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.)

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 Zagreb Law Review is the property of University of Zagreb Law School / Pravni fakultet Sveucilista u Zagrebu 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]

This paper analyses the procedural position of “collaborators of justice” – (potential) suspects or defendants who choose to cooperate with the authorities by contributing to the detection and prosecution of other serious crimes and perpetrators, primarily by testifying before the court. The aim of the study is to provide an overview of consensual forms and measures of reward for collaborators of justice in comparative law and then to analyse the legal position of a crown witness and a person granted witness immunity, as “collaborators of justice”, in Croatian criminal procedural law. The study is conducted through a comparative legal perspective and with regard to certain issues that have so far been problematised in the scientific and professional literature and in domestic jurisprudence, and which include: the specific goal of these consensual forms and the application of the principle of proportionality, the discretion of the state attorney and judicial control, the procedural and defence rights, and, finally, victims’ rights. Special attention is given to an analysis of the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Croatia and its legal standards, particularly concerning certain issues of the legality of the examination of a crown witness, as well as the legality of examination of a person granted witness immunity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Croatian criminal procedure has undergone a number of reforms over the last twenty years, which have primarily been conditioned by harmonisation with European legal standards, but also by an effort to make criminal proceedings as efficient and economical as possible. Different forms of consensual procedures, even if they deviate from some fundamental principles of criminal procedure, may be appropriate tools for achieving faster and more efficient criminal proceedings, provided they are adequately regulated and applied. They also contribute to the humanisation of criminal justice, especially in the prosecution of less serious criminal offences. The paper analyses legislative developments and domestic research that have been conducted so far, which show that the Croatian legislator, following tendencies in comparative law, has gradually expanded the scope of the application of different consensual forms without adopting, at any time, a criminal policy platform for their introduction into Croatian criminal procedure. In addition, the legislator has not always been consistent when addressing various aspects of particular forms of consensual procedures, such as the gravity of criminal offences in relation to which a particular form of agreement is possible, the role of the court, and especially the power of the court to review the agreement of the parties, victims' rights and the procedural role of victims, as well as procedural and defence rights. A particular problem is that there are no clear distinctions, either at the legislative level or in practice, between the specific objectives of certain forms of agreements of the parties. Therefore, this research focuses on the problem of imprecision and inconsistency in the regulation of the fundamental aspects of various forms of consensual procedures, which harms the transparency of the criminal justice system. Finally, besides detecting and critically analysing the above-mentioned deficiencies, the paper offers possible guidelines on how to adopt a systematic approach in regulating different forms of consensual procedures at the normative level and in practice, and thereby provide more consistent and transparent use of consensual justice in Croatian criminal procedure. [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 right of a person charged with a criminal offence to appear and take part in a hearing is enshrined in the right to a fair trial in Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. A trial in absentia is allowed only exceptionally, and in the member states of the European Union it is traditionally regulated under very different legal regimes. This has been an obstacle to the full implementation of the principle of mutual recognition of final judicial decisions and therefore to efficient judicial cooperation in criminal matters. In order to provide clear common grounds allowing the execution of a European arrest warrant even when the person subject to it was absent at the trial, Framework Decision 2009/299/ JHA, amending Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, defined the conditions under which a decision rendered at such a trial may be used as a ground to refuse the execution of a European arrest warrant. These conditions are the subject of this paper. Besides theoretical and normative analysis, the research includes the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, balancing between the efficiency of judicial cooperation and respect for fundamental human rights, as well as defining the notion of "the trial resulting in the decision" and specifying when the person was "summoned in person", or "by other means actually received official information of the scheduled date and place of that trial", since the right to take part in the trial may be waived. The research also includes an analysis of Croatian legislation and the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Croatia in the same matter and an assessment of the implementation of European legal standards in Croatian law. [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.)