Search

Criminal offences against economic interests are prescribed in the separate chapter of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Serbia. It is about 29 incriminations. Except that these offences are prescribed in the Criminal Code, such incriminations are prescribed and by the other laws. Author of this paper refers to certain penal and criminological aspects of the mentioned offences. At the beginning of paper there is a word about punishable acts in the field of economic interests. A chapter of work is dedicated to data on the frequency of occurrence of such offences. Author emphasizes certain specifics in regard to the enforcement of criminal sanctions against persons convicted for offences against economic interests.

After a misdemeanor and its perpetrator are discovered, the prosecution of the misdemeanor is initiated. Pursuant to the Misdemeanor Law either a request for initiation of a misdemeanor procedure is submitted against the defendant, or a misdemeanor warrant is issued. Without an "initiation act", a misdemeanor procedure cannot be pursued. In the current Law on Tax Procedure and Tax Administration there are certain specifics concerning the procedure for pursuing defendants of tax misdemeanors. The author focuses on examining the characteristics of this procedure.

The use of firearms is the most severe means of coercion that may be employed against a convict. The legal acts regulating the execution of criminal sanctions also foresee the use of firearms as means of coercion. The authors' attention is the use of firearms against a convict in the case of escape from a penitentiary. The authors highlight, first and foremost, who and under what conditions may employ a firearm against a convict. The relevant legal acts are analyzed and adequate and deficient solutions concerning the use of firearms are identified. The authors suggest de lege ferenda solutions.

One of the modes of "release ahead of time" from a penitentiary institution, or from a place of residence in which a convict may be serving his sentence, is early release. Early release can not be approved for every convict. There are exceptions to the rule that convicts are eligible for early release based on good behaviour. Early release may be granted by the director of the Administration for Execution of Prison Sentences or by a judge for enforcement of criminal sanctions. The author's attention in this paper is precisely the early release of convicts - those serving their sentence in penitentiary institutions as well as those serving them in their place of residence.

An agent A blames B hypocritically for violating a moral norm N if and only if: (i) A is likewise blameworthy for violating N, and (ii) A is not disposed to blame herself for violating N. Normally, an assertion involving blame is retracted following the objection that (i) and (ii) hold. I discuss two prima facie explanations for such a withdrawal: that the objection hampers the speaker’s assertoric authority, rendering (i) and (ii) the necessary condition to assert, and that the joint condition is, instead, merely a regulative rule. Having shown that the former option is too revisory as it requires reformulation of all normative accounts of assertion on the table, and the latter false, I proceed to argue that (i) and (ii) do not target assertions to begin with. An assertion involving blame is, instead, a clear case of a double speech act: after arguing for this claim, I proceed to show that qua assertion, the act is correct given one’s preferred normative account, whereas it is incorrect qua blaming, as in order to perform such an act, the speaker needs to satisfy the conditions (i) and (ii).

The rule that convicted persons serve their sentences exclusively in prisons has not been valid in the Republic of Serbia for a long time. Prison sentences may also be executed in the premises where the convicted person resides. Such a solution is introduced by the 2009 Law on Amendments and Supplements to the Criminal Code. The Criminal Code does not prescribe the punishment of a prison sentence served in the premises where the convicted person resides as a special punishment. Instead, the offender is sentenced to imprisonment, which is then executed in the premises where he lives. In criminal proceedings, the court is obliged to individualize the criminal sanction in a way that takes into account objective and subjective circumstances - the circumstances relating to the committed crime and its perpetrator. There are such perpetrators who it is necessary to sentence to prison, but who should not be sent to a penal institution. The prison sentence may also be served in premises where they reside (with or without electronic surveillance). Although, in a legally-binding sentence, the accused is sentenced to imprisonment in a penal institution, this does not necessarily mean that he will be placed into a penal institution to serve his sentence. The amendments and supplements of the Criminal Code leave an "opportunity" for the convict to serve his sentence in the premises where he resides, if the prescribed conditions are met. This is only a possibility which may be decided on by the judge in charge of executing criminal sanctions. If it is decided that the convicted person shall serve his sentence in the premises where he resides, the next step is the execution of the sentence. Not all convicted persons who are serving their sentence in this way are in the same legal position, as there is individualization in the process of executing a sentence as well. This difference is apparent, above all, in the amount of time that a convict is allowed to spend outside of the premises in which he resides. The focus of the authors' attention is precisely the punishment of imprisonment served in the premises where the convict resides (the so-called house arrest). The authors deal with material aspects and aspects of execution of the sentence. This paper focuses, among other matters, on the conditions for sentencing, models of execution of the sentence and the legal position of the convicted person while serving his sentence.

As a basic principle, the "right to work" is guaranteed under the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia. This human right is further elaborated primarily in the Labor Law, but also in other laws that stipulate the conditions for the establishment, exercise and termination of employment. This paper emphasizes the possibility of restricting both natural and legal persons, including entrepreneurs, to practicing a particular profession, activity or duty, resulting from the imposition of criminal sanctions. The security and protective measures in the criminal law of the Republic of Serbia prohibiting the practice of specific activities are also emphasized. One of the aims is to point out the consequences of the measures imposed, which are often more severe than the sentence itself.

Autor u radu analizira pojedine propise koji su doneti za vreme vanrednog stanja kojima se ograničava sloboda kretanja. Ukazuje pre svega na njihovu neustavnost, nezakonitost i druge manjkavosti. Cilj rada je, pre svega, sagledavanje propisa o tzv. policijskom času i ukazivanje na to kako su građani Republike Srbije kažnjavani iako za to nije bilo pravnog osnova. Autor daje odgovor na pitanja kaznene odgovornosti zbog kršenja tzv. policijskog časa nakon ukidanja vanrednog stanja.

Prvog decembra 2019. godine stupio je na snagu Zakon o izmenama i dopunama Krivičnog zakonika. Vladajuće je mišljenje da je njegova najveća novina uvođenje kazne doživotnog zatvora. Suprotnom takvom mišljenju, autor smatra da će ostale izmene i dopune KZ da pogode najveći broj učinilaca krivičnih dela, te da će se "osuđenička populacija u kaznenim zavodima" povećati.

A competent court sends a convicted person sentenced to a term of imprisonment, which is executed in the penitentiary institution, to serv the sentence. If the convicted person is not in detention, he/she awaits a court summons at home, indicating that he is to report for serving the prison sentence on a certain day and at a certain time. A convicted person who is awaiting a court summons cannot legally request that he be sent to serve a prison sentence before, but he can, when he gets the invitation, call to postpone the execution of a prison sentence. The authors in this paper point out to the prisoner's arrival in the penitentiary, as well as his first day in prison. The first part of the article refers to the waiting period from the court summons for serving the sentence of imprisonment, as well as the preparation of the convict for going to the penitentiary institution. The second part of the paper elaborates on the arrival of a convict in the penitentiary, starting with his reporting to the prison authorities for serving the sentence, until he goes to sleep and spends the first night in the penitentiary institution.

In virtue of what does a linguistic act count as an insult? I discuss five main approaches to this question, according to which an insult is determined by (i) the semantic properties of the expression used; (ii) the insulter, her intention, or attitudes; (iii) the addressee and her personal standard; (iv) the features of the speech act performed; and (v) the standard of the relevant social group. I endorse the last, objectivist account, according to which an act x counts as an insult if and only if x is assessed as demeaning when addressed at A by the standard of the relevant social group at t.

The subject of the authors' attention is the principle of ne bis in idem in the penal law of the Republic of Serbia. In this work the authors analyse positive laws in order to answer the question in which cases the repetition of sentencing is forbidden. In connection with this, international documents governing this principle, as well as the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia are analysed. Apart from that, the authors critically analyse the provisions of the current penal laws which govern this principle, which are the Criminal Procedure Code, the Misdemeanour Law and the Law on Economic Offenses. In the paper all the vague and contradictory provisions of the laws in this domain are highlighted, but concrete de lege ferenda solutions are proposed as well. The accused against whom a criminal procedure is completed for one punishable act has to be certain that the procedure will not be repeated against him for the same act. Therefore, one of the basic principles of modern penal law is the prohibition of repeated sentencing for the same punishable act. Considering that crimes, misdemeanours and economic offenses belong to penal law, it is common in practice that after the completion of a procedure for one punishable act, a procedure begins for a second punishable act. This means that when a criminal procedure has not proven that the accused has committed a crime, the prosecutor will next initiate a misdemeanour procedure in which he will attempt to prove that the accused has attempted a misdemeanour, or vice-versa. Similarly, the same case exists when economic offenses, the third category of crimes are in question. In connection with this, if there is no prohibition from repeated sentencing for the same or other punishable act, then there is no legal security in penal law. The Constitution of the Republic of Serbia states clearly: 'No person may be prosecuted or sentenced for a criminal offence for which he has been acquitted or convicted by a final judgment for which the charges have been rejected or criminal proceedings dismissed by final judgment, nor may court ruling be altered to the detriment of a person charged with criminal offence by extraordinary legal remedy. The same prohibitions shall be applicable to all other proceedings conducted for any other act punishable by law.' On the other hand, the Misdemeanour Law allows the initiation of a procedure despite the fact that a criminal procedure has previously been led, and the same solution is prescribed when a procedure for an economic offence was previously led. A similar provision is prescribed by the Law on Economic Offenses. In this way the principle of legal security is infringed upon because the accused is not certain whether the prosecutor will initiate a procedure for a different punishable act, which is, according to our opinion inadmissible. We believe that it is necessary to change the legal provisions highlighted in the work, in order to prevent multiple procedures to be led for the same punishable act and to provide legal security in penal law.

Corruption is a global phenomenon that can be identified in all countries. Although visible everywhere, corruption usually affects poorer countries, limiting the progress of the national economy and taking away the resources needed for education, health care and other public goods and services. However, the private sector also faces this global problem that jeopardizes corporate identity, distorts trust among business partners, and ruins the reputation of companies. The paper primarily provides a theoretical overview of corruption, with a special emphasis on the role of corruption in achieving macroeconomic stability of a country. Changes in the level of corruption in the Republic of Serbia are being analyzed in comparison with the European Union countries in the period from 2009 to 2016, based on the Corruption Perception Index (CPI). The paper also analyses the impact of corruption on national competitiveness in order to assess the degree of their interdependence. The research in this paper may be useful for policy makers in the context of the future development of anti-corruption policy and strategy.

Currently, in the Republic of Serbia, prison sentence can be served in the penitentiary institution or in the premises where the convicted person resides. If the sentence is served in the penitentiary institution, this means that the convicted person has been separated from the community in which he was and that he is placed in an artificial environment for a certain period of time. It is logical that a convicted person has the desire to move from that artificial community and return to a natural community, and for this there are two ways. The first is a lawful way, such as the expiration of a sentence, by conditional release or cessation of the sentence. The other way is illegal, which is, first of all, escaping from the penitentiary institution. The object of the author's attention is the break from the penitentiary institution, which can be qualified as a criminal act or a disciplinary offense. In addition, the author also points to the disciplinary offense of removal from the institution, which is similar to a prison break. The paper also points to the procedure in case of escape from the institution, as well as the consequences of escape to the convicted person.

The paper offers a semantic and pragmatic analysis of statements of the form ‘x is beautiful’ as involving a double speech act: first, a report that x is beautiful relative to the speaker’s aesthetic standard, along the lines of naive contextualism; second, the speaker’s recommendation that her audience comes to share her appraisal of x as beautiful. We suggest that attributions of beauty tend to convey such a recommendation due to the role that aesthetic practices play in fostering and enhancing interpersonal coordination. Aesthetic practices are driven by a disposition towards the attunement of attitudes and aesthetic recommendations contribute to forwarding such attunement. Our view is motivated by an attempt to satisfy the following set of desiderata: to account for (i) the experiential nature of aesthetic judgments, (ii) disagreements in aesthetic debates, and (iii) the normative aspirations of aesthetic discourse, as well as to avoid appealing to (iv) error theory and (v) realist ontological...

Lackey’s (Nous 41(4):594–626, 2007) class of “selfless assertions” is controversial in at least two respects: it allows propositions that express Moorean absurdity to be asserted warrantedly, and it challenges the orthodox view that the speaker’s belief is a necessary condition for warranted assertibility. With regard to the former point, I critically examine Lackey’s broadly Gricean treatment of Moorean absurdity and McKinnon’s (Am Philos Q 50(2):121–135, 2013; The norms of assertion: truth, lies, and warrant. Palgrave MacMillan, London, 2015) epistemic approach. With regard to the latter point, I defend the received view by supporting the knowledge account (KA), on which knowledge is the necessary condition for warranted assertion. After examining two defenses of KA, by Montminy (Perspectives in pragmatics, philosophy and psychology, Springer, Berlin, 2013) and Turri (Epistemic norms: new essays on action, belief, and assertion. OUP, Oxford, 2014), I propose two alternative approaches. Although I remain neutral between them, I develop in more detail the view which classifies “selfless assertions” as “presentations”, a type of assertives distinct from genuine assertions. This account is motivated further by allowing for the expansion of the normative approach to other assertives, a feature we may be interested in, in the light of a recent wave of normative accounts of speech acts.

The authors, starting from reasons such as lack of accommodation capacities for all inmates, the necessity of securing the labor needs of prisoners and saving money, said that there is the possibility of granting licenses to private companies to enter with their financial resources in the penitentiary system of the Republic of Serbia. After that, the authors list the various models of privatization of prisons, while analyzing the advantages and disadvantages of each model individually through the issue of legitimacy, cost of operation (semi) private prisons, rates of return, the level of security and quality of service. At the end the authors, looking at each of these issues through the prism of the functioning of the prison in the Republic of Serbia, said that the privatization model prison most compatible to our penitentiary system.

In the Republic of Serbia, there are more than thirty penitentiary institutions in which convicted offenders serve their prison sentences. These are prisons of different types: closed, semi-closed and open prisons. At the same time, convicts are not the only ones placed in prisons, but also other persons deprived of their liberty by law. Apart from offenders convicted for the commission of criminal offences, these penitentiary institutions also house other persons who are lawfully deprived of liberty under the law for the commission of a misdemeanour or for the failure to pay a fine or do community service. A common feature shared by all these categories of people is the liability for the committed offence but, depending on the specific type of liability, they are subject to different treatment in penal institutions. In such circumstances, penal institutions have to take relevant measures to maintain order and security in prisons.The paper explores a number of issues related to convicts and other inmates in prisons. The authors first focus on three different types of liability: criminal liability, disciplinary liability, and material liability, which clearly imply different treatments of convicts and inmates in the course of serving their term of imprisonment. Then, the authors address the problems of maintaining order and security in prisons. Generally speaking, the law that applies to persons serving their sentences in a penal institution is the Act on the Execution of Criminal Sanctions but, depending on the committed crime, they may also be subject to the Act on the Execution of Imprisonment for Organized Crime. Thus, the authors discuss the legal solutions pertaining to this subject matter as contained in both legislative acts.

Minors represent a special category of offenders, due to the age at the time of commission of a misdemeanor. Hence, the law prescribes special sanctions for them. A special attention has been given to measures that are of medical character. However, the Law on Misdemeanors has contradictory provisions in terms of sanctions for minors by differentiating, in certain provisions, between younger and older minors. In the first part, this paper deals in general with offenders of misdemeanors that are minors, while sanctions are dealt with in the second part of the paper. Central part of the paper deals with the issues surrounding protective measure 'Mandatory treatment of alcohol and psychoactive substance addicts', by pointing to some irrational provisions of the Law. In relations to that issue, the paper discuss whether in certain situations the law is more harsh on minors that commit misdemeanor offences or minors that commit criminal offences, having in mind prescribed sanctions.

The introductory part of this paper presents the basic changes to the Misdemeanor law, which is in force since March 1. 2014. At the beginning of the paper we will describe the security measures which can be ordered to offenders 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.

The subject of this paper is the prohibition on operating motor vehicles as a security measure ordered against offenders who have committed crimes which endanger traffic. The first part of the paper explains certain aspects of ordering this security measure. Special consideration will be given to ordering this measure against defendants who have not passed the driving test, as well as against offenders with a foreign driver's license. In the second part of the paper we will describe the enforcement of this security measure. Finally, we will present our own view on the matter, which also represents the main motive for writing this paper, and that is the question of sanctions in case the prohibition on operating motor vehicles is not adhered to. The Criminal code of the Republic of Serbia prescribes the possibility of revoking a suspended sentence in case the prohibition is not adhered to. If this security measure is not ordered with a suspended sentence, but with a different criminal sanction, the question is whether there will still be a sanction if the prohibition is not adhered to.