Sajtanyag 2013. jlius 1-jn hatlyba lp Magyarorszg j Bntet Trvnyknyve.

.
20
347
. , ... (. 337379)
),21
.
.22
,
.23 , ,

. ( 19.). ,
.

( 24.), , ,

( 20.).

.24

( 21.). .
. 16. ()
.25

( 22.).
21
22
C. Roxin: Strafrecht, Allgemeiner Teil, Band I, Beck, Mnchen, 2006., str. 731.
Dragan Jovaevi: Nuna odbrana i krajnja nuda, Pravni fakultet u Niu, Ni, 2007.,
str. 216.
23
Zoran Stojanovi: Odnos krajnje nude sa nunom odbranom. Revija za kriminologiju i

krivino pravo 2011, vol. 49, br. 2-3, str. 13-26
24
I. Martinovi op. cit. str. 869.
25
izvori novoga hrvatskog kaznenog zakonodavstva, str. 45.
348
, 1/2014
3.
. : , , ,
( 25.).26
3.1.
29.
,
, , , , , , .

( 107.). , , , ,
.
213. (. 193.),
(. 194.),
(. 196.), (.
197.) (.
198.),
.

,

.
.
. 330
. 183 . 27 - - .
26
Krisztina Karsai: A bntethetsget kizr vagy korltoz okok. In: Karsai Krisztina
(szerk.): Kommentr a Bntet Trvnyknyvhz: Kommentr a Bntet Trvnyknyvrl szl
2012. vi C. trvnyhez. Budapest: Complex Kiad, 2013. str. 72-95.
27
izvori novoga hrvatskog kaznenog zakonodavstva, str. 102, 132, 136,137, 148, 173174, 190
191.a, 213, 228,
249, 250, 253254, 258, 265, 294, 296, 305, 309, 327328, 367.
349
. , ... (. 337379)
174. . 4. .28
II.
VII. : , , , , , , , , ,
( 33.). ,
, , ,
, , , ,
. , , , , , , ,
, . , , .
: , , . : , , . , ,

. , ( 43-44.). ,

.
: , .
, .
(. 40.).
28
350
, . 203.
, 1/2014
1.
a)
. ( 46.).
b) 48 312 . ,
( ). ,
,
( 47-48.).

,
.
,

, . , . ,
( 52.).

.
, ,
, .

. , , , (. 55.).
c) ( , )
540
( 50.).
, , 2,5 ,
351
. , ... (. 337379)
(. 19 . 2. ),
(. 40 . 2. ),
(. 34. . 2. ).29
( , ) ,
, . . , .
, ,
( 48-50.).
(
),
,
.
.
.
( ),
. ,
,
, , . , ,
(. 42-43.),
d)
( , , , , -
29

352
, 1/2014
). ( )
,
.

, ( 52-54.).
,

, ,
, .
(
), , , ( 85.) .
V.

. ,
.

, (. 71.).
e)
. , ,
, ( )
( ).

( 55-56.).30
30
: Krisztina Karsai: Kzlekedsi bncselekmnyek. Brsgi Gyakorlat

Fzetek 4. Opten Kiad, Budapest, 2013.
353
. , ... (. 337379)

,

.
, , ,
(. 86.).

. ,
. , ,
, , , ,
. (. 72.).
f) ,
,
. . ,
( 57.).
g)
.
( 58.).
, , , ,
.31 ( ). , -
31
Nenad urevi: Krivina odgovornost za nasilje i nedolino ponaanje na sportskim
priredbama u Republici Srbiji. Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta u Splitu, god. 47, 2/2010., str.
285.-308.str. 300.
354
, 1/2014
,
( 89).
.32
h)
, ( ) (
). ,
( 59-60.).

. , . ( 88.).
.33
i)
:
, , ,
,
, , , , ,
. . , (
, 61-62.).
32
117/03,
71/06,
43/09,
34/11.
http://www.zakon.hr/z/445/Zakon-o-sprje%C4%8Davanju-nereda-na-%C5%A1portskimnatjecanjima ( : 3. 2014.)
33
. .
130/11, 74/13. http://www.zakon.hr/z/142/Zakon-o-strancima ( : 3.
2014.)
355
. , ... (. 337379)
2.
VIII. :
( 64.), ( ,
65.), (

, 67.), (
, , 69.), ( 72.), ( 74.), ( 77.), ( 78.). ,
(lan 63.).
.
(
) (
,
) (. 64-65, 77.). VI. (. 79.) : ;
; ;
; , ; ; ;
; ; ( , 89); ( 79.).
( 80. 2).
: , ,
, , , , ,
(. 65.).
3.
IX.
( )
- .
356
, 1/2014
16.
,
,
16. ,

( 108-109.). ,

, . 16. , ( 15, 250
500 50 ).
, . .
,
( 110-119.). , .
( 120).
4.

,

( 41.).
, ,
.34
, ,
,
25 ( 34-36.).
34
: Ferenc Nagy: Hossz tartam. In: Brtngyi Szemle, 2005/2. str. 718.
357
. , ... (. 337379)

2/3 ,
. , ,
( 38.).
-

25 , 40 ( 43.).

.

( 42.). , 44. . : (
142. . 1. ), (143. . 1.),
(144. . 1. 3.),
(148. . 2.), (149.
. 12.), (155.
. 1.), (158. ),
(160. . 2.), (190. . 34.), (192. . 6.), (254. .
1.), (257. . 2.),
(284. . 4.), (314. . 1,), (320. . 2,),
(322. . 3.), (442. . 4.), (445. . 5.), .

,

. (. 45.).
,
,
358
, 1/2014
. , , ,
. (
45-46.).

, ( ). , (. 44-46.).
, . , , , (. 59.)
4.1.
XV. ,
: (
, , ,
, 14 ,
, ,
160.), ( ,
, ,

, 164.).35
XIII.
.
35
Krisztina Karsai: Az let, a testi psg s az egszsg elleni bncselekmnyek. In: Karsai
Krisztina (szerk.): Kommentr a Bntet Trvnyknyvhz: Kommentr a Bntet
Trvnyknyvrl szl 2012. vi C. trvnyhez. Complex Kiad. Budapest, 2013. str. 309-337.
359
. , ... (. 337379)
( 113.), ( , , ,

) ( 114.).
X.

, ,
, , ,
, ,
(
110-111.).
XVIII. .36
) ,
, .
14 , , .
( 190.).

( 191.).

,

,

( 134.).

,
36
Zsolt Szomora: Az emberi szabadsg elleni bncselekmnyek. In: Karsai Krisztina
(szerk.): Kommentr a Bntet Trvnyknyvhz: Kommentr a Bntet Trvnyknyvrl szl
2012. vi C. trvnyhez. Budapest: Complex Kiad, 2013. str. 388-402.
360
, 1/2014
, ,
,
,
( 137.).
)
,
, ,
14
.
14.
( 192.).
, .
,
,
( 388.).
106.
, ,
,
,
,
. .
)
, ( 193.). ( 195.).
,
, ,
,
.
( 135.).
.
,
361
. , ... (. 337379)
, ( 138.).
) , , ,

,
( 194.).
132
,
.
.

, , , , ,
,
.

( 136.).
) ,
, 14 ,
12 ( 197-198.).37
,

, ( 178.).

( 153.).
XVII : (
37
: Zsolt Szomora: Megjegyzsek az j Bntet Trvnyknyv nemi bncselekmnyekrl szl XIX. Fejezethez. Magyar Jog 2013. br. 60:(11) str. 649-657.
362
, 1/2014
,
,

,
( 176.).
, , ,
,

( 177.).
,
( 178.). ()

( 184-185.)
XXIII

,

. ,
, ,
, . ,
( 246.).
,
( 246).

.

363
. , ... (. 337379)

, ,
,
, , , , .
(Glava XIX.
191.).
, ,
. ,
(191.).
XXIV.
:
(
, 254.),
( , 255.), ( ,
, 256.), (
,
258.), ( ,

, 261.) .
( 305.) ( 308.) , ( 309.)

, ( 311.)
, ( 315.) , ( 316.)
, ,
, , ,
( 321.)

364
, 1/2014
,
.
XXXII. (. 340.)
,
(. 346.)

,
(. 347.)

,
,
(. 348.)

.
(
) . XIII. : ( , , 142.), ( , , 143.), (
,
, 144.) ( 145.).
XIV. :
( ,
, 146.), (
,
, 147.), ( , , 148.), ( ,
,
149.) .

( XXXIV, 370.).
, ,
365
. , ... (. 337379)

( 371-374.),
,
( 375.). ,

, .
, ( 391.). (
391-391).
,
(.88. IX.). (. 90.), , (. 91.).
96.

.

, .
(. 97.).
4. 2.
( ,
, )
.
. .
-
366
, 1/2014
, .38

( : ) . ( ),
(
). ,
,
,
.
, .
,
.
.
,
, .

,
.
( )
. , ( ).

, .
XXVII. :
( ,
,
,
290) ( ,
38
http://www.kormany.hu/download/2/ff/e0000/SAJTANYAG.pdf
367
. , ... (. 337379)
,
,
, 291.). ( ,
, , ,
, 293-294.).

( 368.), ,

, , ( 367.).

(. 294.), (. 253.).
(. 293.),
(. 252.)
XXXV. : ( ,
, , ,
, 365.). (
,
)
, ,
,
( 366.).39
,

,
( 206.).
39
Zsolt Szomora: A vagyon elleni erszakos bncselekmnyek. In: Karsai Krisztina (szerk.):
Kommentr a Bntet Trvnyknyvhz: Kommentr a Bntet Trvnyknyvrl szl 2012. vi
C. trvnyhez. Budapest: Complex Kiad, 2013. str. 754-765. Isti: A vagyon elleni
bncselekmnyek. In: Krisztina Karsai (szerk.) Kommentr a Bntet Trvnyknyvhz:
Kommentr a Bntet Trvnyknyvrl szl 2012. vi C. trvnyhez. Budapest: Complex Kiad,
2013. str. 766-806.
368
, 1/2014
,
,

( 205.).

(. 230.).
(. 231.).

,
( 367.).

,
,
,
.
-
( 215.).

,
.
, ,

(. 243.).
XXXVI. ( , ,
, , 370.), ( ,
,
,
369
. , ... (. 337379)
, 372.), ( ,
,
, 373.) ( ,

, 381.).
( 203.), ( 210.),

( 204.).

,
, ( 207.).

,
( 208.).
,

, ,

( 217.).

(. 228.),
(. 229.). (.
232.),
(. 233.).
(. 236.),
370
, 1/2014

(. 242.).
5.
1990.
31. 1990. 23/1990.
-, - ,
.40 1999. 47/.
1. IV. 1978. -
( 1878. ),

.
(. ), ( ) .
, ,
. .
.
,
. V. 93/2000.41
, (, , ),
2008. .42
40
Zoltn J. Tth: Hallbntets: pro s kontra. Jogelmleti Szemle, 2003/2. szm.
http://jesz.ajk.elte.hu/toth14.html (: 22. 2014.).
41
: Attila Gal: Bntetskiszabsi krdsek az j bntet kdexben.
Bntetjogi Kodifikci, 2003. 4. 7-17. o. http://ujbtk.hu/szakcikkek/buntetojogi-kodifikacio/,
2012. 12. 20. :
Pl Kiszely: Merre tovbb, magyar letfogytiglan? Az extrm hossz tletek
vgrehajtsnak tapasztalatai a Szegedi Fegyhz s Brtnben. Brtngyi Szemle 2013/1. str.
47-64. str. 52. fusnota br. 11.
http://www.bvop.hu/download/bortonugyi_szemle_2013._1._szam.pdf/bortonugyi_szemle_
2013._1._szam.pdf (: 7. 2014. godine).
42
D. Vg: Izolci a trsadalomvdelem bvletben: hatrozatlan ideig tart
szabadsgmegvons Eurpban. In: Kriminolgiai tanulmnyok 46. OKRI, Budapest 2009. str.
4243. fusnota br. 11.; F. Dnkel: Freiheitsstrafe 38 Dauer der Freiheitsstrafe. In: Kindhuser,
371
. , ... (. 337379)
, , 40-
. , , ,
.43
, ,
.
,
(, , ),
(, , ), (, , ). ( )
,
, (26 ), , (30 ).44
,
25
. 43. -
25, 40 .

. , , . ( 176. -)
26
U. (et al.) (Hrsg.): Strafgesetzbuch. Nomos Kommentar. Band 1. 3. Aufl. Baden-Baden 2010. str.
1589. Saoptava: Ferenc Nagy: Gondolatok a hossz tartam szabadsgvesztsrl s az eurpai
brtnnpessgrl. In: Brtngyi Szemle 2013/1. 9. p. http://www.bvop.hu/download/
bortonugyi_szemle_2013._1._szam.pdf/bortonugyi_szemle_2013._1._szam.pdf. (: 7.
2014. ).
43
44
F. Dnkel: Freiheitsstrafe 38 Dauer der Freiheitsstrafe. In: Kindhuser, U. (et al.)
(Hrsg.): Strafgesetzbuch. Nomos Kommentar. Band 1. 3. Aufl. Baden-Baden 2010.15831588. p.
(fusnota br. 30.). Saoptava: Nagy, Ferenc: Gondolatok az letfogytig tart szabadsgvesztsrl.
In: Magyar Jog 2013. br. 5. str. 265-271. str. 266. http://ujbtk.hu/dr-nagy-ferenc-gondolatok-azeletfogytig-tarto-szabadsagvesztesrol/#_ftn27. (: 7. 2014. ).
372
, 1/2014
,
-, .45 (, , , ) ,
.46 -
, . Ferenc Nagy
3. ( , ).47
IV. 2.
, .
III. ,
, II. .48 2004. ,
2012. . . , 2014.

(
),
,
.49 , (Case
45
Italienisches Strafgesetzbuch. Codigo penale italiano. Bozen, 1995. str. 3840.; A. Jakab:
Az j Alaptrvny keletkezse s gyakorlati kvetkezmnyei. Budapest 2011. 207. p. fusnota br.
26. : Ferenc Nagy: Gondolatok az letfogytig tart szabadsgvesztsrl. str. 268.;
Ferenc Nagy: Gondolatok a hossz tartam szabadsgvesztsrl s az eurpai brtnnpessgrl.
str. 10.
46
Ferenc Nagy: Gondolatok az letfogytig tart szabadsgvesztsrl. str. 268.; Ferenc
Nagy: Gondolatok a hossz tartam szabadsgvesztsrl s az eurpai brtnnpessgrl. str. 10.
47
. M. Tth: Az letfogytig tart szabadsgveszts s a remny joga jabb emberi jogi
dntsekben. In:
Jogtudomnyi Kzlny, 2012/6. str. 268272. Saoptava: Ferenc Nagy: Gondolatok a
hossz tartam szabadsgvesztsrl s az eurpai brtnnpessgrl. str. 8.; Ferenc Nagy: Gondolatok az letfogytig tart szabadsgvesztsrl str. 268.
48
Ferenc Nagy: Gondolatok az letfogytig tart szabadsgvesztsrl. 268. p.; Ferenc Nagy:
Gondolatok a hossz tartam szabadsgvesztsrl s az eurpai brtnnpessgrl. str. 12.
fusnota br. 49.
49
Pravni forum (Jogi Forum). http://www.jogiforum.hu/hirek/31606. (: 23.
2014.).
373
. , ... (. 337379)
of Vinter and others v. The United Kingdom, Applications nos. 66069/09,

130/10 and 3896/10) 9. 2013. ,

.

,
.50
(European Court of Human Rights, Second Section In the case of
Lszl Magyar v. Hungary, Application no. 73593/10)51 20. 2014.

.

.
, ,

. ,

.

,
. ,
,
.

.52
(Sicherungsverwahrung)
, .53
(Verwahrung)
(, , ,
.)

, ,
50
: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/fra/pages/search.aspx?i=001122664#{"itemid":["001-122664 (: 23. 2014.)

51
(Application no. 73593/10) http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001144109 (: 23. 2014. )
52
Ksenija Turkovi-Aleksandar Maravelski: Reforma sustava kazni u novom Kaznenom
zakonu, HLJKPP 2/2012, Zagreb, 2012. str. 799801.
53
Ferenc Nagy : Gondolatok a hossz tartam szabadsgvesztsrl s az eurpai
brtnnpessgrl. str. 1;, Ferenc Nagy: Gondolatok az letfogytig tart szabadsgvesztsrl. str.
266.
374
, 1/2014
.54 , 1.
2013. ,
(. 78. . 2.), ,
. Ferenc Nagy
, .55
( )
.

, 2011-12.
: (47), (59), (64), (70),
(73), (74) (76).
81 100
: (83), (87), (98)
(100).
101 150: (102), (104), (109),
(111), (112), (115), (127), (146),
(149) (150).
( 150, 200) (
154), 168), ( 173, 177),
- :
(220), (221), (252) (304), (314),
(336), (438) (508).56
1995.2012.
1995
19971998
1999
20032005
20092010
2011-2012
85
75
110
190
65
270
60
85
80
505
140
215
65
320
55
85
80
575
145
225
65
310
45
106
88
532
143
190
70
339
71
103
94
385
120
208
71
265
60
104
100
438
146
221
74
252
59
54
Ferenc Nagy: Gondolatok a hossz tartam szabadsgvesztsrl s az eurpai

brtnnpessgrl. str. 6-7.; Ferenc Nagy: Gondolatok az letfogytig tart szabadsgvesztsrl.
str. 267.
55
Ferenc Nagy: Gondolatok az letfogytig tart szabadsgvesztsrl. str. 268; Ferenc
Nagy: Gondolatok a hossz tartam szabadsgvesztsrl s az eurpai brtnnpessgrl. str. 8.
56
brtnnpessgrl. str. 14-15.
375
. , ... (. 337379)
1995
19971998
1999
20032005
20092010
2011-2012
95
55
65
55
40
85
30
375
360
120
85
55
170
125
200
690
150
30
105
80
65
80
105
90
55
85
45
40
85
35
410
355
135
90
55
145
145
200
685
140
40
110
90
60
95
415
125
90
70
90
50
35
90
40
360
385
150
95
60
145
130
220
730
125
50
110
85
60
100
430
125
91
82
123
68
39
98
50
337
234
164
96
65
209
125
180
550
165
56
141
81
81
95
416
143
96
102
94
107
55
111
83
319
239
153
87
71
217
108
131
598
172
67
165
79
78
164
330
154
102
111
87
115
47
109
112
304
314
173
83
73
220
127
149
508
203
64
150
76
70
168
336
154
(: http://www.prisonstudies.org/info/worldbrief; Eurostat: Statistics in focus, 36/2009.)57
- .58
, , , , . , 173 177 . ( 2000-
57
: Ferenc Nagy: Gondolatok a hossz tartam szabadsgvesztsrl s az
eurpai brtnnpessgrl. str. 14.
58
A. Kensey P. Tournier: Prison population inflation, overcrowding and recidivism: the
situation in France. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 7/1999. str. 108.
: Ferenc Nagy: Gondolatok a hossz tartam szabadsgvesztsrl s az eurpai
brtnnpessgrl. str. 13. fusnota br. 54.
376
, 1/2014
) , 2008. ,
, ,
.59
, ,
. , 1100
, 1521 ,
138% ( 25. 2013.) .60 11. 2012. 236 , 22. 2012. 257 ( 182 ), 14.
2013. 246 ( 194 ), .61
2012.
,
21 22
.62 Pl Kiszely
, 2018.
.63
171 .
: 61
59
brtnnpessgrl. Brtngyi Szemle 2013/1. str. 14.
60
1999.2005. : A Bntets-vgrehajtsi
szervezet vknyve. Bntets-vgrehajts Orszgos Parancsnoksg Sajtkapcsolatok Osztlya,
Budapest, 2006. str. 63.; 2006.2008. :
vknyv 2008. Bntets-vgrehajts Orszgos Parancsnoksg Sajt Irodja, Budapest, 2009. str.
8.; 20092011. : vknyv 2011. Bntetsvgrehajts Orszgos Parancsnoksg Sajt Irodja, Budapest, 2009. str. 21. :
Pl Kiszely: Merre tovbb, magyar letfogytiglan? Az extrm hossz tletek
vgrehajtsnak tapasztalatai a Szegedi Fegyhz s Brtnben. Brtngyi Szemle 2013/1. 4757. str. 48. fusnota br. 4.
http://www.bvop.hu/download/bortonugyi_szemle_2013._1._szam.pdf/bortonugyi_szemle_
2013._1._szam.pdf
61
Pl Kiszely,: Merre tovbb, magyar letfogytiglan? Az extrm hossz tletek
vgrehajtsnak tapasztalatai a Szegedi Fegyhz s Brtnben. str. 48. fusnota br. 5. (:
7. 2014.).
62
: Pl Kiszely Istvn Nagy: Az id rabsgban. A hossz idre tltek
bntets-vgrehajtsi helyzete a Szegedi Fegyhz s Brtnben. Brtngyi Szemle, 2012. br. 3.
str. 1-16.
63
Pl Kiszely: Merre tovbb, magyar letfogytiglan? str. 51.
377
. , ... (. 337379)
, ( ) 25 , (
) 24,
11 ,
, .
, 93 ( ), 83
9. 12. , 36 (21 ) ( ).64
2013.
,
. - ,
. , , ,
. ,

, .

. .
20. 2014. , . ,
,
.
64
378
, 1/2014
Lszl L. Heka, Ph.D., Associate Professor

University of Szeged
Faculty of Law and Political Sciences
System of Punishment by the new Hungarian Criminal Law

and its Comparison with the Serbian and Croatian Laws
Abstract: The author in this study gives an overview of the system of punishment under the new Hungarian criminal law and also compares some of its solutions with the Norm of Serbian and Croatian criminal laws. The choice of these
three criminal laws is logical considering the similar geographical proximity and
the shared past (Croatian and Vojvodina in the composition of Hungary, and Serbia and Vojvodina within the Croatian Yugoslavia), as well as approximately the
same time period in which the laws were adopted, and almost identical problems
that legislation seeks to solve: increased crime rates, increasingly arrogant offenses, an increase of juvenile delinquency, drug use and psychotic agents, and the
emergence of new criminal offenses in particular in relation to economic crime
and the use of modern information systems. Media presentation of offenses, gives
a chaotic picture of the situation in the society and thus influences the society and
citizens. On one hand the fear of crime is getting stronger, and on the other hand
the need of the citizens for general security increases. In response to the needs of
its citizens new Hungarian law from the 2013 is trying to establish order in the
society, to restore confidence in the law and the judiciary, as well as in the goverment. The aim of the new Code was to create simple, efficient, modern and strict
standards in order for the perpetrators of crime as well as for the judiciary. Part
of it is done by stricter punishments, and by introducing the actual punishment of
life imprisonment, which is applied to the most serious perpetrators of crimes,
mainly returnees, not allowed to be released on probation, but to serve the whole
sentence. Unlike those convicts who were given life sentence, some of them can be
released on probation, which can be solved only after serving at least 25 years of
the prison sentence (instead of the previous 20 years).
The legislator has paid special attention to those offenses that largely harass
citizens and pose the greatest threat to the Hungarian society. Consequently, in
many segments a lot of improvements were made with regard to offenses against
public order, sexual offenses, criminal acts against children and public morality,
as well as criminal offenses in connection with financial operations.
Key words: punishment under the new Hungarian Criminal Code of the
2013th year, The Serbian and the Croatian criminal law, life imprisonment, the
actual sentence of life imprisonment, release on probation.
379
. , ... (. 337379)
380
381
382
, 1/2014
35.077.3(436)
doi:10.5937/zrpfns48-6263
Univ.-Prof. DDr. Bernd Wieser

Karl-Franzens-Universitt Graz
Institut fr sterreichisches, Europisches und Vergleichendes ffentliches
Recht, Politikwissenschaft und Verwaltungslehre
DAS VERWALTUNGSVERFAHREN IN STERREICH

Zusammenfassung: Der Autor analysiert das Verwaltungsverfahren in
sterreich. Nach der kurzen Analyse der Schaffung, der Entwicklung und den
Rechtsgrundlagen des Verwaltungsverfahrens, die Betonung liegt auf geltenden
Regeln des Verwaltungsverfahrens, besonders auf den allgemeinen
Grundstzen, der Zustndigkeit, den Parteien, dem Verkehr mit der Behrde,
dem Ermittlungsverfahren, der Erledigung des Verfahrens, dem Rechtsschutz.
Schlsselwrter: Das Verwaltungsverfahren, Das Verwaltungsverfahren
in sterreich
I. Zur Geschichte des Verwaltungsverfahrens
Im Ringen um den liberalen Rechtsstaat des 19. Jahrhunderts bildete das
Postulat nach Bindung der gesamten Vollzugsttigkeit an die Gesetze ein zentrales Anliegen. An die Stelle absolutistischer Herrscherwillkr sollte Vorhersehbarkeit und Berechenbarkeit des Handelns von Verwaltungsorganen treten.
Der Einzelne sollte durchsetzbare Rechte gegenber der hoheitlichen Verwaltung (dem Staat) erhalten. hnlich wie das Gerichtsverfahren sollte auch das
Verwaltungsverfahren prozessfrmlich geregelt und sollten dem Einzelnen
Rechtsschutzgarantien eingerumt werden.
Die bestehenden verwaltungsverfahrensrechtlichen Bestimmungen waren
in sterreich jedoch auch im konstitutionellen Rechtsstaat (ab der sogenannten
Dezemberverfassung 1867) und auch noch am Anfang des 20. Jahrhunderts
durch eine inhaltliche Uneinheitlichkeit, Streulage und Unvollstndigkeit gekennzeichnet. Der im Jahre 1876 eingerichtete Verwaltungsgerichtshof
(VwGH) wurde viel strker als die Gesetzgebung zum Vorkmpfer fr ein
einheitliches sterreichisches Verwaltungsverfahrensrecht. Erst die Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetze des Jahres 1925 fhrten zu einer weitgehenden Vereinheitlichung dieses Rechtsgebietes und zur allgemeinen gesetzlichen Verankerung
383
, (. 383402)
der Verfahrensgrundstze, welche der VwGH schon in den letzten Jahrzehnten

herausgebildet hatte.
Unter den Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetzen versteht man das Einfhrungsgesetz zu den Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetzen (EGVG), das Allgemeine Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz (AVG), das Verwaltungsstrafgesetz (VStG) und das
Verwaltungsvollstreckungsgesetz (VVG), welche mit 1. Jnner 1926 in Kraft
getreten sind.
II. Rechtsgrundlagen
Grundstzlich ist der Gesetzgeber, der nach der bundesstaatlichen Kompetenzaufteilung zur Regelung einer bestimmten Verwaltungsmaterie zustndig
ist, dabei auch zur Regelung des Verwaltungsverfahrens befugt (Annexprinzip,
Adhsionsprinzip).
Da dies jedoch zu einer heillosen Zersplitterung des gesamten Verwaltungsverfahrensrechts fhren wrde, sieht Art 11 Abs 2 der sterreichischen Bundesverfassung (B-VG) ein gegenlufiges Prinzip vor: Der Bundesgesetzgeber
kann einheitliches Verwaltungsverfahrensrecht regeln, soweit ein Bedrfnis
nach Erlassung einheitlicher Vorschriften als vorhanden erachtet wird (sog Bedarfsgesetzgebung bzw Bedarfskompetenz). Sowohl der Bundes- als auch der
Landesgesetzgeber drfen aber von einer allenfalls ergangenen einheitlichen
Regelung abgehen, wenn eine solche Abweichung zur Regelung des Gegenstandes erforderlich ist.
Die geltenden Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetze beruhen auf der Bedarfskompetenzregelung des B-VG. Sie wurden oftmals novelliert in den Jahren 1950
und 1991 wiederverlautbart. Sie stellen allerdings keine lckenlose Vereinheitlichung des Verwaltungsverfahrensrechts dar. Abweichende Verfahrensregeln
finden sich in einzelnen verwaltungsrechtlichen Materiengesetzen. Darber hinaus gibt es andere Verfahrensgesetze, wie die Bundesabgabenordnung, die Abgabenexekutionsordnung, das Agrarverfahrensgesetz, das Dienstrechtsverfahrensgesetz, die auf der Annexkompetenz beruhen.
Das EGVG regelt den Anwendungsbereich der Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetze (AVG, VStG und VVG); dieser beschrnkt sich auf die Hoheitsverwaltung (Art I Abs 1 EGVG).
Art I Abs 2 und 3 EGVG bestimmt, welche Verwaltungsbehrden welche Verfahrensgesetze anzuwenden haben. Zum Beispiel sind das AVG und das
VStG grundstzlich anwendbar auf das behrdliche Verfahren der Behrden der
allgemeinen staatlichen Verwaltung in den Lndern sowie der Organe der
Stdte mit eigenem Statut, aber auch solcher Behrden wie der Landes- und
Bezirksschulrte, der Grundverkehrsbehrden oder der Militrkommanden. Art
I Abs 4 EGVG zhlt Verwaltungsangelegenheiten auf, in denen die Verwal384
, 1/2014
tungsverfahrensgesetze grundstzlich nicht anzuwenden sind, wie zum Beispiel: Angelegenheiten der Bundes-, Landes- und Gemeindeabgaben; Angelegenheiten des ffentlich-rechtlichen Dienstverhltnisses zu Bund, Lndern, Gemeinden und sonstigen juristischen Personen des ffentlichen Rechts; Angelegenheiten der Durchfhrung der Wahlen zu den allgemeinen
Vertretungskrpern; Durchfhrung von Prfungen, soweit es sich nicht um die
Zulassung zur Prfung handelt.
III. Allgemeine Grundstze des AVG
A. Grundsatz der Amtswegigkeit

Whrend der Zivilprozess vom Grundsatz der Parteienmaxime beherrscht
wird (die Antrge der Parteien bestimmen den Fortgang des Verfahrens), ist das
Verwaltungsverfahren durch den Grundsatz der Offizialmaxime charakterisiert:
Die Behrde hat gem 39 Abs 2 AVG von Amts wegen die Verfahrensschritte festzulegen und durchzufhren (zum Beispiel die Ladung von
Zeugen, die Einholung eines Sachverstndigengutachtens, die Erlassung des
Bescheides).
Dieser Grundsatz gilt nicht nur bei jenen Verwaltungsverfahren, die von
Amts wegen eingeleitet werden (zum Beispiel Verwaltungsstrafverfahren), sondern auch bei jenen, die auf Antrag eingeleitet werden (zum Beispiel Antrag
auf Erteilung einer Baubewilligung).
B. Grundsatz der materiellen Wahrheit

Die Behrde hat den wahren, entscheidungsrelevanten Sachverhalt selbst
vollstndig zu ermitteln (vergleiche 37 AVG). Entscheidungsrelevante Tatsachen bzw Sachverhaltsannahmen knnen nicht durch die Parteien auer Streit gestellt werden.
C. Grundsatz des rechtlichen Gehrs

Den Parteien eines Verwaltungsverfahrens ist Gelegenheit zu geben, vom
Ergebnis der Beweisaufnahme Kenntnis und dazu Stellung zu nehmen ( 45
Abs 3 AVG). Dieser Grundsatz sichert der Partei die Verteidigung ihrer subjektiven Rechte.
D. Grundsatz der Offenheit des Beweismittelkatalogs

Art und Zahl der Beweismittel sind nicht begrenzt; vielmehr sind alle Beweismittel zugelassen, die zur Ermittlung des wahren Sachverhalts geeignet
sind: also Parteieneinvernahme, Urkunden, Zeugen, Sachverstndige, Lokalaugenschein, aber auch Bild- und Tontrger und anderes mehr.
385
, (. 383402)
E. Grundsatz der freien Beweiswrdigung

Es gibt keine gesetzlichen Beweisregeln (zum Beispiel welches Beweismittel hhere Beweiskraft gegenber einem bestimmten anderen besitzt). Vielmehr hat die Behrde unter sorgfltiger Bercksichtigung der Ergebnisse des
Ermittlungsverfahrens nach freier berzeugung zu beurteilen, ob eine Tatsache
als erwiesen anzunehmen ist oder nicht ( 45 Abs 2 AVG) es sei denn, es
handelt sich um solche Tatsachen, die bei der Behrde offenkundig sind oder
deren Vorliegen das Gesetz vermutet (in diesen Fllen ist ein Beweis nicht erforderlich, 45 Abs 1 AVG).
Allgemein ist das Verwaltungsverfahren durch eine relativ weitgehende
Einfachheit und Formfreiheit gekennzeichnet. Damit soll teilweise die
Verfahrenskonomie und teilweise das Interesse der Parteien gefrdert werden.
So ist zum Beispiel die Behrde nicht grundstzlich zur Durchfhrung einer
mndlichen Verhandlung verpflichtet ( 39 Abs 2 AVG). Ebenso wenig dazu,
die Beweisaufnahme selbst vorzunehmen; gem 55 Abs 1 AVG kann sich
die Behrde fr die Beweisaufnahme auch ersuchter oder beauftragter anderer
Verwaltungsbehrden (sogenannte mittelbare Beweisaufnahme) bedienen. Bei
den verfahrensleitenden Verfgungen hat sich die Behrde von Rcksichten
auf mglichste Zweckmigkeit, Raschheit, Einfachheit und Kostenersparnis
leiten zu lassen ( 39 Abs 2 AVG). Aus 39 Abs 2 AVG ergibt sich somit fr
das Verwaltungsverfahren der Grundsatz der arbitrren Ordnung, demzufolge
die Behrde den Gang des Ermittlungsverfahrens festzulegen hat.
Im Verwaltungsverfahren besteht kein Anwaltszwang (vergleiche 10
AVG).
IV. Das Allgemeine Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz
A. Zustndigkeit
Die Behrdenzustndigkeit wird teilweise nach sachlichen Kriterien
(Realsystem, sachliche Zustndigkeit) und teilweise nach rtlichen Kriterien
(Territorialsystem, rtliche Zustndigkeit) umschrieben. Gem 1 AVG richtet sich die sachliche und rtliche Zustndigkeit der Behrden nach den
Vorschriften ber ihren Wirkungsbereich und nach den Verwaltungsvorschriften (Materiengesetze, die auch die Zustndigkeit festlegen). Enthalten alle diese
Vorschriften ber die sachliche Zustndigkeit keine Bestimmungen, so sind
gem 2 AVG in den Angelegenheiten der Bundesverwaltung in erster Instanz die Bezirksverwaltungsbehrden sachlich zustndig.
Diese subsidire Zustndigkeitsregelung des AVG gilt nur fr die Bundes-,
nicht aber fr die Landesverwaltung, weil die Regelung der sachlichen
Zustndigkeit zum materiellen Verwaltungsrecht gehrt und der Bundesgeset386
, 1/2014
zgeber sich daher im Landesbereich nicht auf die Vereinheitlichungskompetenz

des Art 11 Abs 2 B-VG sttzen kann. Fr die Landesverwaltung sehen aber die
einschlgigen Organisationsnormen eine solche subsidire Kompetenzregelung
erste Instanz Bezirksverwaltungsbehrde vor.
3 AVG trifft Regelungen hinsichtlich der subsidiren rtlichen Zustndigkeit:
Diese bestimmt sich nach der Lage des Gutes bei unbeweglichen Sachen, nach dem
Ort einer Unternehmung bzw nach dem Wohnsitz der Beteiligten.
Durch Vereinbarung der Parteien kann die Zustndigkeit einer Behrde
weder begrndet noch gendert werden ( 6 Abs 2 AVG). Die Behrde hat ihre
sachliche und rtliche Zustndigkeit von Amts wegen wahrzunehmen; langen
bei der Behrde Schriftstcke (Anbringen) ein, zu deren Behandlung sie nicht
zustndig ist, so hat sie diese ohne unntigen Aufschub auf Gefahr dessen, der
sie einbringt (des Einschreiters), an die zustndige Stelle weiterzuleiten oder
den Einschreiter an diese zu weisen ( 6 Abs 1 AVG).
Ein positiver oder negativer Kompetenzkonflikt zwischen Verwaltungsbehrden ist von der sachlich in Betracht kommenden Oberbehrde zu
entscheiden ( 5 AVG). Besteht eine solche nicht (zum Beispiel zwischen einer
Bundes- und einer Landesbehrde), so ist im Rahmen des Art 138 B-VG der
Verfassungsgerichtshof zur Entscheidung zustndig.
Die Befangenheit von Verwaltungsorganen begrndet einen Verfahrensmangel, den das betroffene Organ von Amts wegen wahrzunehmen hat. Befangenheit liegt vor, wenn Verwaltungsorgane (dh Organwalter, Konzeptsbeamte oder auch Sachverstndige oder Dolmetscher) in Angelegenheiten
entscheiden bzw ttig werden sollen, an denen sie selbst oder einer ihrer
Angehrigen beteiligt sind; in solchen Angelegenheiten, in denen sie als
Bevollmchtigte einer Partei bestellt waren oder noch bestellt sind; in Berufungsverfahren dann, wenn sie an der Erlassung des angefochtenen Bescheides in
unterer Instanz oder der Berufungsvorentscheidung mitgewirkt haben; oder
wenn sonstige wichtige Grnde vorliegen, die geeignet sind, ihre volle Unbefangenheit in Zweifel zu ziehen ( 7 Abs 1 AVG).
Ein Recht auf Ablehnung eines Organwalters wegen Befangenheit steht
den Parteien nicht zu. Dolmetscher und nichtamtliche Sachverstndige knnen
allerdings von der Partei sowohl wegen Befangenheit als auch wegen mangelnder Fachkenntnisse abgelehnt werden ( 39a, 53 AVG).
B. Beteiligter, Partei
Personen, die eine Ttigkeit der Behrde in Anspruch nehmen oder auf
die sich die Ttigkeit der Behrde bezieht, sind Beteiligte und, insoweit sie an
der Sache vermge eines Rechtsanspruches oder eines rechtlichen Interesses beteiligt sind, Parteien. ( 8 AVG).
387
, (. 383402)
Demnach kommt Parteistellung nur demjenigen zu, der ein subjektives

Recht geltend machen kann, mit anderen Worten: dessen subjektive
Rechtssphre unmittelbar tangiert wird; inhaltlich kann es sich bei dieser subjektiven Rechtsstellung sowohl um Normen des materiellen Rechts als auch
um solche des Verfahrensrechts handeln.
Die Berhrung blo faktischer Interessen begrndet keine Parteistellung.
Daher lsst sich die Parteistellung nur von Fall zu Fall anhand der einschlgigen
Rechtsvorschriften (die ein subjektives Recht bzw rechtliches Interesse
einrumen oder nicht) feststellen.
Davon abgesehen, weisen manche Gesetze bestimmten Personen oder rechtlichen Einrichtungen Parteistellung expressis verbis zu. So haben zum Beispiel die betroffenen Organe der Universitten im aufsichtsbehrdlichen Verfahren Parteistellung ( 45 Abs 7 Universittsgesetz). Die die Parteistellung
einrumenden Normen legen auch fest, ob diese sog Formalparteien oder
Legalparteien alle oder nur einzelne der Parteirechte besitzen.
Wichtige verfahrensrechtliche Rechte sind den Parteien gem AVG vorbehalten: das Recht auf Akteneinsicht ( 17), auf Parteiengehr ( 37, 43 Abs
2 und Abs 3, 45 Abs 3), auf Ablehnung von nichtamtlichen Sachverstndigen
und Dolmetschern ( 39a Abs 1 und 53 Abs 1), auf Verkndung und Zustellung des Bescheides ( 62 Abs 2 und Abs 3), auf Erhebung der Berufung ( 63),
auf Antrag auf Wiederaufnahme des Verfahrens ( 69), auf Antrag auf Wiedereinsetzung in den vorherigen Stand ( 71) sowie auf Geltendmachung der
Entscheidungspflicht ( 73).
Im Unterschied zur Rechtsstellung der Partei ist die des Beteiligten dadurch gekennzeichnet, dass er ein blo tatschliches, aber kein rechtliches Interesse an der Sache besitzt. Beispiel: der Mieter im Abbruchsverfahren ber das
Mietobjekt. Dieses Beispiel zeigt zugleich, dass die Abgrenzung zwischen rechtlichem und faktischem Interesse und damit zwischen Parteistellung und Beteiligtenstellung im Einzelfall beraus schwierig sein kann. ber die Parteistellung
einer Person kann durch Bescheid gesondert abgesprochen werden.
Die (handlungsfhigen) Parteien und Beteiligten knnen sich, sofern nicht
ihr persnliches Erscheinen ausdrcklich gefordert wird, durch eigenberechtigte
Personen vertreten lassen. Die Vollmacht kann schriftlich, aber auch mndlich
vor der Behrde erteilt werden ( 10 Abs 1 AVG). Auerdem knnen sich die
Parteien und Beteiligten eines Rechtsbeistandes bedienen und auch in seiner Begleitung vor Amt erscheinen ( 10 Abs 5 AVG). Allerdings schliet die Bestellung eines Bevollmchtigten nicht aus, dass der Vollmachtgeber im eigenen Namen Erklrungen abgibt und selbst mit der Behrde in Kontakt tritt ( 10 Abs 6
AVG).
388
, 1/2014
C. Verkehr mit der Behrde

Sofern ein Gesetz nicht anderes (zum Beispiel Schriftform) verlangt,
knnen Anbringen jedweder Art bei der Behrde schriftlich, mndlich oder
telefonisch eingebracht werden. Rechtsmittel und fristgebundene Eingaben,
ferner solche, durch die der Lauf einer Frist bestimmt wird, sind allerdings
schriftlich einzubringen ( 13 Abs 1 AVG). Schriftliche Anbringen knnen der
Behrde in jeder technisch mglichen Form (auch email) bermittelt werden (
13 Abs 2 AVG). Bei Mngeln schriftlicher Anbringen (auch Fehlen einer Unterschrift) hat die Behrde deren Verbesserung von Amts wegen zu veranlassen
( 13 Abs 3 AVG). Mndliche Anbringen sind erforderlichenfalls von der
Behrde in einer Niederschrift festzuhalten ( 14 Abs 1 AVG). Diese erbringt
gem 15 AVG vollen Beweis.
Gem 13a AVG hat die Behrde Personen, die nicht durch
berufsmige Parteienvertreter vertreten sind, die zur Vornahme ihrer Verfahrenshandlungen ntigen Anleitungen in der Regel mndlich zu geben und sie
ber die mit diesen Handlungen oder Unterlassungen unmittelbar verbundenen
Rechtsfolgen zu belehren (Manuduktionspflicht).
Amtliche Wahrnehmungen, mndliche oder telefonische Anbringen oder
sonstige Mitteilungen an die Behrde, weiters mndliche oder telefonische Belehrungen, Aufforderungen und Anordnungen, und auch Umstnde, die nur fr
den inneren Dienst der Behrde in Betracht kommen, sind wenn nicht anderes
bestimmt und kein Anlass zur Aufnahme einer Niederschrift gegeben ist erforderlichenfalls in einem Aktenvermerk kurz festzuhalten ( 16 Abs 1 AVG).
Ein solcher Amtsvermerk ergeht ohne Unterschrift von Parteien und Beteiligten; sein Inhalt ist vom Amtswalter durch Beisetzung von Datum und Unterschrift zu besttigen ( 16 Abs 2 AVG).
17 AVG gewhrt allen Parteien, aber nur den Parteien, ein subjektives
Recht auf Akteneinsicht. Es steht allen Parteien im gleichen Umfang zu ( 17
Abs 2 AVG), das heit, dass selbst dann, wenn einer Partei rechtswidrigerweise
zuviel an Akteneinsicht gewhrt wurde, das gleiche erweiterte Recht auch den
brigen Parteien zusteht (hier wird ausnahmsweise Gleichheit im Unrecht zuerkannt!). Eine Verletzung dieses Rechts wrde einen Verfahrensmangel bedeuten. Das Recht auf Akteneinsicht erstreckt sich aber nicht auf Aktenbestandteile,
insoweit deren Einsichtnahme eine Schdigung berechtigter Interessen einer
Partei oder dritter Personen oder eine Gefhrdung der Aufgaben der Behrde
herbeifhren oder den Zweck des Verfahrens beeintrchtigen wrde ( 17 Abs 3
AVG). Ein eigenes Rechtsmittel gegen die Verweigerung der Akteneinsicht ist
nicht zulssig ( 17 Abs 4 AVG) sie muss mit dem in der Sache ergehenden
Bescheid bekmpft werden.
389
, (. 383402)
D. Ermittlungsverfahren
Zweck des Ermittlungsverfahrens ist nach 37 AVG, den fr die Erledigung einer Verwaltungssache magebenden Sachverhalt festzustellen sowie
den Parteien Gelegenheit zur Geltendmachung ihrer Rechte und rechtlichen Interessen zu geben (Parteiengehr).
Der Erlassung eines Bescheides hat im Regelfall ein Ermittlungsverfahren
vorauszugehen. Ein solches kann aber unterbleiben, wenn es sich um einen Ladungsbescheid gem 19 AVG handelt oder wenn der Sachverhalt von vornherein klar gegeben ist (zum Beispiel ein Antrag ist offenkundig unzulssig)
oder wenn es sich um ein sogenanntes Mandatsverfahren gem 57 AVG handelt ( 56 AVG).
Gem 57 Abs 1 AVG ist die Behrde berechtigt, einen Bescheid (Mandatsbescheid) auch ohne vorausgegangenes Ermittlungsverfahren zu erlassen,
wenn es sich um die Vorschreibung von Geldleistungen nach einem gesetzlich,
statutarisch oder tarifmig feststehenden Mastab oder bei Gefahr im Verzug
um unaufschiebbare Manahmen handelt.
Gegen einen Mandatsbescheid kann die Partei binnen zwei Wochen Vorstellung bei der bescheiderlassenden Behrde einbringen. Aufschiebende Wirkung hat die Vorstellung nur, wenn sie gegen die Vorschreibung einer Geldleistung gerichtet ist ( 57 Abs 2 AVG). Die Einbringung der Vorstellung bewirkt,
dass die Behrde innerhalb von zwei Wochen nach Einlangen der Vorstellung
das Ermittlungsverfahren einzuleiten hat; widrigenfalls tritt der angefochtene
Bescheid von Gesetzes wegen auer Kraft. Auf Verlangen der Partei ist dieses
Auerkrafttreten schriftlich zu besttigen ( 57 Abs 3 AVG).
Mndliche Verhandlungen ( 40-44 AVG) sind nicht allgemein zwingend vorgesehen, sondern nur dann, wenn diese eine Verwaltungsvorschrift verlangt (dies tun etwa manche Bauordnungen der Lnder). Im brigen hat die
verfahrensleitende Behrde nach den Gesichtspunkten der Zweckmigkeit,
Einfachheit, Raschheit und Kostenersparnis gem 39 Abs 2 AVG ber die
Durchfhrung einer mndlichen Verhandlung zu entscheiden. Die mndliche
Verhandlung ist ffentlich im Sinne von Parteienffentlichkeit.
An der mndlichen Verhandlung nehmen teil: die Parteien; sonstige Beteiligte; deren gesetzliche oder bevollmchtigte Vertreter und Rechtsbeistnde;
Zeugen und Sachverstndige, sofern ihre Anwesenheit erforderlich ist. Die Anberaumung einer mndlichen Verhandlung hat durch persnliche
Verstndigung der bekannten Beteiligten (das sind jene, die die Behrde kennen msste, zum Beispiel die Nachbarn des Antragstellers) zu erfolgen und
berdies, wenn noch andere Personen als Beteiligte in Betracht kommen, noch
durch Anschlag in der Gemeinde des Verhandlungsortes (Amtstafel), durch
Verlautbarung in der fr amtliche Kundmachungen der Behrde bestimmten
390
, 1/2014
Zeitung oder durch Verlautbarung im elektronischen Amtsblatt der Behrde (

41 Abs 1 AVG).
Die Anberaumung einer mndlichen Verhandlung ist fr das Recht, gegen
das Vorhaben oder die Manahme, die den Gegenstand der Verhandlung bilden,
Einwendungen zu erheben, von Bedeutung: Wer nmlich nicht sptestens
am Tag vor Beginn der Verhandlung oder whrend der Verhandlung Einwendungen vorgebracht hat, wird als zustimmend angesehen. Seine Einwendungen
finden keine Bercksichtigung; er ist prkludiert ( 42 Abs 1 AVG).
Die Prklusionswirkung kann allerdings nur eintreten, wenn die mndliche
Verhandlung durch Anschlag in der Gemeinde oder durch Verlautbarung in der
fr amtliche Kundmachungen der Behrde bestimmten Zeitung oder durch Verlautbarung im elektronischen Amtsblatt der Behrde sowie in einer im jeweiligen Materiengesetz allenfalls vorgesehenen besonderen Form, in Ermangelung
einer solchen Regelung in geeigneter Form, kundgemacht wurde (doppelte
Kundmachung) und in der Kundmachung ausdrcklich auf diese Rechtsfolgen
des 42 AVG hingewiesen worden ist. Die Prklusion schneidet das Einwendungsrecht auch fr das Berufungsverfahren ab.
43 AVG enthlt nhere Bestimmungen ber die Durchfhrung der
mndlichen Verhandlung und die Aufgaben des Verhandlungsleiters. Wegen
der Verpflichtung zur Erforschung der materiellen Wahrheit ist die Behrde in
der Gestaltung des Ermittlungsverfahrens keineswegs in jeder Hinsicht frei; so
wrde zum Beispiel die Unterlassung einer Zeugeneinvernahme, von der eine
wesentliche Aufhellung des Sachverhalts zu erwarten ist, oder das Unterlassen
der Einholung einer notwendigen Sachverstndigenexpertise einen Verfahrensmangel, der zur Aufhebung des Bescheides fhren kann, bedeuten. Besonderes
Gewicht legen sowohl der VwGH als auch das Gesetz ( 43 Abs 3 AVG) auf
die Einhaltung des Parteiengehrs.
Nheres ber die Beweise regeln die 45-55 AVG. Fr sog Groverfahren
(voraussichtlich mehr als hundert Beteiligte) gelten verfahrenserleichternde Bestimmungen, zum Beispiel bezglich der Kundmachung der mndlichen Verhandlung
oder der Zustellung von Schriftstcken (vergleiche 44a-44g AVG).
E. Erledigung des Verfahrens

Gem 18 Abs 1 AVG hat die Behrde die Sache mglichst
zweckmig, rasch, einfach und kostensparend zu erledigen (also etwa auch
durch kurze mndliche oder telefonische Auskunft) und den wesentlichen Inhalt
der Amtshandlung erforderlichenfalls in einer Niederschrift oder einem Aktenvermerk festzuhalten. Erledigungen haben aber jedenfalls schriftlich zu ergehen,
wenn dies in den Verwaltungsvorschriften ausdrcklich angeordnet ist oder von
der Partei verlangt wird ( 18 Abs 2 AVG).
391
, (. 383402)
Abgesehen von diesen Mglichkeiten formloser Erledigungen von Verwaltungssachen knnen Verfahren durch bloe Erfllung des Antrages ohne
Bescheiderlassung (zum Beispiel Ausstellung eines Reisepasses oder eines
Fhrerscheines) enden. In diesen Fllen ist die Erlassung eines Bescheides nur
im Falle der Abweisung des Antrages erforderlich.
Eine Verwaltungssache kann weiters durch Einstellung (das heit Beendigung des Verfahrens ohne Erlassung eines nach auen kundzumachenden Aktes) endigen: Eine Einstellung kommt bei einem antragsbedrftigen Verfahren
in Betracht, wenn die Partei den Antrag zurckzieht oder stirbt (und eine
Rechtsnachfolge nicht in Betracht kommt); bei einem von Amts wegen eingeleiteten Verfahren kann es zur Einstellung kommen, wenn der rechtliche Grund fr
das behrdliche Ttigwerden weggefallen und klar ist, dass niemand einen Anspruch auf Erlassung eines Bescheides hat. In den Fllen der Einstellung ist diese in einem Aktenvermerk behrdenintern festzuhalten.
Die regelmige Erledigungsform einer Verwaltungssache ist jedoch die
Erlassung eines Bescheides. Je nachdem, ob der Bescheid eine Sachentscheidung enthlt oder eine verfahrensrechtliche Entscheidung, spricht man von materiellrechtlichem oder von verfahrensrechtlichem Bescheid. Vom verfahrensrechtlichen Bescheid zu unterscheiden ist die bloe Verfahrensanordnung
ohne Bescheidcharakter. Diese ist nicht durch ein eigenes Rechtsmittel
bekmpfbar, sondern nur in der Berufung gegen den die Sache selbst erledigenden Bescheid anfechtbar.
Dem Inhalt nach kann man die Bescheide auerdem unterteilen in Leistungsbescheide (jemand wird zur Erbringung einer bestimmten Leistung oder
zur Herstellung eines bestimmten Zustandes verpflichtet; allein diese sind
vollstreckbar), Rechtsgestaltungsbescheide (es wird ein Rechtsverhltnis begrndet, gendert oder aufgehoben, wie zum Beispiel die Erteilung einer Baubewilligung) und Feststellungsbescheide (es wird der Bestand oder Nichtbestand
von Rechten oder Rechtsverhltnissen festgestellt). Mangels einer allgemeinen
Ermchtigung zur Erlassung von Feststellungsbescheiden nimmt die Judikatur
der Gerichtshfe des ffentlichen Rechts die Zulssigkeit an, sofern ein solcher
Bescheid entweder gesetzlich vorgesehen oder die Feststellung im ffentlichen
Interesse oder im rechtlichen Interesse einer Partei gelegen ist.
Dem verfassungsrechtlichen Legalittsprinzip (Art 18 Abs 1 B-VG) zufolge muss jeder Bescheid im Gesetz gedeckt sein. Fr die Rechtmigkeit des
Bescheidinhaltes ist dabei die Rechtslage zum Zeitpunkt der Entscheidung der
Behrde (auch einer Rechtsmittelbehrde) ausschlaggebend. nderungen der
Rechtslage sind auch dann zu bercksichtigen, wenn sie erst whrend des laufenden Verfahrens eingetreten sind, es sei denn, die bergangsbestimmungen
der betreffenden gesetzlichen Regelung ordneten etwas anderes an.
392
, 1/2014
Nebenbestimmungen sind in einem Bescheid nur dann zulssig, wenn sie

im Gesetz vorgesehen sind. Es kann sich dabei um eine der stattgebenden Erledigung beigefgte Bedingung, Auflage, Befristung oder den Vorbehalt des Widerrufs handeln.
Als erlassen und damit rechtlich existent gilt ein Bescheid erst damit,
dass er dem Adressaten zugestellt oder verkndet worden ist. Bescheide sind an
alle Personen zu erlassen, denen gegenber der Bescheid Rechtswirksamkeit erlangen soll.
Wenn nicht gesetzlich anderes vorgesehen ist, kann die Erlassung des
Bescheides schriftlich oder mndlich erfolgen ( 62 Abs 1 AVG). Gem
62 Abs 2 AVG ist der Inhalt und die Verkndung eines mndlichen Bescheides,
wenn die Verkndung bei einer mndlichen Verhandlung erfolgt, am Schluss
der Verhandlungsschrift, sonst in einer besonderen Niederschrift zu beurkunden. Eine schriftliche Ausfertigung eines mndlich verkndeten Bescheides
muss jedenfalls den bei der Verkndung nicht anwesenden und jenen Parteien
zugestellt werden, die dies sptestens drei Tage nach der Verkndung verlangen. ber dieses Recht ist die Partei bei Verkndung des mndlichen Bescheides zu belehren ( 62 Abs 3 AVG).
Schreib- und Rechenfehler oder diesen gleichzuhaltende, offenbar auf einem Versehen oder offenbar ausschlielich auf technisch mangelhaftem Betrieb
einer automationsuntersttzten Datenverarbeitungsanlage beruhende Unrichtigkeiten in Bescheiden kann die Behrde jederzeit von Amts wegen berichtigen
( 62 Abs 4 AVG). Die Berichtigung hat immer durch Bescheid zu erfolgen.
Sowohl der berichtigte als auch der berichtigende Bescheid sind anfechtbar.
Die Elemente des Bescheides werden in den 58-61 AVG nher festgelegt; erforderlich sind:
- die ausdrckliche Bezeichnung als Bescheid; allerdings ist der Akt auch
ohne ausdrckliche Bezeichnung als Bescheid als solcher zu qualifizieren,
wenn der Spruch eine hoheitliche, also verwaltungsbehrdliche, verbindliche,
rechtsgestaltende oder rechtsfeststellende Entscheidung erkennen lsst;
- die Bezeichnung der bescheiderlassenden Behrde; geht diese aus dem
Bescheid nicht hervor, so ist er nicht existent;
- der Spruch: Der Spruch hat die in Verhandlung stehende Angelegenheit
und alle die Hauptfrage betreffenden Parteienantrge, ferner die allfllige Kostenfrage in mglichst gedrngter, deutlicher Fassung und unter Anfhrung der
angewendeten Gesetzesbestimmungen, und zwar in der Regel zur Gnze, zu erledigen. Mit Erledigung des verfahrenseinleitenden Antrages gelten Einwendungen als miterledigt. Lsst der Gegenstand der Verhandlung eine Trennung nach
mehreren Punkten zu, so kann, wenn dies zweckmig erscheint, ber jeden
dieser Punkte, sobald er spruchreif ist, gesondert abgesprochen werden ( 59
393
, (. 383402)
Abs 1 AVG). In den Spruch sind auch allfllige Nebenbestimmungen aufzunehmen; bei Leistungsbescheiden ist auch eine angemessene Frist zur Ausfhrung
der Leistung oder Herstellung des geforderten Zustandes zu bestimmen ( 59
Abs 2 AVG). Gem 64 Abs 2 AVG kann der Spruch auch eine Entscheidung
ber den Ausschluss der aufschiebenden Wirkung einer Berufung enthalten (das
ist als eigener verfahrensrechtlicher Bescheid zu werten und fr sich allein anfechtbar);
- die Begrndung; gem 58 Abs 2 AVG sind Bescheide zu begrnden,
wenn dem Standpunkt der Partei nicht vollinhaltlich Rechnung getragen oder
ber Einwendungen oder Antrge von Beteiligten abgesprochen wird. Bescheide von Berufungsbehrden sind immer zu begrnden ( 67 AVG).
In der Begrndung sind die Ergebnisse des Ermittlungsverfahrens, die bei
der Beweiswrdigung magebenden Erwgungen und die darauf gesttzte
Beurteilung der Rechtsfrage klar und bersichtlich zusammenzufassen ( 60
AVG). Daraus geht hervor, dass in der Begrndung der magebliche Sachverhalt, die wesentlichen Parteivorbringen, die aufgenommenen Beweise und die
Grnde fr die Beweiswrdigung anzufhren sind. Sollten Vorfragen aufgetreten sein, so sind in der Begrndung deren Beurteilung und die hierfr mageblichen Gesichtspunkte anzugeben. Ermessensbescheide mssen die Ermessensbung im Sinne des Gesetzes erkennen lassen. Ein Bescheid, der keine
Begrndung enthlt oder blo eine Scheinbegrndung, ist rechtswidrig.
Rechtswidrigkeit liegt aber nach (umstrittener) Judikatur des VwGH nicht vor,
wenn sich in der Begrndung ein Fehler findet, whrend der Spruch an sich
rechtmig ist.
- die Rechtsmittelbelehrung; diese hat anzugeben, ob der Bescheid noch
einem weiteren Rechtszug unterliegt oder nicht und bejahendenfalls, innerhalb
welcher Frist und bei welcher Behrde das Rechtsmittel einzubringen ist. Es
muss auch darauf hingewiesen werden, dass ein begrndeter Rechtsmittelantrag erforderlich ist ( 61 AVG).
Enthlt ein Bescheid keine Rechtsmittelbelehrung oder flschlich die
Erklrung, dass kein Rechtsmittel zulssig sei, oder ist keine oder eine krzere
als die gesetzliche Rechtsmittelfrist angegeben, so gilt das Rechtsmittel als rechtzeitig eingebracht, wenn es innerhalb der gesetzlichen Frist eingebracht wurde
( 61 Abs 2 AVG); siehe zu weiteren Fehlern der Rechtsmittelbelehrung 61
Abs 3 und 4 AVG.
- Unterschrift und Datum; gem 18 Abs 3 AVG sind alle schriftlichen
Erledigungen vom Genehmigungsberechtigten mit seiner Unterschrift zu genehmigen; an die Stelle dieser Unterschrift kann auch eine elektronische Signatur
treten. Gem 18 Abs 4 AVG mssen alle schriftlichen Ausfertigungen der
Behrde ferner datiert sein.
394
, 1/2014
Wirkungen entfaltet der Bescheid nur gegenber denjenigen Adressaten,

denen gegenber er tatschlich erlassen (mndlich verkndet oder zugestellt)
worden ist. Wurde er nur einigen Parteien zugestellt, so entfaltet er fr die brigen Parteien keinerlei Rechtswirkung. In gewissen Fllen sehen Gesetze eine
sogenannte dingliche Wirkung eines Bescheides vor, das heit eine Wirkung
auch gegenber dem Rechtsnachfolger bzw gegenber Dritten, wie zum Beispiel bei Baubescheiden aufgrund der Bauordnungen (das sind Landesgesetze).
Grundstzlich entfaltet nur der Spruch als das normative Element des Bescheides Rechtswirkungen.
Bescheide werden rechtskrftig. Dabei ist die formelle Rechtskraft von
der materiellen Rechtskraft zu unterscheiden. Die formelle Rechtskraft (Unanfechtbarkeit des Bescheides durch ordentliche Rechtsmittel) tritt ein:
- mit Rechtsmittelverzicht;
- mit der Zurcknahme eines bereits eingebrachten Rechtsmittels;
- mit ungenutztem Verstreichen der Rechtsmittelfrist;
- mit Erlassung des letztinstanzlichen Bescheides.
Die materielle Rechtskraft bezeichnet die Unabnderlichkeit des
Bescheides. Danach kann in ein und derselben durch Bescheid erledigten Sache
nicht ein neuerlicher Bescheid ergehen, jedenfalls solange der ursprngliche
Bescheid aufrecht ist. Prinzipiell knpft die materielle Rechtskraft an die formelle Rechtskraft an. Allerdings ist bereits mit Erlassung des Bescheides (auch
wenn noch Rechtsmittel offenstehen) der bescheiderlassenden Behrde das
Recht genommen, diesen zu widerrufen oder abzundern; ausgenommen sind
jedoch die Flle des 68 AVG, von denen die Behrde jedoch erst nach Eintritt
der formellen Rechtskraft Gebrauch machen darf. Die materielle Rechtskraft
wird also durch die Mglichkeiten gem 68 AVG durchbrochen; weitere
Mglichkeiten erffnen sich in der Wiederaufnahme des Verfahrens und in der
Wiedereinsetzung in den vorigen Stand.
Von der Rechtskraft ist die Vollstreckbarkeit zu unterscheiden. Vollstreckbar (und zwar mit den Mitteln des Exekutionsrechts) sind nur Leistungsbescheide; dies ab dem im Leistungsbescheid angegebenen Zeitpunkt und unter der grundstzlichen Voraussetzung des Vorliegens der formellen
Rechtskraft. Ist allerdings nach 64 Abs 2 AVG die aufschiebende Wirkung
der Berufung ausgeschlossen worden, tritt Vollstreckbarkeit schon vor Eintritt
der formellen Rechtskraft mit dem angeordneten Leistungsdatum ein.
F. Rechtsschutz
1. Berufung
Die Berufung ist das ordentliche Rechtsmittel gegen Bescheide. Ordentlich besagt hier, dass die Einbringung des Rechtsmittels nicht an besondere
Voraussetzungen des Einzelfalles gebunden ist.
395
, (. 383402)
Das Rechtsmittel der Berufung hat seit 1.1.2014 weitestgehend an Bedeutung verloren. Sie kommt nur mehr gegen erstinstanzliche Bescheide in Angelegenheiten des eigenen Wirkungsbereiches der Gemeinde zum Tragen (vergleiche Art 118 Abs 4 B-VG). Mit dieser Ausnahme ist an die Stelle der Berufung an
die instanzenmig bergeordnete Verwaltungsbehrde die Beschwerde an das
(jeweils zustndige) Verwaltungsgericht getreten.
Die Berufung kann nur von einer Partei erhoben werden, an die der
Bescheid ergangen ist. Die Berufung ist immer bei der Behrde einzubringen,
die den Bescheid in erster Instanz erlassen hat. Die Berufungsfrist betrgt zwei
Wochen ab Verkndung oder Zustellung des Bescheides ( 63 Abs 5 AVG).
Die Berufung muss sptestens am letzten Tag dieser Frist bei der Behrde eingebracht oder wenigstens zur Post gegeben worden sein. Die Berufungsfrist ist
nicht erstreckbar. Versptet eingebrachte Berufungen sind bescheidmig wegen Unzulssigkeit zurckzuweisen ( 64a Abs 1, 66 Abs 4 AVG).
Gem 63 Abs 3 AVG hat die Berufung den Bescheid zu bezeichnen,
gegen den sie sich richtet und einen begrndeten Berufungsantrag zu enthalten.
Mngel einer Berufung zum Beispiel es fehlt der Berufungsantrag (also was
die Partei mit der Berufung eigentlich erreichen will, zum Beispiel Abnderung
des Bescheides in bestimmter Richtung oder Aufhebung) oder eine Begrndung
ermchtigen die Behrde nicht zur Zurckweisung; vielmehr ist dem Berufungswerber ein Verbesserungsauftrag zu erteilen ( 13 Abs 5 AVG).
In der Berufung knnen auch neue (das heit im Verfahren erster Instanz
nicht relevierte) Tatsachen oder Beweise vorgebracht werden, das heit es besteht kein Neuerungsverbot ( 65 AVG). Berufung kann weiters erhoben werden sowohl wegen Verletzung materieller Rechte (betreffend den Verfahrensgegenstand) als auch wegen Verletzung von Verfahrensrechten (zum Beispiel Nichtzulassung als Partei).
Im Berufungsverfahren besteht kein Anwaltszwang, vielmehr kann die
Berufung von der Partei selbst oder ihrem bevollmchtigten Vertreter eingebracht werden.
Nach Zustellung oder Verkndung des Bescheides ist ein Verzicht auf die
Berufung mglich ( 63 Abs 4 AVG), es kann aber auch eine bereits eingebrachte Berufung zurckgezogen werden; sowohl Berufungsverzicht als auch Berufungszurckziehung sind unwiderruflich.
Die Berufung hat im Regelfall Suspensiv- und Devolutiveffekt: Gem
64 Abs 1 AVG haben rechtzeitig eingebrachte Berufungen aufschiebende Wirkung. Gem 64 Abs 2 AVG kann aber die Behrde diese aufschiebende
Wirkung ausschlieen, wenn die vorzeitige Vollstreckung im Interesse einer
Partei oder des ffentlichen Wohles wegen Gefahr im Verzug dringend geboten
ist. Ein solcher Ausspruch ist tunlichst schon in den ber die Hauptsache ergehenden Bescheid aufzunehmen.
396
, 1/2014
Devolutiveffekt bedeutet, dass das Rechtsmittel der Berufung die

Zustndigkeit an die im Instanzenzug bergeordnete Behrde bergehen lsst.
Allerdings hat die Behrde, welche den angefochtenen Bescheid erlassen hat,
die Mglichkeit einer sog Berufungsvorentscheidung: Sie kann gem 64a
Abs 1 B-VG ber die Berufung binnen zwei Monaten nach deren Einlangen
selbst entscheiden; hierbei kann sie die Berufung als unzulssig oder versptet
zurckweisen, den Bescheid aufheben oder nach jeder Richtung abndern.
Die Berufungsvorentscheidung ist allen Parteien zuzustellen. Gem 64a
Abs 2 AVG kann jede Partei binnen zwei Wochen nach Zustellung bei der
Behrde den Antrag stellen, dass die Berufung der Berufungsbehrde zur
Entscheidung vorgelegt wird (Vorlageantrag). Mit Einlangen eines solchen
Vorlageantrages tritt die Berufungsvorentscheidung ex lege auer Kraft ( 64a
Abs 3 AVG).
Ist keine Berufungsvorentscheidung erfolgt oder wurde gegen eine solche
ein Vorlageantrag eingebracht, hat die im verwaltungsbehrdlichen Instanzenzug bergeordnete Behrde (Berufungsbehrde) ber die Berufung zu entscheiden. Eine unzulssige oder versptete Berufung ist von ihr zurckzuweisen (
66 Abs 4 AVG). Im brigen kann die Berufungsbehrde notwendige
Ergnzungen des Ermittlungsverfahrens entweder selbst vornehmen oder durch
die untergeordnete Behrde durchfhren lassen ( 66 Abs 1 AVG). Ist allerdings der der Berufungsbehrde vorliegende Sachverhalt so mangelhaft, dass
die Durchfhrung oder Wiederholung einer mndlichen Verhandlung unvermeidlich erscheint, so kann die Berufungsbehrde den angefochtenen Bescheid beheben und die Angelegenheit zur neuerlichen Verhandlung und Erlassung eines
neuen Bescheides an die untergeordnete Behrde zurckverweisen ( 66 Abs 2
AVG).
In allen anderen Fllen hat die Berufungsbehrde in der Sache selbst zu
entscheiden. Je nach Sachlage kann sie der Berufung stattgeben oder diese als
unbegrndet abweisen. Bei einer stattgebenden Entscheidung wird der Spruch
des Bescheides entsprechend abgendert (zum Beispiel Erteilung der Baubewilligung statt Abweisung des Baubewilligungsansuchens) oder der angefochtene
Bescheid wird ersatzlos aufgehoben (zum Beispiel wenn die erstinstanzliche
Behrde unzustndig war). Gem 66 Abs 4 AVG ist die Berufungsbehrde
berechtigt, sowohl im Spruch als auch hinsichtlich der Begrndung wie auch
bezglich einer allflligen Ermessensausbung ihre Anschauung an die Stelle
jener der Unterbehrde zu setzen und demgem den angefochtenen Bescheid
nach jeder Richtung abzundern. Die Entscheidung der Berufungsbehrde kann
also fr den Berufungswerber ungnstiger sein als der angefochtene Bescheid
(kein Verbot der reformatio in peius!).
397
, (. 383402)
2. Wiederaufnahme des Verfahrens

Bei der Regelung der Bestandskraft der Bescheide strebt die Rechtsordnung einen Ausgleich an zwischen dem Gut der Rechtssicherheit einerseits und
dem der inhaltlichen Richtigkeit der Entscheidung andererseits. Dem entspricht es, dass rechtskrftige Bescheide inhaltlich unabnderlich sind, auch
wenn sie dem objektiven Recht widersprechen; dass aber andererseits in bestimmten, besonders schwerwiegenden Fllen eine nachtrgliche Korrektur auch
rechtskrftiger Bescheide mglich ist, sei es, um besonders gravierende Fehler
zu beseitigen (Wiederaufnahme des Verfahrens), sei es, um unterlassene Verfahrensschritte nachzuholen (Wiedereinsetzung in den vorigen Stand), oder sei es
schlielich, um gravierenden faktischen Interessen der ffentlichkeit entsprechen zu knnen (die Flle des 68 Abs 2-4 AVG).
Gem 69 Abs 1 AVG ist dem Antrag einer Partei auf Wiederaufnahme eines durch Bescheid abgeschlossenen Verfahrens stattzugeben, wenn ein
Rechtsmittel gegen den Bescheid nicht oder nicht mehr zulssig ist und berdies:
a) der Bescheid durch Flschung einer Urkunde, falsches Zeugnis oder eine andere gerichtlich strafbare Handlung herbeigefhrt oder sonstwie erschlichen worden ist, oder
b) neue Tatsachen oder Beweismittel hervorkommen, die im Verfahren ohne Verschulden der Partei nicht geltend gemacht werden konnten und allein
oder in Verbindung mit dem sonstigen Ergebnis des Verfahrens voraussichtlich
einen im Hauptinhalt des Spruchs anders lautenden Bescheid herbeigefhrt
htten, oder
c) der Bescheid von Vorfragen abhngig war und nachtrglich ber eine
solche Vorfrage von der hierzu zustndigen Behrde (Gericht) in wesentlichen
Punkten anders entschieden wurde, oder
d) nachtrglich ein Bescheid oder eine gerichtliche Entscheidung bekannt
wird, der bzw die einer Aufhebung oder Abnderung auf Antrag einer Partei
nicht unterliegt und die im Verfahren die Einwendung der entschiedenen Sache
begrndet htte.
Der Antrag auf Wiederaufnahme ist von der Partei binnen zwei Wochen
von dem Zeitpunkt an, in dem der Antragsteller nachweislich von dem Wiederaufnahmegrund Kenntnis erlangt hat, aber sptestens innerhalb von drei Jahren
nach der Zustellung oder mndlichen Verkndung des Bescheides bei der
Behrde einzubringen, die den Bescheid in erster Instanz erlassen hat ( 69 Abs
2 AVG). Aus denselben Grnden kann auch von Amts wegen die Wiederaufnahme eines Verfahrens angeordnet werden. Sind allerdings bereits drei Jahre
seit Erlassung des Bescheides verstrichen, so kann die amtswegige Wiederaufnahme nur aus den erstgenannten Grnden (Flschung einer Urkunde, falsches
398
, 1/2014
Zeugnis oder sonstige gerichtlich strafbare Handlung oder sonstwie erschlichen)

stattfinden ( 69 Abs 3 AVG).
Die Entscheidung ber die Wiederaufnahme steht der Behrde zu, die
den Bescheid in letzter Instanz erlassen hat ( 69 Abs 4 AVG). In dem die Wiederaufnahme bewilligenden oder verfgenden Bescheid ist, sofern nicht schon
auf Grund der vorliegenden Akten ein neuer Bescheid erlassen werden kann,
auszusprechen, inwieweit und in welcher Instanz das Verfahren wieder aufzunehmen ist ( 70 Abs 1 AVG). Soweit die Wiederaufnahme bewilligt oder
verfgt wird, ist das Verfahren ber die Angelegenheit, die den Gegenstand des
ursprnglichen Bescheides ausgemacht hat, neu durchzufhren. Auch im Falle
einer Wiederaufnahme ist eine sog reformatio in peius zulssig.
3. Wiedereinsetzung in den vorigen Stand
Gem 71 Abs 1 AVG ist gegen die Versumung einer Frist oder einer
mndlichen Verhandlung auf Antrag der Partei, die durch die Versumung einen Rechtsnachteil erleidet, die Wiedereinsetzung in den vorigen Stand zu bewilligen, wenn:
a) die Partei glaubhaft macht, dass sie durch ein unvorhergesehenes oder
unabwendbares Ereignis ohne ihr Verschulden verhindert war, die Frist einzuhalten oder zur Verhandlung zu erscheinen, oder
b) die Partei die Berufungsfrist versumt hat, weil der Bescheid keine
Rechtsmittelbelehrung, keine Rechtsmittelfrist oder flschlich die Angabe
enthlt, dass keine Berufung zulssig sei.
Der Antrag auf Wiedereinsetzung muss binnen zwei Wochen nach dem
Wegfall des Hindernisses oder nach dem Zeitpunkt, in dem die Partei von der
Zulssigkeit der Berufung Kenntnis erlangt hat, gestellt werden ( 71 Abs 2
AVG). Gem 71 Abs 4 AVG ist zur Entscheidung ber den Antrag auf
Wiedereinsetzung die Behrde berufen, bei der die versumte Handlung vorzunehmen war oder die die versumte Verhandlung angeordnet oder die unrichtige
Rechtsmittelbelehrung erteilt hat. ber den Wiedereinsetzungsantrag muss in
Bescheidform entschieden werden.
Durch die Bewilligung der Wiedereinsetzung tritt das Verfahren in die
Lage zurck, in der es sich vor dem Eintritt der Versumung befunden hat (
72 Abs 1 AVG). Durch den Antrag auf Wiedereinsetzung gegen die
Versumung der mndlichen Verhandlung wird aber die Frist zur Anfechtung
des infolge der Versumung erlassenen Bescheides (die Berufungsfrist) nicht
verlngert! Hat die Partei Wiedereinsetzung gegen die Versumung der Verhandlung beantragt und gegen den Bescheid Berufung eingelegt, so ist zuerst ber
die Wiedereinsetzung zu entscheiden ( 72 Abs 2 und 3 AVG).
399
, (. 383402)
4. Geltendmachung der Entscheidungspflicht

73 AVG rumt der Partei einen Schutz gegen pflichtwidrige und schuldhafte Sumnis der Behrde ein. Gem 73 Abs 1 AVG sind die Behrden verpflichtet, wenn in den Verwaltungsvorschriften nicht anderes bestimmt ist, ber
Antrge von Parteien und Berufungen ohne unntigen Aufschub, sptestens
aber sechs Monate nach deren Einlangen den Bescheid zu erlassen. Wird der
Partei innerhalb dieser sechs Monate der Bescheid nicht zugestellt, so geht auf
ihr schriftliches Verlangen (sogenannter Devolutionsantrag) die Zustndigkeit
zur Entscheidung auf die Berufungsbehrde ber. Ein Devolutionsantrag ist
unmittelbar bei der Berufungsbehrde einzubringen. Er ist abzuweisen, wenn
die Verzgerung nicht auf ein berwiegendes Verschulden der Behrde
zurckzufhren ist ( 73 Abs 2 AVG).
Ist also die Sumnis mindestens gleichgewichtig auch im Verschulden der
Partei oder in unabwendbaren Ereignissen oder in der besonderen Lage des Falles, die eine raschere Behandlung nicht zulsst, begrndet, so ist der Devolutionsantrag abzuweisen. Stellt hingegen die Berufungsbehrde die berwiegende Schuld der Behrde an der Sumnis fest, so geht das Verfahren auf jene
Behrde ber. Es hat dann die Berufungsbehrde selbst in der Sache zu
entscheiden, das heit anstelle der sumigen Unterbehrde den Bescheid zu erlassen.
Das dargestellte System des Sumnisschutzes hat seit 1.1.2014 weitestgehend seinen Anwendungsbereich verloren. An seine Stelle ist die Sumnisbeschwerde an das (jeweils zustndige) Verwaltungsgericht getreten.
G. nderung und Aufhebung von Bescheiden von Amts wegen

Grundstzlich sind Bescheide, die keiner Anfechtung durch die Partei mehr unterliegen, auch fr die Behrde unabnderlich (vergleiche 68 Abs 1
AVG).
ndern sich nach Eintritt der Rechtskraft eines Bescheides jene Sach- oder
Rechtsgrundlagen, die seinem Inhalt wesentlich zugrunde liegen, so kann ohne
Verletzung des Grundsatzes der materiellen Rechtskraft (ne bis in idem) ein
neuer Bescheid ergehen; es handelt sich nicht mehr um ein und dieselbe Sache.
68 Abs 2-4 AVG sieht eine Abnderung oder Behebung von Bescheiden
auch bei gleich bleibender Rechtslage, aber aus gravierenden faktischen
Grnden vor. Dies ist ein amtswegiger Vorgang; auf die Ausbung dieses
Abnderungs- und Behebungsrechts der Behrde steht niemandem ein Anspruch zu ( 68 Abs 7 AVG).
Bescheide, aus denen niemandem ein Recht erwachsen ist (das heit
solche, die nur belastend sind), knnen von Amts wegen sowohl von der
Behrde, die den Bescheid erlassen hat, als auch in Ausbung des Aufsichtsrec400
, 1/2014
htes von der sachlich in Betracht kommenden Oberbehrde aufgehoben oder

abgendert werden ( 68 Abs 2 AVG). Die Aufhebung oder Abnderung wirkt
in diesen Fllen ex nunc. Nach der Judikatur des VwGH kommt es dabei nicht
auf die belastende oder begnstigende Wirkung des Bescheides an, sondern auf
die belastende oder begnstigende Wirkung der Abnderung; begnstigende
Abnderungen sind zulssig, belastende nicht.
Andere Bescheide kann in Wahrung des ffentlichen Wohles die Behrde,
die den Bescheid in letzter Instanz erlassen hat, oder die sachlich in Betracht
kommende Oberbehrde insoweit abndern, als dies zur Beseitigung von das
Leben oder die Gesundheit von Menschen gefhrdenden Missstnden oder zur
Abwehr schwerer volkswirtschaftlicher Schdigungen notwendig und unvermeidlich ist. In allen diesen Fllen hat die Behrde mit mglichster Schonung
erworbener Rechte vorzugehen ( 68 Abs 3 AVG).
Aus dieser Bestimmung wird nicht nur die Befugnis zur Abnderung,
sondern auch zur Aufhebung des Bescheides abgeleitet. Diese Manahme hat
wiederum in Bescheidform zu ergehen und wirkt ex nunc. Gegen diesen
Bescheid kann Berufung eingebracht werden, sofern er nicht von einer Behrde
ergangen ist, gegen die ein Instanzenzug nicht mehr offensteht.
Die sachlich in Betracht kommende Oberbehrde kann auerdem Bescheide von Amts wegen in Ausbung des Aufsichtsrechts als nichtig erklren,
wenn der Bescheid
a) von einer unzustndigen Behrde oder von einer nicht richtig zusammengesetzten Kollegialbehrde erlassen wurde;
b) einen strafgesetzwidrigen Erfolg herbeifhren wrde;
c) tatschlich undurchfhrbar ist oder
d) an einem durch gesetzliche Vorschrift ausdrcklich mit Nichtigkeit bedrohten Fehler leidet.
Die Nichtigerklrung gem 68 Abs 4 AVG hat in Bescheidform zu erfolgen. Sie wirkt nach der Judikatur ebenfalls ex nunc.
401
, (. 383402)
,

, ,

: .
,
, . , , , , , .
: , .
402
403
404
, 1/2014
339.13:349.2
doi:10.5937/zrpfns48-5653
,
,

:
. ,
, . - .
. ,

.
: , ,

I
- ,
( ) .1 -
1
. , ,
, ,
2012. ., . 101.
405
, (. 405427)
,
, .2
homo ludens,
(, , ) ,
, homo faber.3 , ,
.4 ,
.5 ,
.6
- , ,
,
, , . , , ,
.7 ,
,
. , . ,

, .
, , -
. , , , , 2001. ., . 163.
3
. , ,
, , 2013. ., . 37.
4
. 53 . 60. 2. 3. (. , . 98/2006)
5
. , , , 1986.
., .49.
6
. , , , 2010., . 93.
7
. , , , , 2012., . 203.
406
, 1/2014
.8 , (
).9
, .
, .
: ,
. ,
, , , .
, , , .
, , .
, .

, o
.10 , .
, , : inevitable disclosure, garden leave, non solicitation agreement.
. , . , ?, , , 2010. ., . 5.
9
. , ,
, , 2006. ., . 16.
10
. 790. . 3. (. , . 29/78,
39/85, 45/89 - 57/89, . , . 31/93 . , . 1/2003 )
407
, (. 405427)
II

,
. ( ) () (
) , , .11

,
, , . ,
, . , .
, , , , .12
, ,
, .13

( : ,
,
,
)
(
, , -
11
. , ,
, , 2013., . 105.
12
. , , , , 2008., . 133.
13
, ., ,
, ,
2012., . 301.
408
, 1/2014
,
, ). ,
, , ,
. ,
, , ,
( )
.14 ,
.15

.16

.
,

(

), .17
1.
- . -
14
Ibidem, . 750.
. , , , ,
1986., . 154.
16
. , , , .
3/1983. . 102
17
, ., ,
, ,
2012., . 331. 332.
15
409
, (. 405427)

, . , , ,
. knowhow, ,
. ,
.

.
,
,

.18 knowhow
, , .

, ,
, .
, . ,
50% ,
. , .
, .
,
, . ( -
18
. Schuster, The German commercial code, Stevens and Sons, London, 1911., . 74,
http://www.archive.org/stream/germancommercial00germuoft
/germancommercial00germuoft_djvu.txt, 24.01.2014. .
410
, 1/2014
), . ,
,
,
.

.
. , , 12
. , ,
. 50% , ,
(
, ).19

, . ,
,
, .20

,
19
. 74.,74, 74b, 74c 75 Handelsgesetzbuch, Gesetz vom 10.05.1897 (RGBl. I S.

219), zuletzt gendert durch Gesetz vom 04.10.2013 (BGBl. I S. 3746) m.W.v. 10.10.2013, stand:
01.01.2014 aufgrund Gesetzes vom 28.08.2013 (BGBl. I S. 3395),
: http://dejure.org/gesetze/HGB, 24.01.2014. .
20
T. Treu, Labour Law in Italy, Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, 2010.,
. 74.
411
, (. 405427)
. (
, )
. , ,
, . ( , , ...) , . ,

, ,
.21
.
.22

, 50% ( ). , e
.23
30.327.
, ,
( ) 12 .
-
21
. 276. 30.12.2001 N 197-,

http://www.consultant.ru/popular/tkrf/, 17.02.2014. .
22
Z. Anatolevna Gorbachva, Labour Law in Russia, Kluwer Law International, Alphen
aan den Rijn, 2011., . 142.
23
. Kontrimas, M. Samsa, International expatriate employment handbook, Kluwer Law
International, Alphen aan den Rijn, 2006, . 170
412
, 1/2014
30.327
60.654. 60.654 ,

. ,
,
,
. , , . ,
(
)
, .
,
, ,
, .
12 ,
.24
,
( ,
) , ,
.
.25
2.

: ,
24
R. Blanpain, Labour law in Belgium, Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn,
2010., 251 252.
25
. 1. 2. . 20.
18.12.1986. ., Official journal of the European Communities No
L 382/17.
413
, (. 405427)
,
.
( ) . -
,
,
, . ( , ,
), ,
,
, , .26 , ,
.

. , . , ( 27) ,
.
, .28
, .29
, -
26
. 161. 1. 2. , . 24/2005,
61/2005, 54/2009 32/2013. , , I . 190/2005 - 22/2011-26. ,
I . 187/2005 - 79/2011-58.
27
. , , , .
3/1983,. 102
28
. 161. 3. , . 24/2005, 61/2005, 54/2009
32/2013, , I . 190/2005 - 22/2011-26. , I . 187/2005 79/2011-58.
29
. , , , vol. 53, iss.
10, 2004. . 827.
414
, 1/2014
.
, , ,
. , .
,
, ,
. , ,
.30
.

.31
ratio .
, , , , . , ( )

.
, ,
,
. ,
.32
30
. , ,
, , 2013., . 181.
31
. 162. 1. , . 24/2005, 61/2005,
54/2009 32/2013. , , I . 190/2005 - 22/2011-26. , I .
187/2005 - 79/2011-58
32
. , ,
, , 2013., . 179.
415
, (. 405427)

. - ,
.
. , , .33

, , . ,
,
.34 ,
,
.35
, , ,

, . .36 ,

. , .37
33
. 162. 2. , . 24/2005, 61/2005,

54/2009 32/2013., , I . 190/2005 - 22/2011-26. , I .
187/2005 - 79/2011-58
34
. 228. (Act I, Hungarian Official Gazette No. 2 of 2012 on
6 January 2012 and Act CIII, Hungarian Official Gazette No. 103 of 2013 on 22 June 2013)
35
. , , , vol. 41, iss. 5-6,
1992. ., . 891.
36
. 161. 4. , . 24/2005, 61/2005,
54/2009 32/2013. , , I . 190/2005 - 22/2011-26. , I .
187/2005 - 79/2011-58.
37
. , ,
, 2013., . 181.
416
, 1/2014
2005. 38
, ,
2001. .39
, ,
, ,
.
, , .
, ( ), . ,
,
, . .

,
.
, .
,
.
, , , .40

, ,
.
38
. 161. 162. (. , . 24/2005, 61/2005, 54/2009

32/2013)
39
. 94. 2. (. , . 70/2001 73/2001 - .)
40
. , ,
, 2013., . 179.
417
, (. 405427)
.
,
.41

,
.

.
, ,
. ,
.42
, ,
,
, , .43
, ,

. .44
III
,
: inevitable disclosure, garden leave, non solicitation agreement.
41
. , ,
, ,
2012., . 306.
42
. , , , vol. 41, iss. 5-6,
1992. ., . 889.
43
. 147. 148. , . 24/2005, 61/2005, 54/2009
32/2013., , I . 190/2005 - 22/2011-26. , I . 187/2005 79/2011-58
44
. 37. (Act I, Hungarian Official Gazette No. 2 of 2012 on 6
January 2012 and Act CIII, Hungarian Official Gazette No. 103 of 2013 on 22 June 2013)
418
, 1/2014

, inevitable disclosure. , ,
.45
,
.

, , , .46
.47
. ,
. ( )
,
,
.

, .
.48 .49 ,
(
, -
45
N. Bishara, S. Ross, he law and ethics of restrictions on an employees post-employment mobility, American Business Law Journal, Volume 49, Issue 1, 1-61, 2012., . 17.
46
4. 1. . , . 72/2011.
47
. 6. . , . 72/2011.
48
. , , , , 2009. ., . 143
144.
49
. , ,
, 2013., . 180.
419
, (. 405427)
) ( )

.
, , .50
,
,
, ,
, .51
Garden leave
,
.
, . ,
. , ,
.
, , . ,
. ,
garden leave
. garden
leave ,
. , . ,
, garden leave -
50
. 11. 1. 4. 5. . 12. (.
, . 72/2011.)
51
. 240. 1-3. (. ", . 85/2005, 88/2005 ., 107/2005 - ., 72/2009, 111/2009, 121/2012 104/2013)
420
, 1/2014
. (the price mechanism). .

.
, (
). ( ; ;
; , , )

;
; ;
;
. , ,
( ) ,
,
, .52 , , (
).
,

,
(
).53
-
52
. 109. ( , 36/2011
99/2011)
53
. , , , , 2009. ., . 142 143
421
, (. 405427)
,
, : , , , , , , .54 , , , 5% , , ,
30 .55
non solicitation
agreement.
, , , .

, o . , (non disclosure agreement).
, ,
, ,
. ,
, . ,
, .
, .56
54
. 76. . 77. ( , 36/2011
99/2011)
55
. 78 79. ( , 36/2011
99/2011)
56
L. Guerin J.D., Employment Law: The Essential HR Desk Reference, Nolo, Berkeley,
2011. . 221 222
422
, 1/2014
IV
,
, , .

, , ,57
.58
, ,
, , , , ,
, , , ,
, .59
( ) , ,
,
. , ,
, . ( )
, , ,

.60 ,
.61
, . (high-velocity labor
market) -
57
. 60. 2. 3. , . 98/06
. 53. , . 98/06
59
. 21. 1., 2. 3. , . 98/06
60
. 18-20. , . 98/06
61
. , , , .
3/1983. . 102
58
423
, (. 405427)
. , . , . , ,
,
.62 , .63 , ,
.64

, , , a .65
,
( ),
, .
: ,
, , .66

, , -
62
,
, 32%
. R. Tchernis, easuring human capital and its effects on wage growth, Journal of
Economic Surveys, Vol. 24, No. 2, 2010. , . 378
63
. , ,
, Vol. 30, . 2, 2009. ., . 921.
64
. , . , , , vol. 35., 1/2012, 2012. ., . 177.
65
. , , , .
3/1983., . 102
66
. , , , vol. 41, iss. 5-6,
1992. ., . 888.
424
, 1/2014
.67 ,
, , .68 , ,
, - , .69
,
, .
( , ). (
) (
), .

.
.
, goodwill- .70 ,
, .71
67
H. Collins, K. Ewing, A. McColgan, Labour Law, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2012, . 146
68
. , , , vol. 41, iss. 5-6,
1992. ., . 888.
69
. , , , , 2013. .,
. 51.
70
M. Garrison, J. Wendt, he evolving law of employee noncompete agreements: recent
trends and an alternative policy approach, American Business Law Journal, Volume 45, Issue 1,
2008. ., . 186.
71
B.K. Repa, Your rights in the workplace, Nolo, Berkeley, 2007., . 389.
425
, (. 405427)

, .72

, .73
V

, .
, , , .
, , . ,

, .
,
50%
. (
).
( )

, .
72
. , ,
, , 2013., . 180.
73
N. Bishara, S. Ross, he law and ethics of restrictions on an employees post-employment mobility, American Business Law Journal, Volume 49, Issue 1, 2012., . 5-42.
426
, 1/2014
Aleksandra Popovi, Ph.D. Student

University of Belgrade
Faculty of Law Belgrade
Effect of the Prohibition of Competition in the Labor Law

Abstract: Freedom to work is a fundamental principle of labor law and includes the right of individuals, in accordance with their abilities, to chooses employment or independently to perform certain activities. The introduction of
bans, among which include the prohibition of competition is restricting the freedom of labor. The paper outlines the nature and effect of the prohibition of competition in the labor law with extract of the most important legal comparative
elements. The aim is to show that the legitimacy of the prohibition of competition involves striking a balance between the business interests of the employer
and the employee's freedom to work. The conclusion is that domestic law does
not provide sufficient imperative protection of employees in the context of contracting prohibition of competition, with the suggestion that it is expedient to
specify the minimum amount of compensation for the duration of this ban to employment.
Key words: prohibition of competition, anticompetitive clauses, ban to employment
427
, (. 405427)
428
, 1/2014
343.292/.293
doi:10.5937/zrpfns48-5745

: , . . , . .

.

,
.
: , , , ,
,

.
. ,
. ,
, , ,
. ,
429
, (. 429444)
.
.1
,
,
.
. ,
, , .
1. 2

.3 ( - ). . .4

( , .).
, , , ,
.5
.

.
.
,
.
. . . -
D. Miladinovi, Pomilovanje u krivinom zakonodavstvu Srbije, magistarska teza, Novi

Sad, 2006. str.1
2
,
4. o , , .
3
. , , , 2011, .238
4
99. 1 12 .. 2006.
5
109. .. 2006.
430
, 1/2014
2006. 112. 1. 7.
1990. 83. 1. 9().
.6 ,
, , ,
. 7
, ,
. .
.
, , , .8
. .
.
2.
. , .
,
.
.
,
,
.9 , .10 129. ,
6
, , . , ( ),
2004. 2012. 191 . .
7
110. 1 2 ..
8
K, . , M., - , , ,
2010. .60
9
D. Miladinovi, Pomilovanje u krivinom zakonodavstvu Srbije , str.16
10
: . , I, , 2011.
.33
431
, (. 429444)
, . , () ,
. 11

.
,
403. . , . . 12 .13
. ,14 .
, clementia venia.
c, .
Quod principi placuit legis habet vigorem 15 - .
. abolitio , , ,
,
bolitio est delatio, oblivio et extinctio accusationis.16
.
. , . ,
, ,
, , .
17
.
11
M. Rai, Povijest i primjena kaznenopravnih instituta pomilovanja i amnestije, Zagreb,

2013. str.2
12
Sebastian Kratzer, LApartheid, lAmnistie et le Droit International. Les obligations internationales de lAfrique du Sud et les droits des victimes face lamnistie couvrant les crimes de lapartheid, Baccalaurat Universitaire en Relations Internationales, Universit de Genve, p.3,
https://www.academia.edu/4103941/LApartheid_lAmnistie_et_le_Droit_International, 22.12.2013.
13
M. Rai, ibid, str.2-3
14
D. Miladinovi, ibid, str.17
15
A. Ma, . , , , 2011. c.27
16
D. Jovaevi, Amnestija i pomilovanje, Beograd, 2001. str.7
17
.

432
, 1/2014
7. .
(668-725) :
, ,
.18
. , , 1309. II.19
: la grace, lettere d abolition (
'' ''), comutation de peine ( ).
( )
. . aye :

(asyla).20

,
, .
3.
21
,
. .
1807. . :
,
. :
M. Bloch, Feudalno drutvo, Zagreb, 1958. str.160.
18
William F. Duker, The President's Power to Pardon: A Constitutional History, 18 Wm.
& Mary L. Rev.
475 (1977), http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr/vol18/iss3/3, p. 476 18.12.2013.
19
William F. Duker, ibid, p. 480
20
V. Bayer, Kazneno postupovno pravo, knjiga I, Zagreb 1943, str 72-73
21
1804. 1989.

.
433
, (. 429444)
; , 22
.
1835. .
.
1869. . , . -
, - . 1888. . , , . 1888. .
, . ,
. 1888.
. 1901. .
.23
.
1901. . . (.82
).24 1903. . 1888. ,
.
51. .
.
:, , ,
.25 .
( 137.).26
, 1921. .
22
T. ivanovi, Zakonski izvori krivinog prava Srbije i istorijski razvoj njegov i njenog
krivinog pravosua od 1804.-1865. godine, Beograd, 1967, str.7 navedeno prema: D. Miladinovi, Pomilovanje u krivinom zakonodavstvu Srbije, str.28
23
. , , , 1909, objavljeno u :
CRIMEN (III) 2/2012 str. 251.282.
24
: . , ibid.
25
. , ibid.
26
T. , ,
, , 2012, .101.
434
, 1/2014
. .
( ). , 1929. . ,
.
1931. .
.
( )
, .27
II j 6. 1941. . ,
. 5. 1945. .
,
24. 1944. .
31. . . .28 1947. . ,
. .29 ( ,
. ),
.
, . 1951.30 ( ) -
27
: M. Rai, Povijest i primjena kaznenopravnih instituta pomilovanja i
amnestije, str.16-18
28
J. , ,
, 3-4-5, 1945, , c.237
29
93. 94. K , , . 106/47,
http://www.propisi.com/krivicni-zakonik-opsti-deo.html, 16.12.2013.
30
.13/1951. http://www.overa.rs/krivicni-zakonik-1951.html, 16.12.2013
435
, (. 429444)
, (.85). 1974. , ,
315. , . ,
.
4.
. .
31 . .32
, (Board of pardons).
. , . ,
.33
.
.

ffice of the Pardon Attorney,34 , .
31
Brown v. Walker"' (161 U.S. 591 1896).
.
32
J. , ,
, .3-4-5, 1945, , .238
33
Brian M. Hoffstadt, Normalizing the Federal Clemency Power, Texas Law Review, Volume 79, Issue 3, February 2001, p.569-643, (http://heinonline.org), 17.12. 2013.
34
K . ( ). A 1865.
. : Jody C. Baumgartner, Mark H. Morris, Presidential Power
Unbound: A Comparative Look at Presidential Pardon Power, Politics & Policy Volume 29
No.2
June
2001.
P.210-236.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.17471346.2001.tb00590.x/abstract, 23.12.2013.
436
, 1/2014
. 1962. .
.35

.36 , , .
.37 1958. . 17.
.
,
.

.
5.

.
.38 :
1. ()
2.
3.
4.
5.
6. .

( ).
. ,
:
( ) ?
, , -
35
E. Barendt, Is there a United Kingdom Constitution?, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies
VOL.17, SPRING 1997. P.144 http://ojls.oxfordjournals.org 21.12.2013.
36
. , , , 2007, .34
37
. , ibid. .34
38
Z. Stojanovi, Krivino pravo opti deo, Beograd, 2009, str.328
437
, (. 429444)
.39
- , - .40 lex specialis
. 41
.
,
.42
: , ?
?
. ( ) ( ) ,
,
. ().43 ,

. .
,
.
. 44 , .
39
Z. Stojanovi, rivino pravo opti deo, str.328

S. Pihler, O aktuelnom projektu saveznog zakona o amnestiji, Glasnik Advokatke komore
Vojvodine 2001, vol 73, br, 1-2, str 25-29
41
D. Jovaevi, Primena amnestije u krivinom pravu, Glasnik advokatske komore Vojvodine, 2008, vol.68, br.11, str.499
42
2012. ( .. . 107/2012)
1 18.04.2006.

394, 395, 396, 397, 399. .. 2006..
43
. , , , 2011, .282
44
N.W. Barber, Prelude to separation of powers, Cambridge Law Journal, 60(1), March
2001, pp.59-81. http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayFulltext?type=1&fid=76146&jid=
CLJ&volumeId=60&issueId=01&aid=76145, 20.12.2013.
40
438
, 1/2014

. .
.
, . . : .45

, ,
( ) :
1. ()
2.
3.
4.
5.
6. .46

- .47
48
.
, .
, - , ?
. . . , , , . 49 . -
45
A. Bai, Pincip podjele jedinstva vlasti s posebnim osvrtom na jugoslovensku teoriju i

praksu, doktorska radnja, Beograd, 1988. str.19
46
110. 1 2 .. 2006.
47
Z. Stojanovi, Krivino pravo opti deo, Beograd, 2009, str.329
48
.

,
. . : Hoffstadt, M. B.
- Normalizing the Federal Clemency Power, Texas Law Review, Volume 79, Issue 3, February
2001, (http://heinonline.org), p.593. fn.151 17.12. 2013.
49
F. Bai, Kazneno pravo opi dio, Zagreb, 1998, str.486.
439
, (. 429444)
, .50 .
post factum . 51
. , , .
. ,
. , ,
. ,

.
. ( ),
.
.
, , . , .
.
. 52

. , .

, . 20. , . 1903. . :,
,
,
. 53
50
T. , , , , 2012, .26
51
. , , , 2011, .513
52
F. Bai, Kazneno pravo opi dio, str.486
53
. , , , 1909, objavljeno u :
CRIMEN (III) 2/2012 str. 251282
440
, 1/2014

. ,
. ?
( )
. , , , . , , , . 54
,

. ? ,
. ,
, -.
, ,

- ().
.
.
, , , . .
, . .
.
,
, ,
54
2012.
. ,
, . .http://www.pressonline.rs/sport/fudbal/251964/nikolic-pomilovaodzajica.html. 17.01.2014.
441
, (. 429444)
. 55
,
, .56 , , , .
.
, .
.

.

.
, , .
.

.
.

ne man power.
,
,

.

. ,

.
,
. , ,
, , -
55
56
442
C. Beccaria, O zloinih i kaznah, Zagreb 1889, str.61

C. Beccaria, O zloinih i kaznah, Zagreb 1889, str.61.-62.
, 1/2014
(
). ,
, .
, , ,
, , , . . , . ,
,
, ,
.
443
, (. 429444)
Dejan Reetar, Ph.D. Student

Amnesty and Clemency

Abstract: In this paper the author discusses the institute of amnesty and clemency, their constitutional and criminal elements. The author chronologically
presents a historical overview of the legal system from the old century to the present legal systems. A particular attention is paid to the legal nature of the
very institutes, the effects of the institutes, as well as their decision-makers. In
the comparative overview, the author looks at the constitutional system of the
United States and France. Finally, the paper discusses the related institutes in
the constitutional system of the Republic of Serbia, concluding that they belong
to the extra-judicial system of government and a kind of "surgical operation" of
the legislative and executive authority in court "tissue". The author also states
certain omissions in the matter regulating the institute of clemency, such as the
complete absence of explanation of the act of clemency by the competent bodies
and the lack of any kind of substantive legal control of that body, which implies
the possibility of abuse of the institute.
Key words: amnesty, clemency, abolition, constitutional law, criminal law,
governance
444
, 1/2014
343.222
doi:10.5937/zrpfns48-5749

:
.
,
,
- . .
, . ,
.
.
: ,
, , , .
1.
.1 -
1
, ,
, . , , -
445
, ... (. 445471)
, ,
,

.

,
. , . , , , . . , ,
.
.2 ,
,
. ,
,

, . . , , . 3, , 2012, . 1326.
, (
) , ,
,
. , , , ,
.
(, ), ,
, ,
, .
. , , , 1998, . 223. . , ,
,
.
2
. , , , 1988, . 538.
, .
. , , , 1981, . 134.

, , .
. . , , ,
, 1978, . 17.
446
, 1/2014
, .
,
.
.
, (
) ,
, , .

.
, ,
, 3
( ), .4
5
.6 .7 ,
.8 .
3

, . . , .
, . . , , , 2007, . 97. 107.
4
, , , . 23. .
. ,
, , .
5
. , , , 2007, . 73.
6
,
, . 23.
.
7
. , , . 3, , 2012, . 1327.
8
. , , .
3, , 2012, . 1319-1337.
447
, ... (. 445471)

, . , ,
. 23. 9,
, .
,
. , - (, , , ) .
.
, , .
. , , , ,
,
. , .10 -.

.
. ,
. , .
, , .
, ,
, , .
. ,
9
, . . . 85/2005, 88/2005, 107/2005, 72/2009,
111/2009, 121/2012 104/2013
10

, . , , , ,
, . . . , , ,
2007, . 121. - 125.
448
, 1/2014
.
, .11
, . ,
,
.
.12
, , . .
()
. , . ,

.
, , , .
, , ,
( )
( ).13
11
, . ,
, .
, . ,
, . ,
. . , , ,
1961, . 191. , . , , , 2006, . 95. , . ,
, , 1937, . 93.
12
,
,
.
13
,
, , . , , , .
, . , , . 259.
449
, ... (. 445471)
,
.
2.
14 ,
, ( ) .15 16
,
.17 -
14
Tatbestandsirrtum, Mistake of Fact, Arzt standard mistake, G. Arzt, The Problem

of Mistake of Law, BYU Law Review, Vol. 1986, Issue 3, Article 8, . 714. M. Jefferson, Criminal law, 9th Edition, April, 2009, . 292.
15
. . , . , , , 1968, . 160., . ,
, , 2006, . 225., . , , . 93. . , , . 96. . , , , 1976, .
210. , ,
, , ,

. . , , , 2009,
. 129.
16
,
. . , , . 260. 263. . . , , . 225. (
), ( ),
. . , , . 93.
, , , , .
.
. , , , 1955, . 163.
, , . . , , . 79.,
, .
( )
( ). . , ,
. 191.
17
( ). .
450
, 1/2014
,
18,
.19 20
, , ,
, , , ,
.
,
. , .
,

( ). .21
, , , .22
, . ,
, , -
. 23,
, , ,
. . , , , 1955 . 164.
18
, .
19
. , , , 1955, . 162.
20
, .
21

. . , , . 96.
22
,
, ,
. . , , , 1955, . 163. . . ,
, , 2013, . 188.
23
, . . , -
451
, ... (. 445471)
.24
, , ,
.
, 25,
.26 , ,
. , ,
,
, ,
. , ,
. , ,
,
, ,
. ,
,
,
. , (
), .27
, . 93. , . , , , 1955,
. 163.
24
. , , , 2013, . 187. , .
. . , , , . 10, . 2/2003, . 335.
25
. .
, , , 1955, . 163. , ,
. . , , . 93.
26
, , G. Arzt,
, . 714.
27
, , ()
.
452
, 1/2014
,
, ,
. ,
,
-
. ,
, ,
.28 .29
30
.
, -
28

, .
. , , . 265. . 8. , . , .
. , , , 2013, . 187. , . 47. . 3. ( . 31. . 1.
. 125/11 144/12), . 8.
, . , , . 334. . , 9. 2003., , . 10, .
2/2003., . 277.
, . . , , , 1955, . 163. ,
, . . , , . 97.
29
. , , , 2013, . 142. . , , . 175. , ,
, .
.
() . , . .
, , . 105. 106.
30
, , ,
. . , , . 172.
453
, ... (. 445471)
. ,
.
31 . 8. 32 . 31. . 1., ,
.33
,
.
, , .

, .

,
.
. ,
, , , - .
,
,
. , ,
( ), . , ( ).
.
(
)
.
31
- http://legislationline.org/documents/section/criminal-codes.
32
. 125/11 144/12.
33
, . , , . 336.
454
, 1/2014
(, )34 , . . ,
. ,
. ,
- , .35
,
. .
.

.36
3.
, , .
.
, .37

, , , .
. 29., . 22. .
38, ,
34
.
. . , , . 193.
35
, , . , , ,
2008, . 78. 103.
36
, , ,
, . . , , , 2009, . 125
37
. .
., , , . 38, 1/1951, . 97.
38
,
( ) -
455
, ... (. 445471)

. .
.
,
, .39
, .
, ,
, 40, ,
, .
41
,
.
, ,
.
. . , , ,
, . 60, . 7 8/ 1988, . 31.
, . , , . 265., ,
. . , , , 1955,
. 163., . , , . 93.
, .
39
. - . .
. , , Crimen, . 1/ 2011,
. 88.
40
, , . . ., , , 1989, . 38.
41
,
. , , , , . , . . ., , . 70.
456
, 1/2014
- , , ,
.42
, ,
, . , ,
, , ,
.43 ,
, . ,
. , , -
, ,
.44 , , ,
, . .
, . ,
, .
, , . ,

, .
42
. , XIX , , 2010, . 385.
43
, , . Kestlin, Helner, Berner Merkel
, , ,
. . , , . 57.
44
. , XIX ,
, , 1988, . 427.
457
, ... (. 445471)
, , .45 , ,
,

46, 47, 48,
.49
45
. , , , 2009, . 133.
, . , , , 1955, . 165.
46

, .
. , , , 2009, . 133., ,
, , . . , , . 176. A. Veserveld, Jeschecka Weigenda (Unrechtbewusstsein)
, , A. Verseveld
Van, Mistake of Law, Excusing perpatrators of international crimes, . 36., - http://dare.uva.nl/document/215925. Arzt,
, ,
. G. .Arzt, , . 722.
47
,
, . . ,
, . 256. - , ,
- . . ,
, . 3, , 2012, . 1325.
, ,

, . . , , , 2013, . 191. Arzt
, , ,
03.05.1978. Adams, G. Arzt.,
, . 720.
48
. ,
, ,
.
, .
, .
,
, ,
458
, 1/2014
,
,
. 22. , ,
,
. ,
. , ,
.50
. ,
- . (Vorsatztheorie)51,
.52
. ,
, . . ,
, , 1955, . 165.
, . . . ,
, , . 38, . 1/1951 . 98. 99.
49
. , , . 34.
50
. , , . 173.174.
51
,
, .
,
.
,
a. ,
, dolusa,
, .
52
,

. . 203. ,

( , ).
. 120.
;
. 132. ,
.; . 133.
459
, ... (. 445471)
,
,
, .
,
. ,
, . (Schuldtheorie),
,
, . ,
, . ,
,
.53
, . ,
. , ,
. .
. , .54 ,
, . ,
. , ,
, dolusa ,
.
53
, . , , , 2007, . 100.
54

,
. , . . , , . 223.
460
, 1/2014
, . , .
,
.
.
, .
,
,
. ,
. , ( )
,
( ). tempore criminis
.
.

. ,
, ,
( , , ),
.55

, ,

.56
55
. .
56
. , , . 174. , , -
461
, ... (. 445471)

.

. ,

, , , , .

. , ,
,
.

. 29. . 3. , .57 ,
, , . 22. , , . ,
. ,
,
.

, de iure
, .

. -
. . , , , 2009,
. 84.
57
( 2003. , . . 70/03), . 19.
, .
.
462
, 1/2014
, , .
. , de facto
.
, , ,
. . ,
.
,
.
.
, .
,
,
. ,
,
,
. , , ,
.58
59, -
58

.
59
(Bundesgerichtshof) 18.03.1952.
, 1975. (Strafgesetzbuch).
1994.
(Code Pnal). . Verseveld Van, , . 27. 28.
, . 17. (Verbotsirrtum),
(unvermeidbar) (Schuldausschlieungsgrnd), (vermeidbar) -
463
, ... (. 445471)
.
ignorantia iuris nocet,60 61,
.62 ultima ratio
, , ,
. , ,
, ,
.
63, ,
, . 49. . 1. (
). - http://legislationline.org/ documents/section/criminal-codes. , . 29. . (Bundesverfassungsgericht) 1975. , . 17. ( ), 17.12.1975.
. G. Arzt ., , . 729.

(Schuldausschlieungsgrnde)
(Entschuldigungsgrnde) , . . ,
, , . 19, . 2/2012,
. 396. , de lege ferenda,
,
. . , ,
, 2009, . 104. . 22. . 1.
, . 2. .
. 125/11 144/12.
60
ignorantia iuris semper nocet,
,
. . , , . 80.
61
4.500 , P. Larkin, The
Need for a Mistake of Law Defense as a Response to Overcriminalization,
- http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/04/the-need-for-a-mistakeof-law-defense-as-a-response-to-overcriminalization.
62
, , . . ,
, , 2013, . 193.
63
,
,
464
, 1/2014
. ,
, mala in se , , , , , , . -
19. , , , , .64
,
.65
, .66 ,
. , , .
,
,
.
, .67 ,
.
(das Urdelikt), . , ,
, . 1/2011, . 413. 414. . ,
, , . 2/2011, . 360. 380.
64

.
65
, , , 2009, . 132. 133. . . , ,
. 266.
66
,
,
. . , ,
. 101. ,
. . , , . 266. 267.

. . , .
, , . 165.
67
,
,
465
, ... (. 445471)
68 ,
.
, , .69
70, ,
.71
,
, .

, .72 . 22. ,
, . 22.
.
,
, .

. , -
, .
. . , , , 1955 . 163.
68
,
,
.
69
,
( - http://www.harmonius.org/sr/publikacije/clanci/ivandjokic/Pravna_zabluda.pdf), . .
, , . 1/1977, . 41. 63.
70
. , , . 102.
71
. , , , 2013, . 192.
72

, , . ,
. . , , , .
38, . 1/1951, . 98.
466
, 1/2014
, , , ,
,
. , 73, 74,
. ,
75, . , 76, , dolusa. . , 77
,
,
, ,
,
. . , , ,
.78
73
1951. (. . 13/51, 30/59, 11/62, 31/62,
37/62, 15/65 15/67), . 10.
, . 1976.
01.07.1977. ( , . 44/76, 36/77, 34/84, 37/84, 74/87, 57/89, 3/90,
38/90, 45/90 54/90, , . 35/92, 16/93, 37/93, 24/94, 61/2001
, . 39/2003), . 17.
74
, ,
,
.
75

. . , ,
? , , 3 4/ 2004., . 5. 17.
76
, ,
, .
77

.
78
. . , , . 166.
467
, ... (. 445471)
79
.
, ,

. .
, .80
4.

,
. .
.

. , 81 (Vorsatztheorie) dolusa, ,
.82 ( ) ,
, .83
.
.
( )

79
Subsumtionsirrtum, G. Arzt, , . 719. 720. . ,

, . 233.
80
. , , . 233.
81
.
82
G. Arzt, , . 715.
.
83
G. Arzt, , . 715.
468
, 1/2014
.84 ,
. , (. , ).85 ,
,
.86 .87

.88

.
, , ,
. dolusa, .

.
, , ,
, . . ,
84
G. Arzt, , . 715. ,
. 127. .
.
85
. , , , 2013, . 170.
86
. , , , 2013, . 170. 171.
87
. , , , 2009, . 134.
88

). . ,
, . 232. 233.
469
, ... (. 445471)
.89 ,
, .
, .
.
89
. , , , 1955, . 166.

, . ,
, . 34.
470
, 1/2014
Nikola Vukovi, Ph.D. Student

Specific Questions of Mistake of Fact and Mistake

of Law in Criminal Law
Abstract: The subject of this paper is the systematic presentation between
mistake of fact and mistake of law as criminal law institutes which through the
influence on perpetrators conciousness about the statutory elements and existence of facts that exclude illegality in case of mistake of fact and forbideness
of act in case of mistake of law, influence on decision whether to punish such a
perpetrator. The author first relates on relations between error and insanity, after that turns to defining mistake of fact and its types as well as its impact on
culpability of the offender. Then he analyze the mistake of law and in its phenomenon in modern life in light of its justification. At the end, there is a conclusion that both of the mistakes are needed and legitimate in modern criminal
law, as is their different treatment and impact.
Key words: culpability, mistake of law, mistake of fact, knowledge of
wrongfulness
471
, ... (. 445471)
472
, 1/2014
342.7:17.023.33
doi:10.5937/zrpfns48-5806
,

: je ,
, ,
, .
. ,
,
, .
, -
, ,
, , .
, , ,
,
, , . , , ,
, .
,
.
: , , , , - a.
1.
,
,
473
, , ... (. 473490)

. , .
,
, ,
, , , , .
.1
.2 ,
, , , , , .
, ,
, ,
. , - ,
, . ,
,
3.
2.
,
,
.
. . ,
(ius), (lex aeterna)
(lex naturalis) , .4 ,
-
. , , 2013, 461.
Ibid., 460-461.
3
, , , , 148.
4
. , . , . , , - , 2013, 9.
2
474
, 1/2014
.
.
, ,
,
.5 , ,
.

(Magna Carta Libertatum) 1215. , 1628. , (The
Petition of Rights), e , 1689. (Bill of Rights).
, , 39
,
...
. . . ,

6.
,
, . ,
,
, , .
18. .
1776. , , ,
,
, .
1789. , :
, : , ,
. -
Ibid., 10.
. , . , , -
, 2012, 16.
6
475
, , ... (. 473490)
, oj . , ,
.

1945. .7 ,
, , .
3.

,
. , , , , ,
, .8
, . ,
, , . ,
. , ,
, , ,
.
7
,
, ,
, ,
. , ,
, . () , 1919. , , ,
, . , : , ,
, ,
() , , - .
8
. , , , 1997, 174.
476
, 1/2014
,
, , . 24 : , . 9,
11
: .
. ..
2001. , 40 .
,
, 3 :
, ., . 13
.10 , 4. :
.
.
.. 4.
. , , 6.
: .
. ..
, 1776. , , ,
, .
4.

,
. , ,
,
.
10
1992. , , . . . , . , 91.
477
, , ... (. 473490)
.11
, ,
.12
, . ,

17 ,
. , ,
,
.
2.
2.
( : ),
: ,

. - ,
,
.

, ,
. ,
, .
.13
.14 . , , , .15 -
11
. . , , ,
2012, 44.
12
Ibid.
13
. . , , , 2012, 51.
14
. , , . , 2006, 176.
15
., - , , 2009, 20.
478
, 1/2014
,
, , , : , ,
, , ,
, .16 ,
1912. , ,
, , . ,

.17
. ,
,
.
,
.18 ,
. ,
. :
..19 , , ,
, .
. -
16
, 1757.
XV,
,
. . . , 65. . . . , 58-59; 1688. 50 , 200
. 36.566 , 7700
.
17
Amnesty International 1000
2001. , .
18
. , . , , ,
, 2002, 8.
19
. . , 66.
479
, , ... (. 473490)
,
,

.
.

: , ,
. , ,
, , ,
. ,

, . , , 18 . ,
, ,
,

.

. , , . ,
, .
, , , ,
, .20 , , , -
20
. , - ,
, 1-3/2002, 328.
480
, 1/2014
- , , .21
5.

, , ,
,
, .

, , -
, ,
. , 2. ,
: ,
, ,

, ,
. ,

,
.
, , .
,
. , , , .22 ,

,
.23
21
Ibid.
. , , . 2. . 6. 13., ,
, 4/2012, 298.
23
McCann
22
481
, , ... (. 473490)
,
( : ) . ,
.24
. ,
,
. . ,
,
, , .
, ,
,
, . 2 ,
.
- .

, , .
, , , .
, ,
, . , 2. . , (10:9) 2. 2, . , , . ,

, , , (5:4), , 2. (Andronicou and Constantinou v. Cyprus), . (Paragraf Lex,
10.01.2014. .)
24
Velikova , Slavo Conev, , 25. 1994. . 12
,
. 18. 2000.
2. .
, . (Paragraf Lex, 10.01.2014. .)
482
, 1/2014
. ,

.
,
,
, 25, .
( ...). , . , ,
. ultima ratio ,
, , .26
, , .
, , , ,
. (". " . 85/05).
. , -
25
Timurtas 2. ,

. , , ,
2. ,
. , ,
, .

, " "
5. ( ), . 2. 3. ,
, 2. ,
" "
. (Paragraf Lex, . . . 10.01.2014. .)
26
. , 182.
483
, , ... (. 473490)
, ,
,
( ,
, ,
, ,
.,
).
- , ,
, .
.
, .
.27 ,
, , -
, , .28 (. 63).
(. , 16/95
101/2005 . )
, , ,

(. 2. 3).
,
, - .29 ,
, ,
, ,
.
, ,
27

,
. ,
( ). , , ,

(Open Door Counselling and Dublin Well Women protiv Irske).
(Paragraf Lex, 10.01.2014. .)
28
. (2002), 330.
29
Ibid.
484
, 1/2014
, .

, , ,
.
, , ,
.30 ,
, ,
,
, ,
,
. .
, , , .
- ,
. , ,
, , , ,
.31 , , , .
, , ,
, .
: , , ,
..32 , , , , . -
30
Ibid., 331.
, , , ,
, , ,
.
32
. , , ..., 2009,
113.
31
485
, , ... (. 473490)
, ( thanatos ; eu , ) , , , ,
. ,
-

, ?
,

.
,
.
, ,
, . Dignitas
, . .33
, ( ), ( ).34 ,
, , , , , , ,
,
, , , .
, , . , -
33
. . , 187.
, 275.000 , , , .
34
486
, 1/2014
.
,
,
.35
, , . , , (. 252, . 2).
.
, (.
22. . 1). :
(, , ), , , .36

. , , ,
. ,

,
,
, 6 .
35
Pretty , , ,
.
, 2. ,
.
, ,
2. .
36
. , . , . , 313.
487
, , ... (. 473490)
6.

, . 21. , , , . ,
, ,
.

, , ,
, , 3 . ,

.
, ( ),
. .
,
.
, .
, ,
. . , ,
, ,
37.
,
.
.

,
, ,
37
488
. , 37.
, 1/2014
.38
- ,
.
,

, .
,
, ,
.
.
,
,
, ,
, ,
. ,
, .
38
Ibid., 49.
489
, , ... (. 473490)
Mirjana Sredojevi, Ph.D. Student

The Concept, Restriction and Mechanisms of Protection

of Right to Life as a Supreme Human Right
Abstract: This piece of work covers the concept of right to life from the
perspective of constitutional law as well as of some other legal disciplines,
especially criminal law. Right to life is a crucial presumption of the existence of
all the other rights, and as such bears a universal meaning. However, we encounter the violation of this very right, so it is essential to foresee the adequate
mechanisms of jurisdiction so that this right does not downgrade to a proclamation only. Moreover, criminal law jurisdiction is the most efficient means of
protection of human lives, hence the right to life, since liberty is the right to do
anything in accordance with the principles of law. Not until people are restricted in their rights and liberty do they appreciate the worth of freedom.
As for the systematization of this piece of work, the first part is dedicated
to the history of right to life; the second part reviews the concept of right to life;
the third deals with the restrictions of right to life enacted by the state using
coercion and capital punishment respectively. The fourth, central part covers
the mechanisms of protection of the right to life, and it states some negative, positive and procedural obligations of the state as well as the means of protection.
In the conclusion, there is a short resume of the right to life and the problems
we encounter today during the application of this right. All of this is intertwined
with the practice of the European Court of Human Rights.
Key words: right to life, natural low, capital punishment, euthanasia, criminal law jurisdiction.
490
, 1/2014
341.63:330.322
doi:10.5937/zrpfns48-5982
(Fork-in-the-Road Clause)
: ,
.
( fork in the road clause), . .
,
.

, ,
.

.

,
.
: , ,
, fork in the road clause, , , .
491
, A ... (. 491517)
1.

( ) . ,
.
, , . ,
(Bilateral Investment Treaty : ),
. (. fork in the road clause) ,
.
.
,

, .1 ,2 .3
, iure imperii
. , , , de facto

.4 5 . ,
1
Salacuse, Jeswald W., The Emerging Global Regime for Investment, 51 Harvard International Law Journal 427, 2010, 459.
2
Redfern, Alan, Hunter, Martin, Law and Practice of International Commercial Arbitration,Sweet & Maxwell, 2004, 1-51.
3
Wlde,Thomas The "Umbrella" (or Sanctity of Contract/Pacta sunt Servanda) Clause in
Investment Arbitration: A Comment on Original Intentions and Recent Cases, Transnational Dispute Management, , , 2004. , 13; UNCTAD Series on International Investment Policies for Development, InvestorState Disputes: Prevention
and Alternatives to Arbitration, UNITED NATIONS, New York and Geneva, 2010, 14.
4
SAIPEM S.p.A. v. The Peoples republic of Bangladesh, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/7, 30.06.2009. , 181-184.
5
The Loewen Group, Inc. and Raymond L. Loewen v. United States of America, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/98/3, 26.06.2003. ., 138.
492
, 1/2014
,
.6
,
, ,
. ,
.7

, .

. , .
2.

o.8 ,
.
, :
;
.

. , ,
. ,
.9
(School of International Arbitration), Queen Mary, University of London 9 10

. : International Arbitration: A Study into Corporate Attitudes
and Practices, Transnational Dispute Menagement (2006), www.transnational-dispute-management.com URL: www.transnational-dispute-management.com/article.asp?key=930, 5.
7
Salacuse, Jeswald W., Is there a Better Way? Alternative Methods of Treaty-Based, Investor-State Dispute Resolution, Fordham International Law Journal, 31 1, 2007,
163.
8
9 1 .
9
van Harten, Gus, Investment Treaty Arbitration and Public Law - A Return to the Gay Nineties?, Transnational Dispute Management Vol. 4, issue 5, September 2007, 24.
493
, A ... (. 491517)
,
-. ,

.10
-, ,

.11
, - .12
, . ,
,
.
-, 1950- ,

.13 ,14 .
, , -.15 , ,16 . .17
,
. -
10
UNCTAD IIA Glossary, 43.

McLachlan, Cambell, Lis Pendens in International Litigation, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2009, 43; , infra 41, 12.2.
12
, ,
, Liber amicorum Dobrosav Mitrovi, 2007, . 583602, 6.
13
Salacuse, op.cit., 439.
14
Ibid., 459.
15
Schill, Stephn, International Investment Law and Comparative Public Law, Oxford
University Press, 2010, 631.
16
, , ,
, , , 5.
17
, op.cit., 454.
11
494
, 1/2014

, . . , -, .
2.1.
,
. -, .18
. , . : , . , ,
.
2.1.1.

- .19
,20 -
-,
.21
,
.
18
van Harten, op.cit., 28.

Schreuer, Christoph, Consent to arbitration, u knjizi Peter Muchlinski, Federico Ortino,Christoph Schreuer, The Oxford Handbook of International Investment Law, Oxford University
Press, 2008, 843.
20
Telenor Mobile Communications v. The Republic of Hungary, ICSID Case No.
ARB/04/15, 13.09.2006.
21
, , , , 2011. , , 21-23.
19
495
, A ... (. 491517)
, prima facie .
,22
.
3 9 - ad hoc
,
. , Tza Yp Shum23
. ,
,24
,
,25
.
2.1.2.

-,
,
22
, ,
, .
, ,
, 2006, 514-533, 522.
23
Tza Yap Shum v Republic of Peru, ICSID Case No ARB/07/6,
19. 2009. .
24
,
31
, .
Vladimir and Moise Berschader v The Russian Federation (http://italaw.com/cases/
documents/142), -
-
.

,
, .
(http://italaw.com
/cases/103), - .
Reinisch, August, How Narrow are Narrow Dispute Settlement
Clauses in Investment Treaties?, Journal of Internatonal Dispute Settlement, 2 1,
2011, 115-174, 119-122.
25
Tza Yap Shum v Republic of Peru, 155.
496
, 1/2014
.
.26 ,27 . ,
.
,
,28 , .29 .30
, . -, , ,31 ,32 - .33 , , .34
26 . , .35 ,
26
: Sornarajah, Muthucumaraswamy, The International Law on Foreign Investment,
Cambridge University Press, 1994, 90.
27
: , ,
, , , 2010. , 279.
28
Bilateral Investment Treaties 19952006 Trends In Investment Rulemaking, United Nations, New York and Geneva, 2007 108.
29
Shaw, Malcolm, International law, 6. Izdanje, Cambridge University Press, 2008,
819.
30
Brownlie, Ian, Principles of public international law 7th ed., Oxford University Press,
2008, 492.
31
Schill, op.cit., 631.
32
Schwebel, Steven, The Influence of Bilateral Investment Treaties on Customary International Law, Transnational Dispute Management, Vol. 2 - issue 5, November 2005, 27.
33
Mondev Intl. Ltd. v. United States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/99/2; Salacuse,
op.cit., 429.
34
McLachlan, op.cit, . 253-254.
35
. : Schreuer, Christoph, Calvos Grandchildren: the Return of Local Remedies in Investment Arbitration, Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals, 4/2005, 2.
497
, A ... (. 491517)
- .36
-,37 , 2010.
.
2.1.3.

-
.
, , .38
, (cooling off period),
,39
,40 .
. , . ,41

.
,
12 . ,
, , , 12 .42
36
Lanco International v. the Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/97/6,

8.12.1998. , 40 ILM 457 (2001), 39.
37
Schreuer, Christoph, ICSID Convention: A commentary on the Convention on the
Settlement of Investment Disputes Between States and Nationals of Other States, Cambridge
University Press, 2001, 391.
38
Reinisch, op.cit., 116.
39
Schreuer, Travelling the BIT Route, op.cit., 232.
40
UNCTAD, Prevention and Alternatives to Arbitration, op.cit., 41.
41
, , Opee ooo po a opeae appae eyapo oopa a aa a aoc appa coa,
2/2012, 356.
42
SGS Socit Gnrale de Surveillance S.A. v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan, ICSID case
No. ARB/01/13, 06.08.2003. , 130-131.
498
, 1/2014
43 , ,44
. ,
, , ,
, , .45
.
,
, , ,
, ,
. , .46 ,
, ,
.47 , ,48 ,
,
.
. ,
, .
43
Ethyl Corp. v. Government of Canada, NAFTA case,

24.06.1998.
44

, ,
. : , 119.
45
Ibid., 183-184.
46
Ethyl Corp. v. Government of Canada, 58.
47
Ibid., 84.
48

,
.

. , ,
. , 188-190.
499
, A ... (. 491517)

,
.49 , 6 - .50
, .51

.
, , ,
.52
2.1.4.

,
, .53 ,
54 ,
49
Ronald S. Lauder v. The Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, 03.09.2001. ,

185; Murphy Explorationa and Production Company International v. Republic of Ecuador,
ICSID Case No. ARB/08/4, 15.12.2010. , 108.
50
, 135.
51
Ibid., 140-144. ,
, , .
6 , ,
,
,
. Burlington Resources Inc. v. Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Case No.
ARB/08/5, 02.06.2010. , 342.
52
.
Peterson, Luke Eric, South Africas Puzzling New Treaty with Zimbabwe,
http://kluwerarbitrationblog.com/blog/2009/12/10/south-africas-puzzling-new-treaty-with-zimbabwe/
53
Schreuer, Interaction of International Tribunals and Domestic Courts in Investment Law,
op.cit., 76; Schreuer, Calvos Grandchildren, op.cit., 4.
54
Schreuer, Christoph, Interaction of International Tribunals and Domestic Courts in Investment Law u knjizi Arthur W. Rovine, Contemporary Issues in International Arbitration and
Mediation: The Fordham Papers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2011, 75.
500
, 1/2014

, .
. ,
(. denial of justice).
-

-, .

, , , .
,

, , .

, . ,
,
,
, .55
,
.56

.
, .57

,58
55
Generation Ukraine v. Ukraine, 20.33.

EnCana v. The Republic of Equador, The London Court of International Arbitration Case
UN 3481, 03. 2006. , 194.
57
,
200 .
58
Jan de Nul N.V. & Dredging International N.V. v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case
No. ARB/04/13, 16.06.2006.
56
501
, A ... (. 491517)
.59 , , .
, ,
.60

.
,
, , ex lege , .

, ,
.61 ,
, .62
2.1.5.
- . , , , , .

.
,

. ,
,
(the road of no return).
59

,
,
. 258 .
60
Jan de Nul N.V. & Dredging International N.V. v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case
No. ARB/04/13, 16.06.2006, 255.
61
Emilio Agustn Maffezini v. The Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/97/7,
25. 2000, 33.
62
Siemens A.G. v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/8, Decision on jurisdiction N, August 3, 2004, 104.
502
, 1/2014
, , : Una
via electa non datur recursus ad alteram.63 ,
. , .
,
,
, .
3.
( fork in the road)
3.1.
3.1.1.

,

. , , , . ,

, , .64 , de facto , ,
, .
3.1.2.

63
Schreuer, Trveling the BIT Route, op.cit., 240.

Hague Conference on Private International Law, The Future Convention on Exclusive
Choice of Court Agreements and Arbitration - Parallel proceedings and possible treaty conflicts,
in particular with ICSID and the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of
Foreign Arbitral Awards , . 2006. 26, 12.
64
503
, A ... (. 491517)
,
- . .
,
, a , .
, .
3.1.3.

,
2011.
.
,65
,
, 18
. 18 ,
66
, ,
, . 18 , .

,

.67 ,
. A

65
Abaclat and others v Argentina, ICSID case ARB/07/5,

04.08.2011. , 578. Born, Gary, Weighing the interests of host-state and
investor a further blow to domestic litigation provisions in BITs?,
http://kluwerarbitrationblog.com/blog/2011/10/21/weighing-the-interests-of-host-state-andinvestor-a-further-blow-to-domestic-litigation-provisions-in-bits.
66
Abaclat v Argentina 590.
67
Schreuer, Consent to arbitration, op.cit., 848.
504
, 1/2014
,
.68
, .69 , ,
. ,
,
.
3.2.
-
.70 -
,71
,72 73 74
.
-
, , , . ,
, .75 ,
, .
, .
68
Plama Consortium Limited v. Republic of Bulgaria, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/24, Decision on Jurisdiction, 8 February 2005, 224.
69
Schreuer, Calvos Grandchildren, op.cit., 4.
70
,
, 523.
71
9 3 :

.
72
11 3 .
73
11 3 .
74
9 3 .
75
, , ,
, , , , , .
505
, A ... (. 491517)

,
, .76
.77
.78 ,
. ,
.79
, ,
, . 9 3 :
2, , (sic!) ,
, ,80
, .
, ,
76
.
12 2 .
78
. ,
, , , , , , , , , , - , ,
, .
79
Wegen, Gerhard, Markert, Lars, Chapter V: Investment Arbitration Food for Thought
on Fork-in-the-Road A Clause Awakens from its Hibernation, Christian Klausegger, Peter
Klein, et al. (eds), Austrian Yearbook on International Arbitration 2010, C.H. Beck, Stmpfli &
Manz 2010, 271.
80
9
,

, , .

, .
294, 1
. ,
3 9 ,
, , . 293
294 .
77
506
, 1/2014
. , ,
. ,
.
3.3.

.
.81 ,
.82

. ,

.83 ,
, :
3.3.1.) ; 3.3.2.)
3.3.3.) .
3.3.1.
,

. , , .
, ,
. ,

81
Ibid., 272.
Schreuer, Consent to arbitration, op.cit., 849.
83
Schreuer, Trvelling the BIT Route, op.cit., 240-241.
82
507
, A ... (. 491517)
.84
3.3.2.

,
.85
-,
. ,

, . . ,
(fundamental basis of a claim) .86
, .
- .87

84
Ibid., 241.
Polish Postal Service in
Danzig (Series B No. 11, 16.05.1925. , 30)
: il y a
non seulement identit des Parties en litige, mais galement identit de la matire.
, lis pendens, , ,
Trail Smelter 1938. , reprinted in
33 A.J.I.L.182 (1941), 1952
(Benvenuti & Bonfant SRL v. the Government of the Peoples Republic of Congo,
ICSID Case No. ARB/77/2, 08.08.1980. , 1 ICSID Rep. 330, 340
1.14.), , Railroad development corporation (RDC) v. Republic of Guatemala, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/23, 131).
86
Pantechniki S.A. Contractors & Engineers v. The Republic of Albania, ICSID Case No.
ARB/07/21, 30.07.2009. , 61.
87
I,
,

-, .
I, 113.
85
508
, 1/2014

,
.88

,
,
-.89
, . , ,

, .90 , .
, . 1997.
,
, , ,
5 . ,
, 1.800.000 .

, . 2001.
, ,
2006. .

. ,
.91 , .92
, -
88
Toto Costruzioni Generali S.P.A. v. The Republic of Lebanon, ICSID Case No.
ARB/07/12 211-212.
89
Alex Genin, Eastern Credit Limited, Inc v. Republic of Estonia, ICSID Case No.
Arb/99/2, 25.06.2001. , 332.

-, . 71.
90
Pantechniki, 62.
91
Wegen, Markert, op.cit., 276.
92
Ibid., 280-281.
509
, A ... (. 491517)
, (denial of justice),
.93
3.3.3.
,
. ,
, , .
,

lis pendens,
. , ,
.94

,
.
,
(
)
, . ,
. , , ,
,
.95
93
Pantechniki, 64-68.
Wegen, Markert, op.cit.,. 284; de Lotbinire McDougall, Andrew, Res
judicata in International Arbitration:Case Studies and Principles, Transnational Dispute Management vol. 9 issue 3, 2012, 8-9.
95
CMS Gas Transmission Company v Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/8 ,
25.09.2007, 78-80.
,
,
, ,
,
94
510
, 1/2014

,
.96 , ,
-

. . ,
ius standi .97
,
,
.
, ,
, .98
,
, , lis pendens.99
, , , .
,
-
.
. , 95-98 ,
86-91.
96

, Boundary dispute between Qatar adn Bahrain. Legal opinion
of Chritoph Schreuer and August Reinsch on Partial Award of September 13 2001 in CME Czech
Republic BV v. The Czech Republic.
97
Autopista Concesionada De Venezuela, C.A V Bolivarian Republic Of Venezuela, ICSID case no. ARB/00/5, 27. 2001.
.
98
, 162 165, 412 419.
99
Legal opinion of Schreuer and Reinisch, op.cit., 239.
511
, A ... (. 491517)
, .100
3.4.

,
-. -
-. -
,

.
(. contract claims)
o
- . . ,
-, inter alia .101
.
,
, , ( ). ,
-, , -.

, - , (
) .
100
101
512
Schreuer, Traveling the BIT Route, op.cit., 249.

, 80; , 232.
, 1/2014
,
-, .
, - .102 ,
, .
3.5. -

.
. ,
.103
-
.104 , , ,
, -, , .

, , . , , , .105

-
102
Wegen, Markert, op.cit, 279.

Kahale, III George, Is Investor-State Arbitration Broken?, Transnational Dispute
Management , Vol. 9, issue 7, December 2012, 21.
104
Claire Crpet, Plama Consortium Limited v. Republic of Bulgaria (ARB/03/24) The
most-favoured-nation clause issue , Transnational Dispute Management vol. 2 issue 3, 2005, ,
5.
105
, 120.
103
513
, A ... (. 491517)
, . ,
, ,
- -
.
, .
,
.106 , -
, , , , .
, , .

,.
, ,
- .107
. .108 , ,

.109
-
. -
106
, 63.

. 272-273.
108
Martin, Antoin, Back to the Eternal Debate of MFN and Dispute Settlement: A Case
Comment on ICS v. Republic of Argentina, Transnational Dispute Management Vol. 9, issue 7,
December 2012, 10.
109
319.
107
514
, 1/2014
,

, , ,
-.110
-,
.
, .
4.

,
. , ,
, , -
, .
,
, -

. ,
.
,

,
. . -
110
, 118. National Grid plc v. The Argentine Republic, UNCITRAL,
20.06.2006. , , ,
.
515
, A ... (. 491517)

, ,
.
,
.

,
. , , ,
- , .
,
, ,
,
, .
516
, 1/2014
Dragana Mitri Savi, Ph.D. Student

The Fork-in-the-road Clause

Abstract: Parties can use arbitration agreement to widen the jurisdiction
of the arbitration tribunal, or to narrow it down. Arbitration agreements that
embed the so called fork in the road clause prevent investors to use multiple
dispute resolution mechanisms provided in the agreement. In other words, by
initiating proceedings, the investor has made an irrevocable choice. That being
said, investors are often drawn into proceedings in the host state, however, not
every appearance before domestic courts will constitute a choice under the
fork in the road clause. Arbitration tribunals have made out criteria under
which it will be considered that the investor has chosen a path. The investor will
be precluded from initiating arbitration if he has previously tried to resolve the
same dispute before domestic courts. Another condition that has to be met cumulatively is that the same parties were involved in the domestic proceedings
and in international arbitration, i.e. there must be identity of the parties to the
dispute. The parties often opt to include the fork in the road clause in arbitration agreements. Serbia has included this clause in majority of its bilateral
investment.
Key words: arbitration tribunal, investment dispute, fork in the road clause, identity of parties, identity of object and cause of action, fundamental basis
of a claim.
517
CIP -
,
34(082)
= Collected Papers /
; .
- 1966, 1. - : , 1966-. 24 cm
ISSN 0550-2179
COBISS.SR-ID 16397826
, A ... (. 491517)
518
ISSN 0550-2179

Zbornik 1 2014

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Zbornik 1 2014

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1/2014

Attila Duds, Ph.D., Assistant Professor

SECTION FOR FOREIGN AUTHORS

Attila Bad, Ph.D., Full Professor

Univ.-Prof. DDr. Bernd Wieser

Aleksandra Popovi, Ph.D. Student

, Res sanctae (. 724)

, Res sanctae (. 724)

Sextus Pompeius Festus II . . . De

, Res sanctae (. 724)

, Res sanctae (. 724)

osae res sanctae .

, Res sanctae (. 724)

res sanctae res divini iuris, , .

, Res sanctae (. 724)

Liv. 8.5.8; Cic. de domo, 137.

iuris. , res sacrae res religiosae.41 divini iuris.42

, Res sanctae (. 724)

, Res sanctae (. 724)

Antun Malenica, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus

Res sanctae in Roman pre-Christian period

, Res sanctae (. 724)

. : ( 1252. ), ( 1262. ), ( 1305. ), ( 1340. ), (

: 22 (..), 2 (..). : ibidem, . 327.

: 24 (..), 1 (..) 2 (..). : ibidem, . 330

: 24 (..), 3 (..). : ibidem, . 331.

: 25 (..), 1 (..) 2 (..). , , , , ,

: 29 (..), 3 (..) 4 (..). : ibidem, . 346.

: 30 (..), 7 (..). : ibidem, . 347348.

: 30 (..), 15 (..). : ibidem, . 349350.

: 32 (..), 1 (..). : ibidem, . 353.

, , , : . , op. cit., . 5051.

: 33 (..), 10 (..). : ibidem, . 357.

: 33 (..), 20 (..). : ibidem, . 365366.

: 35 (..), 7 (..). : ibidem, . 377.

: 37 (..), 3 (..). : ibidem, . 380.

Nataa Stojanovi, Ph.D., Full Professor

On Succession in the Nomocanon of Saint Sava

tals in the Age of Expansion, Stuttgart 1981, pp. 41-69 = , , , .

Sran arki, Ph.D., Full Professor

Could We Talk about Environmental Protection

Commission Regulation (EC) No 502/1999 of 12 February 1999 amending Regulation

- () 1357/2013 17. 2013. () 2454/1993

2007/74/ 20. 2007.

Mile Vranje, Ph.D., Full Professor

On Reliefs from Customs Duty in the European Union

. Mumma, D. Hodas, Designing a Global Post-Kyoto Global Change Protocol that

Rodoljub Etinski, Ph.D., Full Professor

New Concept of Equity and Human Rights as a Factor

Explanatory Report l.1

Explanatory Report l.2 (7)

Larson M., op.cit., str.227

Explanatory Report l..2 t.41

Explanatory Report l.6 t.53

Bernasconi C., op.cit., str.50 -51

Larson M., op.cit., str.225

Bernasconi C., op.cit., str.51

Zoran Arsi, Ph.D., Full Professor

Convention on Civil Liability for Damage Resulting

Directive 2008/101/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November

30. 2007 . http://www.state.gov/e/eb/rls/othr/ata/e/eu/114768.htm

2007, 2009. 2011. .25

Directiva 2002 OJ L 85.