#PERIOD AFTER unknown author - 04/1999 - Belgrande

Pravna analiza uredbe Savezne vlade o primenjivanju zakona o krivicnom postupku za vreme ratnog stanja(Sl. List SRJ br. 21/99)

Legal Analysis of the Federal Goverment's Decree on Application of the Criminal Procedure During the State of War (Official Gazette of FRY No 21/99)

Wir versuchen alle Texte in allen Sprachen zu veröffentlichen. Wegen begrenzter Ressourcen ist dies nicht immer möglich. Sollten Sie Interesse haben Texte für uns zu übersetzen, bitte schicken Sie uns eine Email.

Uredbom Savezne vlade odredjeno je da se za vreme ratnog stanja primenjuju odredbe Zakona o krivicnom postupku (Sl. list SFRJ br. 4/77, 14/85, 74/87, 57/89, i 3/90 i Sl. list SRJ br. 27/92 i 24/94), ako ovom uredbom nije drugacije propisano.

Uredba Savezne vlade u skladu je sa njenim ovlascenjima iz cl. 99 st. 11 Ustava SRJ, po kome je Savezna vlada ovlascena da, u slucaju kada Savezna skupstina nije u mogucnosti da se sastane za vreme ratnog stanja, moze donositi akte o pitanjima iz nadleznosti Savezne skupstine.

Izmene Zakona o krivicnom postupku utvrdjene ovom Uredbom su sledece:

I Prosirenje mesne nadleznosti suda u kome je okrivjeni uhvacen ili se sam prijavio

Cl. 2 Uredbe predvidja nadleznost za vodjenje krivicnog postupka protiv okrivljenog koji je u bekstvu ili koji je nedostupan sudu koji bi bio mesno nadlezan po odredbama ZKP SUDA U MESTU U KOME JE OKRIVLJENI UHVACEN ILI SE SAM PRIJAVIO.

Navedeno predstavlja prosirenje mesne nadleznosti suda u mestu u kome je okrivljeni uhvacen ili se sam prijavio u odnosu na njegovu nadleznost iz cl. 29 st. 3 ZKP koji predvidja nadleznost tog suda ako nije poznato mesto izvrsenja krivicnog dela ni prebivaliste ili boraviste okrivljenog, ili su oba van teritorije SRJ.

II Promene vezane za obavezu pribavljanja odobrenja za krivicno gonjenje i vodjenje krivicnog postupka, kao i za pretresanja stana, drugih prostorija i lica

Cl. 3 Uredbe predvidja da se odredbe Zakona o krivicnom postupku vezane za OBAVEZU PRIBAVLJANJA ODOBRENJA za krivicno gonjenje ili vodjenje krivicnog postupka NECE PRIMENJEVATI

prema uciniocu krivicnog dela:
  • protiv ustavnog uredjenja i bezbednosti SRJ (Glava 15. KZ SRJ),
  • protiv covecnosti i medjunarodnog prava (Glava 16.KZ SRJ),
  • protiv Vojske Jugoslavije (Glava 20. KZ SRJ),
kao i prema uciniocu krivicnog dela za koje je pripisana kazna zatvora u trajanju od najmanje pet godina.

Time je, u ovom slucaju, stavljena van snage odredba cl. 139 ZKP po kojoj je propisano da kada je zakonom odredjeno da je za gonjenje pojedinih krivicnih dela potrebno prethodno odobrenje nadleznog drzavnog organa, javni tuzilac ne moze zahtevati sprovodjenje istrage niti podici neposredno optuznicu, odnosno optuzni predlog ako ne podnese dokaz da je odobrenje dato (npr. odobrenje Savezne skupstine za krivicno gonjenje poslanika te skupstine kao ucinioca pojedinih krivicnih dela…)

Takodje cl. 7 Uredbe predvidjena je mogucnost pretresanja stana, drugih prostorija i lica BEZ PISMENOG SUDSKOG NALOGA I BEZ SAGLASNOSTI TOG LICA od strane nadleznih organa (organa unutrasnjih poslova) u slucaju kada postoji osnovana sumnja da je lice pocinilo jedno od gore navedenih krivicnih dela.

Time je, u navedenom slucaju, stavljena van snage odredba cl. 207 st. 1. ZKP po kojoj pretresanje naredjuje sud pismenom obrazlozenom naredbom, kao i odredbe cl. 207 st. 2 ZKP po kojoj se naredba o pretresanju predaje pre pocetka pretresanja licu kod koga ce se ili na kome ce se pretresanje izvrsiti, i po kojoj odredbi ce se pre pretresanja pozvati lice na koje se odnosi naredba o pretresanju da dobrovoljno izda lice, odnosno predmete koji se traze.

III Promene vezane za odredbe koje predvidjaju izuzece sudije

Cl. 4. Uredbe predvidja PRESTANAK PRIMENE tacke 6 clana 39 Zakona o krivicnom postupku koji predvidja izuzece sudije ili sudije porotnika ako postoje okolnosti koje izazivaju sumnju u njegovu nepristrasnost.

IV Promene vezane za stvarnu nadleznost i sastav suda

Cl. 5. Uredbe predvidja da za krivicna dela za koja je kao glavna kazna propisana novcana kazna ili kazna zatvora do pet godina u prvostepenom postupku sudi sudija pojedinac (cime su izmenjene odredbe koje predvidjaju sastav veca od jednog sudije i dvojice sudija porotnika za ista krivicna dela - cl. 23 ZKP)

V Promene vezane za prosirenje ovlascenja pojedinih organa

Cl. 6. Uredbe predvidja PROSIRENJE OVLASCENJA :

  • javnog tuzioca u smislu da moze SPROVODITI ISTRAGU. (Prema cl. 161 st. 1. ZKP istragu sprovodi istrazni sudija nadleznog suda.)
  • istraznog sudije da moze u hitnim slucajevima voditi istragu i preduzimati pojedine istrazne radnje I BEZ ZAHTEVA JAVNOG ODNOSNO DRZAVNOG TUZIOCA.(Prema cl. 158 st. 1. ZKP istraga se sprovodi na zahtev javnog tuzioca.)
  • organa unutrasnjih poslova da moze u hitnim slucajevima sprovoditi istrazne radnje I BEZ ODLUKE JAVNOG ODNOSNO DRZAVNOG TUZIOCA

ali su istrazni sudija i organ unutrasnjih poslova u obavljanju ovih ovlascenja OGRANICENI DUZNOSCU da odmah o obavljanju ovih radnji obaveste javnog odnosno drzavnog tuzioca.

VI Promene vezane za organe koji mogu odredjivati pritvor i duzinu trajanja pritvora

Cl. 8 Uredbe menja odredbe ZKP koje se odnose na ovlascenje organa za odredjivanje privora [koji je do sada po ZKP mogao odredjivati samo istrazni sudija nadleznog suda (Cl. 192. st.1 ZKP), u odredjenim slucajevima i istrazni sudija nizeg suda (cl. 194 st.1 ZKP) kao i u izuzetnim slucajevima i organ unutrasnjih poslova pre pokretanja istrage pod uslovima iz cl. 196. st. 1. i 2. vezano za cl. 191. stav 1. i stav 2. tac.1 i 3 ZKP (odredjivanje pritvora protiv lica za koje postoji osnovana sumnja da je izvrsilo krivicno delo za koje je u zakonu propisana smrtna kazna…)]

Naime, pritvor sada mogu odrediti sledeci organi:

  • ISTRAZNI SUDIJA
  • JAVNI ODNOSNO DRZAVNI TUZILAC I
  • ORGAN UNUTRASNJIH POSLOVA.

Promenjene su i odredbe ZKP koje se odnose na duzinu trajanja pritvora u smislu da

  • pritvor koji ova tri organa odrede MOZE TRAJATI DO 30 DANA. (do sada pritvor koji odredi OUP mogao je da traje najduze 3 dana po cl. 196 st.3)
  • pritvor koji odrede ovi organi Vece prvostepenog suda (cl.23 stav 6 ZKP) moze PRODUZITI JOS DO TRI MESECA (prema dosadasnjim odredbama cl. 197.st.2 pritvor se po odluci prvostepenog veca mogao produziti najvise za dva meseca)
  • o produzenju pritvora JOS DO PET MESECI odlucuje vece neposredno viseg suda (prema cl. 197 st.2 ZKP ako se postupak vodi za krivicno delo za koje se moze izreci kazna zatvora preko pet godina ili teza kazna vece republickog vrhovnog suda moze iz vaznih razloga produziti pritvor najvise za jos tri meseca)
  • takodje cl. 8 Uredbe vise ne predvidja obavezu organa unutrasnjih poslova da u slucajevima kada je ovaj organ odredio pritvor odmah obavesti javnog tuzioca odnosno istraznog sudiju koji je mogao da zahteva da mu organ unutrasnjih poslova odmah sprovede pritvoreno lice itd (cl. 196 stav 4. ZKP)

VII Promene vezane za ovlascenje javnog tuzioca da podigne optuznicu i bez sprovodjenja istrage i bez saglasnosti istraznog sudije

Cl. 9 Uredbe predvidja prosirenje ovlascenja javnog tuzioca odnosno drzavnog tuzioca da podigne optuznicu i bez sprovodjenja istrage i bez saglasnosti istraznog sudije ako prikupljeni podaci pruzaju dovoljno osnova za podizanje optuznice UKOLIKO JE ZA ODNOSNO KRIVICNO DELO PROPISANA KAZNA ZATVORA DO DESET GODINA.

Dosadasnja odredba cl. 160 st.6 predvidjala je ovlascenje javnog tuzioca da bez sprovodjenja istrage moze podici optuznicu ako prikupljeni podaci koji se odnose na krivicno delo i ucinioca pruzaju dovoljno osnova za optuzenje ali za krivicna dela za koja je propisana kazna zatvora do pet godina. Sto se tice nesaglasnosti istraznog sudije sa podizanjem optuznice bez sprovodjenja istrage dosadasnji cl. 160 st. 5 predvidjao je da se u takvom slucaju postupa kao da je stavljen zahtev za sprovodjenje istrage.

VIII Uvodjenje najkraceg roka za odredjivanje glavnog pretresa od urucenja optuznice

Cl. 10 Uredbe PREDVIDJA ROK OD 48 CASOVA za vreme od urucenja optuznice okrivljenom do glavnog pretresa.

Do sada je clanom 279 st.2 ZKP regulisano najkasnije odredjivanje glavnog pretresa od strane predsednika veca u roku od dva meseca od dana prijema optuznce u sudu. Prema tome cl. 10 Uredbe odredjuje najkrace vreme odredjivanja glavnog pretresa a sve to u cilju brzeg odvijanja krivicnog postupka.

IX Promena roka u kome okrivljeni ima pravo da podnese prigovor protiv otpuznice

Cl. 11 st.1 Uredbe predvidja da okrivljeni ima pravo da podnese prigovor protiv optuznice U ROKU OD 24 CASA od casa dostavljanja.Time je promenjen rok iz cl. 267 st.1 ZKP koji je iznosio osam dana od dostavljanja optuznice.

Takodje isti clan Uredbe u st. 2 odredjuje da PODNETI PRIGOVOR NE UTICE DA ODRZAVANJE GLAVNOG PRETRESA U ROKU IZ CLANA 10 UREDBE, sto konkretno znaci da postavljanje prigovora od strane okrivljenog ne utice na stupanje optuznice na pravnu snagu. Dakle optuznica moze stupiti na pravnu snagu iako postoji prigovor protiv optuznice od strane okrivljenog tj. ne postoji bitna povreda odredaba krivicnog postupka u slucaju kada se zakaze glavni pretres i donese osudjujuca presuda po optuznici koja nije stala na pravnu snagu jer postoji prigovor okrivljenog.

Takodje cl. 271 st. 1 ZKP odredjuje mogucnost stavljanja prigovora protiv optuznice od strane javnog tuzioca, a cl. 277 st. 1 predvidja da ako prigovor protiv optuznice nije podnesen ili je odbacen, na zahtev predsednika veca pred kojim treba da se odrzi glavni pretres prvostepeno vece (cl. 23 st. 6 ) moze odluciti o svakom pitanju o kome se na osnovu ovog zakona resava povodom prigovora. Obzirom da cl. 11 st. 2 Uredbe eksplicitno ne predvidja da i ovi prigovori ne uticu na odrzavanje glavnog pretresa u roku iz cl. 10 Uredbe, moze se pretpostaviti da se odredba cl. 11 st. 2 Uredbe ne odnosi na slucajeve iz cl. 271 st.1. ZKP i cl. 277 ZKP .

X Promene vezane za dostavljanje zalbe na odgovor

Clan 12. Uredbe stavlja van snage odredbe Zakona o krivicnom postupku koje se odnose na dostavljanje zalbe na odgovor.

To znaci da ne postoji vise bitna povreda odredaba krivicnog postupka kada je drugostepeni sud doneo okluku kojom je uvazio zalbu javnog tuzioca i preinacio presudu prvostepenog suda u odluci o kazni i optuzeniku izrekao strozu kaznu, iako primerak zalbe tuzioca prvostepeni sud nije pre toga dostavio optuzenog u smislu clana 369 ZKP

XI Promene vezane za odlaganje glavnog pretresa i/ili izmenu sudskog veca odnosno sudije pojedinca

Clan 13 Uredbe predvidja mogucnost da Vece, odnosno sudija pojedinac MOZE ODLUCITI DA PRETRES NE POCINJE IZNOVA u slucaju:

  • ako je glavni pretres bio odlozen, a odlaganje je trajalo duze od mesec dana, ili
  • ako se odlozeni glavni pretres drzi pred izmenjenim vecem ili pred drugim sudijom pojedincem.

U takvom slucaju pretres se nastavlja, a predsednik veca, odnosno sudija pojedinac ukratko iznosi tok ranijeg pretresa.

Navedeno predstavlja promenu clana 305 st.3 ZKP, po kome je za isti slucaj, dakle ako je odlaganje glavnog pretresa trajalo duze od mesec dana, ili ako se glavni pretres drzi pred drugim predsednikom veca, glavni pretres mora iznova poceti i svi dokazi se moraju ponovo izvesti.

XII Promene vezane za dostavljanje pismenog otpravka presude

Clan 14 Uredbe predvidja dostavljanje pismenog otpravka presude iz nadleznosti sudije pojedinca SAMO NA IZRICIT ZAHTEV STRANKE.

Time je promenjena odredba cl. 356 st.3 ZKP vezano za cl. 123 ZKP u odnosu na dostavljanje presude iz nadleznosti sudije pojedinca, koje je po ovim odredbama u sustini bilo obavezno za sud, kako u odnosu na okrivljenog tako i u odnosu na njegovog branioca.

XII Promena roka za izjavljivanje zalbe na presudu

Clan 15 Uredbe predvidja novi rok za izjavljivanje zalbe protiv presude od TRI DANA, za razliku od roka od petnaest dana predvidjenog clanom 359 st. 1 ZKP.

XIII Promena odredaba vezanih za prisustvo stranaka prilikom resavanja zalbe

Clan 16 Uredbe predvidja da se odredbe ZKP koje se odnose na PRISUSTVO STRANAKA prilikom resavanja zalbe imaju primeniti samo kada predsednik veca ili vece nadje da bi prisustvo sstranaka, ili jedne od njih, ili branioca okrivljenog, BILO KORISNO ZA RAZJASNJENJE STVARI.

Prema tome odredbe cl. 373 st. 2 i st. 3 ZKP, u delu kojim predvidjaju obavezu da se na pretres pred drugostepenim sudom pozivaju optuzeni i njegov branilac, nece se primenjivati ako sud nadje da njihovo prisustvo nema uticaja na razjasnjenje stvari.

XIV Prosirenje primene odredaba ZKP koje se odnose na skraceni postupak i pritvor u skracenom postupku

Cl. 17 st.1 Uredbe predvidja primenu odredaba ZKP koje se odnose na SKRACENI POSTUPAK pred sudom u prvom stepenu za sva krivicna dela za koja je kao glavna kauzna propisana novcana kazna ili kazna zatvora DO PET GODINA, cime je prosiren krug krivicnih dela za koja je predvidjena kazna zatvora do tri godine prema cl. 430 ZKP.

Cl. 17 st. 2 Uredbe predvidja da pritvor u skracenom postupku moze TRAJATI SAMO ONOLIKO KOLIKO JE POTREBNO DA SE SPROVEDU ISTRAZNE RADNJE, ALI NE DUZE OD TRIDESET DANA. Time su stavljene van snage odredbe ZKP cl. 433 st.2 koja predvidja da pritvor u skracenom postupku pre podnosenja optuznog predloga moze trajati samo onoliko koliko je potrebno da se sprovedu istrazne radnje ali ne duze od osam dana. i odredbe cl. 433 st. 3 vezano za cl. 199 koje se odnose na odredjivanje pritvora u skracenom postupku od predaje optuznog predloga do zavrsetka glavnog pretresa, uvodjenjem jedinstvene odredbe za obe faze skracenog postupka.

Trudicemo se da sve tekstove predstavimo na svim jezicima. Obzirom da su nam izvori, budzet i broj ljudi veoma ograniceni znamo da necemo biti u mogucnosti da ovaj cilj u potpunosti postignemo. Ukoliko zelite da nam pomognete oko prevoda molimo vas da nas kontaktirate na.

According to the federal government's decree, the articles of the Law on Criminal Procedure (Official Gazette of SFRY No 4/77, 14/85, 74/87, 57/89, 3/90 and Official Gazette of FRY No 27/92 and 24/94) are to be applied during the state of war unless otherwise determined by this decree. The federal government's decree is in accordance with its competencies under article 99, paragraph 11 of the Constitution of FRY according to which the federal government is authorised to pass decrees regarding the issues under federal assembly's jurisdiction if the sessions of the federal assembly itself cannot be convened during the state of war. The changes in the Law on Criminal Procedure as determined by this decree are as follows:

I Extending the local jurisdiction of the court where the defendant has been arrested or turned himself in.

The article 2 of the decree determines the territorial jurisdiction of the COURT WHERE THE ACCUSED HAS BEEN ARRESTED OR TURNED HIMSELF IN regarding the opening of the criminal proceedings against the accused who is in flight or beyond jurisdiction of the local court which would otherwise be authorised to act as determined under the Law on Criminal Procedure. This represents an extension of the jurisdiction of a local court where the accused has been arrested or turned himself in as compared to its jurisdiction under article 29, paragraph 3 of the Law on Criminal Procedure according to which the court has jurisdiction if neither the scene of the crime nor the residence of the accused is known, or if these are both located beyond the borders of FRY.

II Changes regarding the obligation to obtain the authorisation for conducting criminal proceedings as well as the warrant to make a search of an apartment, other premises and individuals.

The article 3 of this decree determines that the regulations contained within the Law on Criminal Procedure regarding the OBLIGATION TO OBTAIN AUTHORISATION for conducting criminal proceedings shall NOT BE APPLIED

1. if the accused has perpetrated a crime:

  • against the constitutional order and security of FRY (Chapter 15, Criminal Code of FRY),
  • against humanity and international law (Chapter 16, Criminal Code of FRY),

  • against the Yugoslav army (Chapter 20, Criminal Code of FRY);

2. if the crime perpetrated by the accused entails at least 5-year prison sentence.

Thereby, in this case, the regulation contained in the article 139 of the Law on Criminal Procedure is effectively revoked, according to which the public prosecutor cannot either demand an investigation to be conducted or charges brought i.e. submit the proposal to bring charges unless presenting evidence beforehand that the authorisation by the competent state organs has been given (e.g. authorisation by the federal assembly to initiate criminal court action against MPs as well as against the assembly as a perpetrator of some criminal offences). Also the article 7 of the decree, authorises law enforcement officers to make a search of an apartment, other premises and individuals WITHOUT A WRITTEN JUDICIAL WARRANT AND WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THAT INDIVIDUAL if there is a reasonable doubt that the person has committed one of the above-mentioned criminal offences. Thereby, in this case, the regulation contained within the article 207, paragraph 1 of the Law on Criminal Procedure, according to which the court orders a search by means of a search warrant, as well as the regulations contained in the article 207, paragraph 2 of the Law on Criminal Procedure according to which the court order to make a search is to be delivered to the person to be searched or whose premises are to be searched before the search itself commences, are effectively revoked. This also includes the regulation according to which the person, whom this court order to make a search refers to, is to be summoned before the search itself and demanded to voluntarily give information about the person in question, i.e. the objects which are being searched for.

III Changes regarding the regulations on disqualification of judges

The article 4 of the Decree determines that regulation contained in the article 39, paragraph 6 of the Law on Criminal Procedure, according to which a judge or members of the jury may be disqualified if the circumstances indicate his/her possible prejudice, is NO LONGER TO BE APPLIED.

IV Changes regarding the jurisdiction and the structure of the court

The article 5 of the Decree determines that a judge as an individual in the court of first instance is to conduct the proceedings for criminal offences for which fines or sentences of up to 5 years in prison are prescribed (thus changing the regulations according to which a council consisting of a judge and two jurists are intended to conduct such proceedings, article 23, Law on Criminal Procedure).

V Changes regarding the extension of the authority of some state bodies

According to the article 6 of the Decree, an EXTENDED AUTHORITY is given to:

- the public prosecutor in terms of CONDUCTING AN INVESTIGATION. (According to the article 16, paragraph 1, of the Law on Criminal Procedure, the investigation is to be conducted by an investigative judge of the competent court.);

- the investigative judge so that he/she may conduct investigation and undertake certain investigative measures in case of an emergency EVEN WITHOUT PRIOR REQUEST ON THE PART OF THE PUBLIC I.E. STATE PROSECUTOR (According to the article 158, paragraph 1, of the Law on Criminal Procedure, the investigation is being conducted at the public prosecutor's request.);

- law enforcement officers so that they may undertake investigative measures in case of an emergency EVEN WITHOUT PRIOR DECISION BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR I.E. STATE PROSECUTOR, but the investigative judge and law enforcement officers are OBLIGED TO NOTIFY immediately public prosecutor i.e. state prosecutor of the measures.

VI Changes regarding the organs which may impose temporary arrest and determine the duration of the confinement

The article 8 of the Decree changes the regulations contained within the Law on Criminal Procedure regarding the authority of the organs to impose temporary confinement [up till now, according to the Law on Criminal Procedure, only the investigative judge of the competent court was in charge of this matter (article 192, paragraph 1, Criminal Law), and in special cases, this could be done by the organ of internal affairs as well before the investigation is initiated under conditions as determined by the article 196, paragraph 1 and 2 and the article 191, paragraph 1 and paragraph 2, items 1 and 3, of the Law on Criminal Procedure (imposing temporary confinement on individuals suspected of having committed a criminal offence which entails, according to the law, a capital punishment)].

The following organs now may reach a decision on temporary arrests:

- INVESTIGATIVE JUDGE

- PUBLIC PROSECUTOR I.E. STATE PROSECUTOR AND

- THE ORGAN OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS.

Also the regulations of the Criminal Law concerning the duration of temporary arrest have been changed so that now:

- the TIME LIMIT IS 30 DAYS (up till now the temporary arrest enforced by the organ of internal affairs could not last more than 3 days according to the article 196, paragraph 3);

- temporary arrest as determined by these organs may be EXTENDED by the court of first instance (article 23, paragraph 6, Criminal Law) for ANOTHER 3-MONTH PERIOD (according to the regulations which have been in force up till now, article 197, paragraph 2, temporary arrest could be extended by means of a ruling of the court of first instance for maximum 2 months);

- the council of a higher court directly reaches a decision on extending temporary arrests (according to the article 197, paragraph 2, of the Criminal Law, if the proceedings are being conducted for a criminal offence which entails sentences of more than 5 years in prison or even harsher punishment, then the Council of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Serbia may further extend the temporary arrest for additional 3-month period);

- also, the article 8 of the Decree does not provide for the obligation of the organs of internal affairs, in the case of temporary arrest, to notify public prosecutor i.e. investigative judge which in turn could demand that the organ of internal affairs immediately bring the arrested person to the public prosecutor etc. (article 196, paragraph 4, Criminal Law).

VII Changes regarding the authority of the public prosecutor to bring charges without prior investigation and consent of the investigative judge

The article 9 of the Decree provides for extending the authority of the public prosecutor i.e. state prosecutor to bring charges without prior investigation and consent of the investigative judge if the evidence gathered so far offer a basis for bringing charges IN THE CASE OF A CRIMINAL OFFENCE WHICH ENTAILS A PRISON SENTENCE OF UP TO 10 YEARS. The article 160, paragraph 6, which has been in force until now, provided for the authority of the public prosecutor to bring charges without prior investigation, if the evidence gathered concerning the criminal offence and the offender does form the basis for prosecution, but this relates to the criminal offences for which sentences of up to 5 years in prison are prescribed. Regarding the disagreement of the investigative judge with the indictment without prior investigation the article 160, paragraph 5, determined, up till now, that the course of action must incorporate an investigation before the indictment.

VIII Introduction of the shortest possible time limit for determining the date of the main hearing from the date of delivering the indictment

The article 10 of the Decree PROVIDES FOR A 48-HOUR TIME LIMIT starting from the moment of delivering the indictment to the accused until the main hearing. So far the article 279, paragraph 2, Criminal Law, determined that the president of the judicial council must schedule the main hearing within the 2-month time limit starting from the date of receipt of the indictment in court. Consequently, the article 10 of the Decree determines the shortest possible time limit for scheduling the main hearing so as to accelerate the criminal proceedings.

IX Changes of time limits within which the accused has the right to object against the indictment

The article 11, paragraph 1, of the Decree determines that the accused has the right to object against the indictment WITHIN 24-HOUR TIME LIMIT since the delivery of the indictment. Thereby, the time limit under the article 267, paragraph 1, of the Law on Criminal Procedure has been changed (8 days from the moment of the receipt of the indictment). Also the same article, paragraph 2, of the Decree determines that the OBJECTION MADE DOES NOT AFFECT THE SCHEDULED MAIN HEARING WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT UNDER THE ARTICLE 10 OF THE DECREE, which practically means that the objections of the accused does not affect the indictment being put into effect in legal terms. Consequently, the indictment may come into effect despite the objection against the indictment itself on the part of the accused i.e. there is no major violation of the criminal proceedings' provisions in the case when the main hearing is scheduled and sentence brought according to the indictment which has not been put into effect since the objection in the written form of the accused has been previously submitted. Also the article 271, paragraph 1, of the Law on Criminal Procedure provides for the possibility of presenting an objection against the indictment by the public prosecutor, and the article 277, paragraph 1 determines that if the objection against the indictment has not been submitted or has been rejected, then, the council of the court of first instance (article 23, paragraph 6), at the request of the president of the council before which the main hearing is to take place, may reach decision on any issue which is being resolved on the basis of this law and with respect to this objection. However, since the article 11, paragraph 1 of the Decree does not explicitly state that these objections do not affect the scheduled main hearing within the time limit as determined in the article 10 of the Decree, one could presume that the provision from the article 11, paragraph 2 of the Decree does not refer to the cases from the articles 271, paragraph 1 and the article 277 of the Law on Criminal Procedure.

X Changes regarding the delivery of the appeal against the reply

The article 12 of the Decree effectively revokes the regulations of the Law on Criminal Procedure which refer to the delivery of the appeal against the reply of the court. This means that a major violation of the regulations of the criminal proceedings does not exist anymore when the court of second instance reaches a decision, thus accepting the appeal of the public prosecutor and altering the sentence of the court of first instance so as to pass a more severe punishment, even though the copy of the prosecutor's appeal has not been previously delivered by the court of first instance to the accused as determined by the article 369 of the Law on Criminal Procedure.

XI Changes regarding the adjournment of the main hearing and/or changes of the judicial council i.e. an individual judge

The article 13 of the Decree provides for the possibility that the Council i.e. the judge as an individual MAY DECIDE NOT TO INITIATE THE PROCESS OF HEARING AGAIN if the following conditions are met:

- if the main hearing was adjourned, and the adjournment lasted for more than a month, or

- if the adjourned main hearing takes place before the altered council or another judge.

If that were the case, the court proceeds with hearing and the president of the judicial council i.e. the judge as an individual gives the account of the first part of the hearing. This represents an alteration of the article 305, paragraph 3 of the Law on Criminal Procedure, according to which the main hearing has to be initiated and all the evidence presented once again if the adjournment of the main hearing has lasted for more than a month or if the main hearing is taking place before another president of the judicial council.

XII Changes regarding the delivery of the written copy of the verdict

The article 14 of the Decree determines that a written copy of the verdict is to be delivered ONLY AT THE EXPLICIT REQUEST OF THE INTERESTED PARTY. Thus, the article 356, paragraph 3 and the article 123 of the Law on Criminal Procedure concerning the delivery of the verdict which is in the authority of the judge as an individual, have been altered so that the obligation to deliver copies of the verdict to both the defendant and his/her lawyer does not exist.

XIII Changes of time limits for appealing against the verdict

The article 15 of the Decree determines that the regulations of the Law on Criminal Procedure concerning the PRESENCE OF THE PARTIES during the process of the appeal are to be applied only when the president of the judicial council or the council itself rules that the presence of the parties, or one of the parties, or of the defendant's lawyer, WOULD BE USEFUL TO EXPLAIN THE MATTER. Consequently, the regulations from the article 373, paragraph 2 and 3 of the Law on Criminal Procedure, in their part which determines the obligation to summon the defendant and his/her lawyer for the hearing before the court of second instance, shall not be applied if the court rules that their presence has no bearing on further clarifying the matter.

XIV Extending the application of the regulations of the Law on Criminal Procedure regarding the summary proceedings and temporary confinement in summary proceedings

The article 17, paragraph 1, of the Decree determines the application of the regulations of the Criminal Law regarding the SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS before the court of first instance for all the criminal offences for which the major punishment that may be imposed is either a fine or a sentence of UP TO FIVE YEARS in prison, thus extending the number of criminal offences for which three-year prison sentences are prescribed according to the article 430 of the Criminal Law. The article 17, paragraph 2 of the Decree determines that the temporary confinement in a summary proceeding may LAST FOR ONLY THE PERIOD NEEDED TO CONDUCT INVESTIGATION, BUT NOT MORE THAN THIRTY DAYS. Thus, the regulations under article 433, paragraph 2, of the Law on Criminal Procedure are effectively revoked, and they determine that the temporary confinement in summary proceeding before indictment may last as long as needed to conduct the investigation, but not more than eight days, Also the article 433, paragraph 3 and the article 199 concerning the imposing of temporary confinement in a summary proceeding from the moment of submitting the indictment to the conclusion of the main hearing are no longer in force as one single regulation has been put into effect for the both phases of the summary proceeding.

We are trying to present all texts in all languages. However, due to a limited resources we are not always able to achieve this goal. If you would like to translate material for us, please contact us.