Search

Recent studies, as well as the judicial and criminalistic practice, show that senior citizens can testify as reliable witnesses in the process of proving the commission of a criminal offence and provide complete (valid) statements, provided that they are subejct to adequately conducted inquiry. According to the latest population census of the Republic of Serbia (from 2011), there was a total of 1.250.316 registered citizens over the age of 65. It implies that approximately every sixth citizen of Serbia belonged to the category of senior citizens. Considering the general improvement of the living standard, the development of medical science and diverse possibilities of medical treatment in the contemporary world, the percentage of senior citizens in the total population of Serbia will keep rising, and it may be expected that senior citizens will soon become the prevalent population category. If the growth of human average lifespan continues, according to certain calculations, an average lifespan in sixty years will be 100 years for men, and 103 years for women. Thus, it is quite probable that that senior citizens are likely to appear in criminal proceedings in the capacity of witnesses. For this reason, there is a need for more extensive rearch on the fundamental psychophysical characteristics of senior citizens and determining relevant criminal law rules and procedures which would create objective and subjective conditions for their participation in criminal proceedings, particularly in terms of obtaining a complete, accurate and valid tertimony in the process of proving the commisison of a criminal offence. Concurrently, it would prevent secondary victimization of these witnesses. In this paper, we indicate the psychophysical traits of senior citizes, elaborate on the issue of interrogating senior citizen witnesses from the aspect of criminal procedure norms and rules of criminal tactics, and discuss the current issues encountered by interrogators in the course of the inquiry, with the aim of ensuring a better quality of witness statements of senior citizens.

For years, the Court of Justice of the European Union has been overloaded with requests for preliminary rulings, given that these proceedings make up more than three-quarters of the Court caseload. Such circumstances constitute a significant constraint to the operation of the Court, which is unable to quickly and effectively respond to the preliminary questions which are referred to this Court by the national courts of Member States. In addition, the duration of the regular preliminary ruling proceedings jeopardizes the European standards not only in terms of the lengthy procedure but also in terms of observing the right of each individual to effective judicial protection within a reasonable time. In order to make the proceedings faster and more effective, the procedural rules have been repeatedly amended and supplemented. The applicable Rules of Procedure of the Court stipulate some exceptions from the regular preliminary ruling procedure. The first one is the so-called simplified procedure, where the Court renders a final decision in the form of a reasoned order, without scheduling an oral hearing and obtaining the written opinion of the Advocate-General. The Court may also decide to institute the expedited procedure, by means of which the case at issue is given absolute priority over other cases. The last exception is the urgent procedure, which is applicable only in the area of freedom, security and justice; it implies the omission of certain stages of the regular preliminary ruling procedure. The analyses presented in this paper show that the results achieved in terms of reducing the length of the regular preliminary ruling procedure are generally positive. Thus, the average time required for rendering a decision in the expedited procedure is approximately four and a half months, which is certainly a significant improvement as compared to the length of the regular procedure which takes sixteen to seventeen months. The initial results accomplished by instituting the urgent procedure are even more encouraging, as the average duration of this procedure is approximately two months. The time required for deliberation in an urgent procedure has never exceeded three months, which makes this procedure faster and more efficient than the expedited procedure.