Search

This paper considers judgments based on agreement of the parties in Croatian law, more precisely particular aspects of this consensual form which previous studies have assessed to be potentially problematic. These aspects include the objectives of reaching agreement, the gravity of criminal offences subject to agreement, the role of the court, and the legal position of the defence and that of the victim. These aspects are analysed primarily from a comparative-law perspective, since the Croatian version of plea bargaining, just like specific models adopted in some other European countries, was inspired by the same American model. Besides American law, the research includes Italian, French, Swiss, German and Austrian law. The goal of the comparative research is to find out whether the Croatian model contains some specific features which perhaps differ from positive comparative European legal solutions, but also result in theoretical and practical problems. The study will also include analysis of the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Croatia concerning primarily the issue of judicial control over the agreement of the parties, which has been most disputed in domestic literature and in judicial practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Another very decisive step was taken by the Law on Criminal Procedure of 2008 towards classic plea bargaining of the parties on guilt and sanctions in our criminal procedure whereby a legislator indicated clear dedication to the idea of accelerating the procedure i.e. to implement the principle of efficiency but to the detriment of up to now indisputable principles of the procedure. The paper deals mostly with a detailed comparative analysis of plea bargaining in the USA, Germany and Italy. By the US example the paper clearly shows reasons for success of this institute in its original environment and dangers in the plea bargaining system dominated by a strong plaintiff, whereas German and Italian examples of bargaining systems emphasize the analysis of court position, more or less involved in the particular bargaining procedure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Pravni Vjesnik is the property of Pravni fakultet Sveucilista J. J. Strossmayera u Osijeku and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

On 30 October 1854 the Criminal Procedure Act of 29 July 1853 (furtheron: the 1853 ZKP) came into force in Croatia and Slavonia. Although this was a strikingly reactive law, having emerged in the era of open absolutism i.e the Bach regime, the act played an important role in the development of Croatian criminal procedure law. Until the time when the 1853 ZKP entered into force Croatia had no systematically regulated criminal procedure act and criminal procedure had been regulated by customary law. This fact speaks for the significance of this act. Although it was an act in the form of inquisitory criminal procedure and as such considered as a step backwards when compared to the Criminal Procedure Act of 1850, which was passed on the pattern of the 1808 French Law on criminal investigation it was at the same time quite progressive when compared to the then customary law. The author gives a short historical review of criminal procedure development in Croatia and Slavonia until 1850, focusing on the important work by Ivan Kitoniæ: Metodièna uputa u sudbeni postupak po obièajnom pravu slavnog Ugarskog kraljevstva. The article deals with issues of particular acts applicable in the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy and finally deals with the central issue i.e. criminal procedure for the Austrian Empire of 29 July 1853.Furtheron, the author extensively reviews on the course of criminal procedure laid by regulations of the 1853 ZKP reflecting on all crucial institutes and emphasizing the prior procedure, adversarial procedure and oral final discussion with delivering and awarding judgement. Finally, the author considers the way the 1853 ZKP influenced development of Croatian criminal procedure law by connecting herein the basic institutes of the 1853 ZKP with crucial institutes of the 1997 Criminal Procedure Act and the 2008 Criminal Procedure Act. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]