BAIL IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM AND THE LEGAL PRACTICE OF SERBIA
Keywords:
bail, detention, defendant, criminal proceedingsAbstract
The institution of bail has always formally existed in our criminal procedure law. However, its application has not considerably increased in our legal practice despite the fact that both the new Criminal Procedure Code and the reform of Serbian legislation envisage the extended possibilities for its implementation. Defence lawyers and presiding judges should insist on the application of bail instead of custody, which still remains the most popular measure to ensure the presence of a defendant in the course of criminal proceedings. This would be the way to avoid the absurdly overcrowded prison capacities and the excessive number of custody cases. Reasons against the application of bail are ethical in part. This measure is often seen as a privilege of the rich. This is a frequent reasoning within judicial circles, stemming from conscientious objection rather than legal principles. The opposition also stems from the common opinion that custody and its effects can hardly be replaced by any other measure. Thus, all the alternative measures including bail, are in advance perceived as lacking effective power to eliminate the danger of collusion and recurrence.
Downloads
References
Bejatović, Stanko (2016): Krivično procesno pravo, Službeni glasnik, Beograd.
Vasiljević, Tihomir (1981): Sistem krivičnog procesnog prava SFRJ, Savremena administracija, Beograd.
Vogler, Richard (2012): England and Wales, u: Stefano Ruggeri (ur.) Libery and Security in Europe, Göttingen : V&R Unipress; Osnabrück : Universitätsverlag Osnabrück.
Graf, Jürgen-Peter (2013): Karlsruher Kommentar zur Strafprozessordnung, 7 izdanje StPO.
Daintith, Terence, Wilkinson, A.B., (1970), Bail and the Convention: British Reflections on the Wemhoff and Neumeister Cases, The American Journal of Comparative Law, Vol. 18, p. 326-342.
Đurđević, Zlata (2015): Pravna priroda, pravni okvir i svrha jamstva u kaznenom postupku, Hrvatski ljetopis za kazneno pravo i praksu, Zagreb, Vol. 22(1), str. 9-47.
Đuričić, Svetlana (1998): Jemstvo u krivičnom postupku, Pravna informatika, Beograd.
Evropska konvencija za zaštitu ljudskih prava i osnovnih sloboda, Rim, 1950, član 6 stav 1, Službeni list SCG - međunarodni ugovori, br. 9/2003, 5/2005, Službeni glasnik R Srbije - međunarodni ugovori br. 12/2010,(prečišćen tekst).
Zakon o krivičnom postupku, Službeni list FNRJ, br. 97/48, 40/53, 4/57, 52/59, 30/62, 12/65, 25/68, 54/70 i 6/73.
Zakonik o krivičnom postupku, Službeni glasnik R Srbije, br. 72/11, 101/11, 121/12, 32/13,45/13,55/14.
Zakon o krivičnom postupku – ZKP/77, Službeni list SFRJ, br. 4/77, 36/77, 14/85, 26/86, 74/87, 57/89, 3/90 i Službeni list SRJ, br. 27/92, 24/94, 21/99, 44/99, 71/00 i 13/01.
Zakon o krivičnom postupku Nemačke, prečišćen tekst objavljen 7.04.1987. godine, a poslednje izmene donete su 23.04. 2014. godine (Strafprozeßordnung (StPO) BGBI. I S. 1074, ber. S. 1319).
Zakonik o krivičnom postupku RSFSR, Beograd 1967.
Krivično-procesni zakonik Ruske Federacije, 2001, http://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_34481/
Zakon o krivičnom postupku Francuske, (Code de Procedure Penale, 2000-516 of 15 juin 2000, Official journal of 16 june 2000), sa zakonima o izmenama i dopunama iz 2004., 2009. i 2011. godine član 138, 142.
Zakonik o postupku sudskom u krivičnim delima za Knjaževstvo Srbiju
Ilić, P. Goran, Majić, Miodrag, Beljanski, Slobodan, Trešnjev, Aleksandar (2016): Komentar Zakonika o krivičnom postupku, Službeni glasnik, Beograd.
Krapac, Davor (1995): Engleski kazneni postupak - II. Puštanje okrivljenika na slobodu uz jemstvo, Pravni fakultet, Zagreb.
Krauβ, Hans-Frieder (2015): Beck'scher Online-Kommentar StPO 2015.
Labe, Jay, Watson, Jerry (2012): The Law of Commercial Surety and Miscellaneous Bonds, The american Bar Association, Chapter 8,1.
Macovei, Monica (2002): The right to liberty and security of the person: A guide to the implementation of Article 5 of the Europeon Convention on Human Rights, Human rights handbooks, Strazbur.
Mayerhofer, Christoph (2004): Strafprozessordnung, Zweiter Teil, 5 izdanje, Verlag Osterreich, Wien 2004, Odlomak: Rechtliche Natur der Sicherheitsleistung.
Međunarodni pakt o građanskim i političkim pravima, član 14, stav 3c, Službeni list SFRJ - međunarodni ugovori, br. 7/71.
Presuda ESLJP Neumeister v. Austria, ECHR,1936/63, 27 June 1968, Astothe Law, para.14,dostupno na http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/ pages/search.aspx?i=001-57544;
Presuda Mangouras v. Spain, ECHR, 12050/04, 28 September 2010, para 78, dostupno na http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/ search.aspx?i=001-100686.
Ruggeri, Stefano (2012): Liberty and security in Europe: a comparative analysis of pretrial precautionary measures in criminal proceedings, Göttingen: V&R Unipress ; Osnabrück: Universitätsverlag Osnabrück.
Simić, Ilija, Trešnjev, Aleksandar (2004): Zbirka sudskih odluka iz krivičnopravne materije, peta knjiga, Službeni glasnik, Beograd 2004.
Trešnjev, Aleksandar (2016): Mere za obezbeđenje prisustva okrivljenog i za nesmetano vođenje krivičnog postupka, doktorska disertacija, Pravni fakultet, Beograd.
Ustav R Srbije, Službeni glasnik R Srbije, br. 98/2006, član 32 stav 1.
Foschini, Gaetano (1968): Sistema del diritto processuale penale, vol. II, Giuffrè, Milano.
Hohlweck, Martin (1998): Sicherheitsleistung bei Verdunkelungsgefahr, Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht (NStZ) 1998, 600-603;
Čubinski, P., Mihail (1930): Naučni i praktični komentar Zakonika o sudskom krivičnom postupku, Izdavačka knjižarnica Geca Kon, Beograd.
Škulić, Milan (2008): Krivičnoprocesno pravo, opšti deo, Službeni glasnik, Beograd.
