Search

Copyright of Collected Papers of Zagreb Law Faculty / Zbornik Pravnog Fakulteta u Zagrebu is the property of Sveuciliste u Zagrebu, Pravni Fakultet 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.)

This paper is dedicated to the issue of violence against women and domestic violence in the context of the plea agreement of the parties and the procedural position of the victim in these proceedings. Therefore, this paper first analyses the European legal standards that weave the positive legal basis for the limitation of alternative ways of solving cases in the domain of domestic violence. The two pillars of the Convention's supervisory mechanism are then considered, which ensure the effective implementation of the proclaimed standards, with special reference to the results of the evaluation of the legal systems of the member states of the Convention from the perspective of the victim's right to effective investigation and the prohibition of alternative dispute resolution processes in the context of entering into plea agreements in cases of violence against women and domestic violence. Finally, the current normative framework of the Misdemeanour Act on the procedure for entering into a plea agreement and sanction is critically analysed, shortcomings and inconsistencies of the current procedural solutions are pointed out, and proposals are made for the future aimed at reviving international legal standards in the Croatian Misdemeanour Act. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Croatian Annual of Criminal Sciences & Practice / Hrvatski Ljetopis za Kaznene Znanosti i Praksu is the property of Hrvatsko Udruzenje za Kaznene Znanosti i Praksu 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.)

The paper contains an analysis of judgments based on agreement of the parties, a Croatian model of plea bargaining, drawing on the experiences of three groups of practitioners: judges, state attorneys, and defence counsels. Previously conducted comparative legal analysis, as well as analysis of the Croatian normative framework and jurisprudence, was not able to provide answers to a number of questions about the motivation of the parties to negotiate, on the negotiation procedure which is not recorded in the protocol, about the real and the ideal role of the court, and about the real position of the parties and the victim. Hence, these issues were researched through semi-structured interviews with 60 practitioners and then further discussed in four focus groups. Some of the findings uncovered systemic inconsistencies in everyday legal practice in a number of areas. For instance, judgment based on agreement of the parties is more readily used in cases of serious offences, while other consensual forms of proceedings tend to be used for less serious offences. Informal negotiations at all stages of the criminal procedure have proven to be very popular with practitioners and sometimes even encouraged by judges. Yet, the issue of judicial control of the plea agreement divided the respondents, even though the right to judicial review of criminal prosecution is a fundamental principle of Croatian criminal procedure, which covers not only the fundamental issues of legality and voluntariness of the concluded agreement, but also the purposefulness of the proposed sanction. The victim's position in the plea-bargaining procedure is considered to be adequate, at least as long as the victim is involved, and there is a tendency to consult the victim even in cases when his or her consent is not required by law. Finally, although it is generally considered that defence rights are well protected, there are problematic issues, namely tariffs or the 'take it or leave it' offer, as well as the wide discretion of the state attorney when deciding to enter into negotiations and reach agreement. The qualitative analysis of the findings, which is presented in this paper, should contribute to drafting specific proposals for improvements in the legislation and practice of the judgment based on agreement of the parties in Croatian law. Many of these findings may also be relevant for other legal systems, especially those of the continental European legal tradition, since they may face the same problems and questions related to plea bargaining as a global phenomenon. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper considers the legal justification for the application of various advanced systems of facial recognition technology for the purpose of initiating and conducting criminal proceedings. Therefore, the theoretical foundations and minimum European standards are first analyzed as a basis for the deployment of various facial recognition technology (hereinafter: FRT) systems in practice of law enforcement agencies. Then the legislative framework of selected European countries that have already established certain forms of FRT in criminal proceedings are presented. The experiences and legal consequences of the application of such systems are analyzed, and the first decisions of the judiciary on the admissibility of the results of actions and measures based on FRT as evidence in criminal proceedings are presented. Finally, the existing normative solutions are critically reviewed and, based on common European standards established to protect citizens from the repressive power of state bodies, the minimum conditions that must be met in order to harmonize the use of FRT with the basic principles of contemporary European criminal proceedings are proposed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article explores the possibilities of using artificial intelligence (AI) in the European judicial area with a special emphasis on risk assessment instruments and the justification of their use in determining the likelihood that a defendant at large will seek to thwart the goal of criminal proceedings. In this regard, experiences in the application of various risk assessment instruments in US judicial practice are first analysed. Then the European normative framework established at the level of the Council of Europe and European Union (EU) law is considered with special emphasis on the 'Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down harmonized rules on artificial intelligence' as a key normative act that will determine the long-term preconditions for the application of the risk assessment instruments in the criminal proceedings of EU Member States. Finally, an attempt is made to give answers to some specific questions that arose from the implementation of AI in EU criminal justice systems taking into account the presumption of innocence, the right to an objective and impartial judge and the principle of proportionality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Croatian Annual of Criminal Sciences & Practice / Hrvatski Ljetopis za Kaznene Znanosti i Praksu is the property of Hrvatsko Udruzenje za Kaznene Znanosti i Praksu 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.)

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]

Copyright of Croatian Annual of Criminal Sciences & Practice / Hrvatski Ljetopis za Kaznene Znanosti i Praksu is the property of Hrvatsko Udruzenje za Kaznene Znanosti i Praksu 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.)

Copyright of Croatian Annual of Criminal Sciences & Practice / Hrvatski Ljetopis za Kaznene Znanosti i Praksu is the property of Hrvatsko Udruzenje za Kaznene Znanosti i Praksu 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.)

The Act on Amendments to the Criminal Procedure Act (NN 70/2017) introduced, into the Croatian legal system, the Directive 2013/48/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 on the right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings and European arrest warrant proceedings as well as the right to have a third party informed upon deprivation of liberty and to communicate with third persons and with consular authorities while deprived of liberty. This paper contains the analysis of the nomotechnical solutions after the implementation of the Directive 2013/48/EU in the Republic of Croatia. In addition, particular attention has been given to the new substantive term of the suspect and its practical implications in different stages of the Croatian criminal procedure with special reference to effects and perception of the implementation of the Directive 2013/48/EU in Croatian criminal procedure. The paper criticizes some domestic legal solutions and offer different approach, with respect to the trends that have been noticed after amendment of the Croatian Criminal Procedure Act. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

On 19 June 2018, the Bulgarian Presidency of the Council, the European Parliament, and the European Commission agreed on the new Eurojust Regulation. The EU ambassadors con- firmed the agreement on 20 June 2018 followed by final adoption of the Regulation in November 2018. This paper refers to the novelties introduced by the new Regulation as well as to the projection of relations between agencies after the finalization of OLAF and EPPO competencies. The authors are analysing current modalities for their cooperation on institutional, operational and administrative levels. Will Eurojust become obsolete and possibly a department in the European Public Prosecutor's Office or two differentiated bodies that have a future with separated competencies, independent of each other? What role will OLAF play in relation to both agencies, and what impacts will this have on national criminal justice systems? The authors analyse possible scenarios and point to perceived overlapping in competencies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Croatian Annual of Criminal Sciences & Practice / Hrvatski Ljetopis za Kaznene Znanosti i Praksu is the property of Hrvatsko Udruzenje za Kaznene Znanosti i Praksu 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.)

The article discusses the improvement in the development of the procedural rights of the victim of crimes at European Union level in Article 11 of Directive 2012/29/EU and an assessment of its transposition in Germany, Italy and others with topics include legal systems of continental Europe.

Copyright of Collected Papers of Zagreb Law Faculty / Zbornik Pravnog Fakulteta u Zagrebu is the property of Sveuciliste u Zagrebu, Pravni Fakultet 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.)

Copyright of Croatian Annual of Criminal Law & Practice / Hrvatski Ljetopis za Kazneno Pravo i Praksu is the property of Hrvatsko Udruzenje za Kaznene Znanosti i Praksu 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.)

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]