Search

The article puts forth the information on drafting Serbian codes introduced up to 1865 inclusive existing in memoir literature. The contemporaries' memories on code-creating are given in two chapters - records on codification of private law and notes on codification of public law. Each of these divisions contain memoir-writers's notes in relation with the codes belonging to respective fields of law. The authors examined credibilty of the records and used them as the basis for further research on certain scarcely known details from Serbian code-drafting history. The research resulted in deepening already existing knowledge on the subject, but also in some new revelations.

The article sheds light on the regulations of Roman law appearing in the works of Pavle Šeroglić, the first reviewer of Serbian Civil Code (1844) (The Review of the Civil Code for the Serbian Principality, Promulgated on 25 March 1844 (Pregled Zakonika građanskog za Knjažestvo srbsko, 25. marta 1844. obnarodovanog, published in Bačka vila 4/1845, 114-187), Counterresponse to Response of Mister Miloš Svetić in the Third Linguistic Counterattack (Replika na odgovor gospodina Miloša Svetića u Utuku III. Jezikoslovnome, Novi Sad 1847) and Civil Law in Croatian-Slavonian and Serbian-Banat Military Border (Građansko parvo u c.k. Hrvatsko-slavonskoj i Srpsko-banatskoj Vojničkoj granici, Šeroglić's undated and unpublished commentary of Austrian General Civil Code, kept in the archival materials of Sremski Karlovci Grammar School in the Archives of Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts in that town. The provisions of civil law cited by Šeroglić are sorted by similarity with necessary clarifications thereto. This paper, being the first of two sequels of the article related to Šeroglić's accounts on Roman law, shall shed light on the author's fragments on is Greek legal transplants in Rome, theory of law, property law and law of obligations, whereas the passages in relation with other branches of Roman law shall be scrutinized in the follow-up article.

The article sheds light on the data on Serbian codes of law revealed by the travelers who visited the Principality of Serbia. The travel writers provide the information on the earliest attempts to codify law in Serbia and the contents of latterly enacted codes. The authors shall present the accounts of the travel writers and give the answer to what extent they correspond to the truth.

The paper sheds light on the articles of Serbian press from Habsburg Monarchy related to the codification of law in Serbia. The authors shall discuss the columns of Serbska novina (Magazin za knjižestvo, hudožestvo i modu), Serbske narodne novine, Srbski dnevnik, Svetovid, Srbobran and Napredak in relation with the long way paths to the introduction of civil, criminal and commercial code, as well as codes of civil and criminal procedure for the Principality of Serbia. The trueness of the news shall be subject to examination, and the necessary explanations on the unclear spots of the newspaper articles shall be provided.

The subject of the article are Serbian terms for 'property' used between 1804 and 1918. The author put forward the words with the meaning 'property', exposed some of the sources in which these terms could be found and tried to determine their etymology. The paper also sheds light on the terms meaning 'coproperty'. The words denoting 'property' were following: baština, vlasništvo, vlas(t) nost, vlast, vlastbina/vlazbina, vlastitost/vlastitošt, vlastitstvo/vlaštitstvo, vlaština, gospodarstvo/gosudarstvo, imanje, imaostvo, imovina, pritjažanije/pritežanije, pritjažavanje, svojina and sobstvenost/sopstvenost. In the texts dating from aforementioned period, 'coproperty' can be found under following terms - susvojina, suvlas(t)nost, suvlaština, sogospodarsvo, sasobstvenost, sogospodarstvo, imaostvo and smesništvo. Such large number of words prove a great degree of roaming in building Serbian terms for 'property' and 'coproperty'. Moreover, some of the terms have dublets being the result of parallel existence of three types of literary language among the Serbs (Church Slavonic of Russian recension and Slavonic-Serbian) and dialectal varieties, which brought about even greater diversity of the terminology for 'property'. Serbian words prevail among the terms. Some of them were derived from an other Serbian word, as the other are calques. Root words of the derivatives are mostly noun vlast ('power, authority') and verb imati ('to have'), the terms semantically expressing the meaning of property the best. In some cases the words for 'property' were forged by broadening or narrowing the genuine meaning of a certain word (for instance, sobstvenost, the word coming from Russian recension of Church Slavonic, originally meant 'the thing belonging to somebody' and thence became 'property'). The calques were formed on either German or Latin words, which is understandable, taking into consideration that Serbian educated lawyers, forgers of the terms, originated from Habsburg Monarchy. The quality of some calques might be considered debateable, neverthess the efforts to make Serbian terms instead of borrowing foreign words are praiseworthy. Loan words for 'property' had come to Serbian from Russian recension of Church Slavonic and were constantly getting more Serbian shape as the time progressed, which was the general tendency in Serbian language at that time.

The article reveals new data on first attempts of codification of civil law in the Prinipality of Serbia. The attempts lasted from 1827, the year in which prime codification works are recorded, to 1837, when French Civil Code was rejected as a role model of future Serbian code. The revelations came from archive materials and non-Serbian literature and press. They are related to the work of the first and second codification committee, draft civil code composed between 1834 and 1837 and some details regarding the engagement of expert lawyers for the purpose of drawing up civil code.

The article presents the commentary on the Austrian Civil Code written by the first reviewer of Serbian Civil Code Pavle Šeroglić (1800-1857). As shown by the contents of some of its parts, the commentary was made between 1 June 1848 and 7 May 1850. In the process of writing the commentary, Šeroglić used both literature and legal acts. The book Šeroglić most frequently relied on was the work titled "Manual for Austrian General Civil Law" (Handbuch des österreichischen allgemeinen CivilRechtes, Wien 1846), written by the Vienna lawyer Joseph Ellinger. The legal acts used in the commentary included Austrian and foreign codes and legislative acts, as well as Austrian by-laws. The commentary contains explanatory texts on 734 out of 1502 articles of the Austrian Civil Code. Most of the explanatory texts were placed in the titles on lien law, loan contract and marriage contract. On the other hand, Šeroglić provides no commentary at all in titles dedicted to bailment contract, commodatum contract and accession as a mode of acquiring property. The majority of Serbian legal terms present in the commentary had already existed in Serbian legal language but some of the expressions used by Šeroglić were literally translated from German. There are also terms probably coined by Šeroglić himself. Šeroglić's commentary has several defects: wrong translations, terminological inconsistency, insufficiently differentiated terminology, and complicated writing style. Based on the sources that Šeroglić used in writing the commentary and the structure of its text, it may be concluded that the commentary was primarily intended for practice rather than theoretical consideration. Judging by the contents of the commentary, its author was well acquainted with social environment and the level of education of the intended readership, the inhabitants of the Military Frontier. However, Šeroglić did not excel at language skills, the proof of which are mistranslations and wrongly coined legal terms.

The article treats several provisions of family law regulations introduced during the rule of defenders of the constitution regarding parental law, adoption, foster care and guardianship and their application in practice. The position of children born in and out of wedlock, adopted children and children under guardianship are analysed separately. The authors tend to determine whether there is a gap between the letter of the law and reality. The answer to that question is positive. Concerning marital children, such practice was due to the behaviour of their parents. However, authorities bear the responsibility for misapplication of laws in respect of non-marital children and children under guardianship. The exact extent of divergence between regulations and reality is yet to be determined.

The article exposes codification of commercial law in the Principality of Serbia. That process took place between 1849 and 1860. Its first phase, lasting from 1849 to 1853, commenced on Ministry of Finance's initiative. The comittee consisting of state officials and Belgrade merchants drew up a draft commercial code in 1851. Although the legislative body, State Council, primarily approved of codification, in 1853 it rejected the draft with motivation that the text had not contained the matter of commercial courts, that Serbian people as poorly educated would not be able to understand commercial code's complicated notions and that Serbian merchants were immature for codified commercial law. Commercial Comittee, the organization founded in January 1856 with the goal of proposing measures aimed to enchance trade in Serbia, requseted for introduction of commercial code the very same year. In the beginning of 1857 the Council formed the comittee tasked with revising the draft from 1851 and preparing drafts on organization of commercial courts and court procedure in commercial matters; all three texts were meant to become parts of commercial code. The composed draft had been sent to Commercial Comittee on 14 February 1859, which sent it back to the Ministry with its remarks on 8 October the same year. After the three-member committee formed by the Ministry of Justice on 24 November 1859 had somewhat altered the draft, the corrected version was consigned to the Prince. Commercial code had received the Prince's sanction on 22 December 1859 and entered into force on 26 January 1860, thus making Serbia one of the countries with codified commercial law. The cause for the codification doubtlessly lies in the trade between merchants of Belgrade and those from Austria that intensified subsequent to Revolution 1848. In these business relations Austrian merchants were using bills of exchange as security, which meant that their Belgrade partners were to be most punctual in fullfiling their contractual obligations. However, due to lack of commercial regulations and long-lasting civil procedure before Serbian courts, the merchants from the capital could not realize their own claims towards the debtors from the province and were consequently unable to collect money to settle their own debts. For that reason, from 1852 onwards Belgrade merchant were filing petition for enactment of Commercial code. Their petitions had ever more undersigneds, which may indicate that the problem was constantly becoming more serious. Nevertheless, only in the end of 1850s, when the lack of commercial code showed its palpable effects in province, was the code introduced.

Different views on the form of state organization emerged during the session of the Constituent Assembly in the newly formed Yugoslav state. This caused the formation of two political blocs in the Constituent Assembly, the centralist and the federalist. Centralist bloc was formed of political parties that represented the majority in the Constituent Assembly. On the other side, the federalist opposition bloc was consisted mostly of Croatian and Slovenian political parties. Various constitutional drafts that were submitted to the Constituent Committee comprised different possible solutions regarding local self-government. A system of particularly broad local self-government proposed a draft constitution that was prepared by Stojan Protić, the first Prime Minister in the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. The Constitution of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes adopted on 28 June 1921 proclaimed unitary state. According to the Constitution, the state territory had to be organized administratively into areas, districts and municipalities. The Constitution had also set the framework for further legislative activity regarding the self-government issue in the Yugoslav state. The Law regarding local self-government was adopted in April 1922. Local self-government bodies were: district assembly and district committee. The scope of work of self-governing bodies was rather wide. The provisions of the Law prescribed rather strong supervision over the functioning of the local self- government by the state authorities. The Next step according to the provisions of the Law was to hold local elections in order to form local self-government bodies. However, the solutions adopted pursuant to the abovementioned law provoked disapproval among political circles in the state that advocated federal state system. That combined with constant political instability, caused postponing of the aforementioned local elections until January 1927. After the local elections had been held, it became clear that the legislation on local self-government had to be amended in order to be organized on solid basis. Finally the local self-government was abolished during the Dictatorship of King Alexander Karađorđević.

The article sheds light on life and work of the first reviwer of Serbian Civil Code Pavle Šeroglić. The paper is divided in two parts, first of which is concerned with Šeroglić's private and public life, as the second provides data on his career as a barrister. Šeroglić was born on July 25th, 1800 in Sremski Karlovci. He finished elementary school and renown Sremski Karlovci Grammar School in his place of birth. Having completed his middle school education, Šeroglić studied philosophy in Szeged and law in Sárospatak, Pest and Vienna. As Šeroglić was a bachelor who had no children, he had been very supportive towards his nephew Grigorije (latter German) Anđelić, who later became the patriarch of Serbian Orthodox Church. Šeroglić was the benefactor of Sremski Karlovci Grammar School, to which he donated money and books. Besides then patriarch of Serbian Orthodox Church Josif Rajačić, Šeroglić is the most creditable figure for building an orthodox garrison chapel in Petrovaradin. In the beginning of his work as a barrister, Šeroglić was often accused of some acts beyond the limit of morality, such as giving legal advice for both parties in civil lawsuits. Notwithstanding such behaviour, in the years to come Šeroglić represented some very prominent individuals and institutions, such as former Serbian prince Miloš Obrenović, Austrian military treasury, inheritance mass of deceased Serbian metropolitan Stefan Stanković, catholic church Saint Mary of Snow (Tekije) in Sremski Karlovci, and famous Serbian poet Jovan Jovanović Zmaj's father in law Pavle Ličanin. Šeroglić died on February 12th, 1857. He testated all his property to Sremski Karlovci Grammar School. During his lifetime Šeroglić showed goodness and generosity towards his cousins, Sremski Karlovci Grammar School and Serbian Orthodox Church. As a barrister, however, he did not always distinguish himself in morality, but judging by the names of his clients, he excelled in quality of his work.

The article deals with legal terms appearing in Serbian translation of French Code of Civil Procedure (Code de procédure civile, 1806) authored by Serbian writer and politician Lazar Zuban (1795-1850). The author made an attempt to determine whether the terms used by Zuban had existed in historical sources previous to the translator's work. If so, it would mean that Zuban was using already existing technical terms. In cases in which he failed to find certain legal term in texts older than Zuban's work, the author tried to establish if the unfound term had been the translator's invention. As to the terms of civil law, Zuban mostly took over words already present in Serbian vocabulary at the time. This fact is easily explainable: family, property, contracts, torts, inheritage are very present in people's everyday life, which brought about terminology of civil law to be relatively developed. On the contrary, terms belonging to the civil procedure were scarce because judiciary and court procedure in the time of Zuban's work were still being on rudimentary level. That is the reason why the translator had to forge his own legal terms. Zuban did not translate German legal terms (the translator used German translation of a Code as protograph) mechanically; he was making effort to fathom the meaning of a word in question and find its adequate Serbian equivalent. In some cases that effort was fruitful. Nevertheless, in a long term Zuban's labor was in vain, as none of his forged words survived in Serbian legal terminology.

The article sheds light on introduction and content of Forest Regulation (1861). The idea of producing new Forest Regulation which would replace the existing act regulating same matter, introduced in 1857, came out as a result of people's discontent with limited opportunities for wood-cutting. The Committee for requests and proposals of so-called Saint Andrew's Day Assembly (1858), on which prince Alexander Karađorđević (1842-1858) had been dethroned and ex-prince Miloš Obrenović (1815-1839) reinstated to the throne, designed directives on which new forest legislation should have been based. Relying on these directives, in 1859 an unknown author made a Draft Forest Regulation consisting of 43 articles. In January 1861, the Draft was revised and supplemented by a three-membered committee formed by the State Council in the very end of 1860. The Council slightly altered the revised draft. Prince Mihailo Obrenović approved the text and it was enacted as Forest Regulation in 1861. In comparison with previous Forest Regulation, the act passed in 1861 was more liberal towards wood-cutting. Taxes on wood-cutting for economic purpose were lowered. Instead of Ministry of finances, district office was now competent to approve cutting wood for fodder. As a local authority, much more familiar with its fellow-inhabitants, district office was more likely to fulfill their exaggered wishes to destroy woods for above-mentioned purpose. The scope of population having right to be awarded piece of land with forest in order to broaden their insuficient landed property was widened. The reason for this step-back in forest protection in Serbia was obvious. New dinasty had to present itself as better than precedent government. At that moment nobody was aware of high toll to be payed for extensive destruction of forests.

The article deals with Serbian translation of French Code of Civil Procedure (1806), drafted in 1837 by Serbian politician and writer Lazar Zuban. He translated the Code not from his original text, but from one or several German translations. Zuban commenced its work on January 11th, 1837. However, one do not know when the translation was completed. Serbian translation does not fully correspond with the original Code. The translator omitted, amended or supplemented the Code's provisions unsuitable for the circumstances in his country. Omittances were either complete or partial, based on whether some matter was omitted wholly or partly. Amendments could be divided into necessary, adapting and explicative. By necessary amendments are understood all alterations of the original text dealing with the provisions impossible to remain in a code written for a country other than the France. Adapting amendments changed French text in a manner to become applicable in Serbia. By using explicative amendments the translator broadened original text in orther to bring about its better understanding within people in his country. Zuban inserted full and partial supplements of the Code in his translation. Full supplement meant inserting a whole new article, whereas partial supplement signified putting additional text in already existing provisions of a Code. All omittances, amendments and supplements were appropriate, so one could tell that Zuban made a good amalgam of the original Code and then Serbian law.

The article sheds light on civil procedure code draft prepared by renown Serbian lawmaker Jovan Hadžić in 1845. Contrarily to Hadžić's work on producing civil code, his efforts to write civil procedure code are to a large extent obscure. Original text of the draft has not been found. Therefore, one is imposed to reconstruct it with the aid of auxiliary sources, among which the record kept by the commission tasked with revision of the draft, has prevailing significance. The author made an attempt to determine the structure of the draft, as well as the contents of its provisions as accurately as possible, wherein the remarks that the Commission had made were of most assistance. Hadžić consigned his draft to the Prince Aleksandar Karađorđević on August 4th 1845. The Draft consisted of introduction and three parts. The introduction comprised of general provisions. Therein was stipulated principle of trial by written declaration, determined five kinds of courts before which civil procedure should occur and established vacatio legis. The first and concviningly largest part of the Draft was most likely entitled 'On principal litigations and litigation evidence' ('O parnicama glavnima i parničnim dokazatelstvima'). It included diverse rules, such as proceedings before peace courts, proceedings before district courts, ordinary course of litigation (i. e. rules in terms of filing a complaint, scheduling of hearings, subpoenas delivery, procurement of evidence, trial, bankruptcy proceedings, forms of evidence, presentation of evidence and deliberation of judgment), appellate procedure, new trial and enforcement procedure. The third part subsumed the title named 'likvidacija' (literally 'liquidation'), whose contents is undeterminable on the basis of existing text of the draft, resolution of bankruptcy proceedings via settlement, resolution of regular litigations via settlement, title named 'on special proceedings and advantages' ('o osobenom postupanju i blagodejanijama'), probably related to bankruptcy proceedings) and arbitration tribunal. Within the third part, one can find solely two short titles encompassing provisions on judge and attorney's service. The Prince forwarded consigned draft to State Council. Thereafter the Council established the Commission to revise the Draft on August 20th 1845. The Commission was made up of Stojan Simić, president of the Council (as the chairman of the Commission), state counselors Lazar Arsenijević Batalaka and Stojan Jovanović, the Council's Secretary Jovan Marinović, Director of Prince's Office Aleksa Janković, professor of law Maksim Simonović, secretary of Appellate Court Jakov Dimšić, secretary of Archdiocese Consistory Court Vasilije Lazić and secretary of Ministry of Justice Pavle Popović. The Commission made numerous alterations in the original text of the draft. Several titles were repositioned (settlement in bankruptcy proceedings, special proceedings and advantages, settlement in regular litigations and unnamed first title of the second part, probably referring to recusal). Some other remained in the same place, but were completely altered (rules on peace courts and unnamed fourth title in the first part, provisions on liquidation and arbitration tribunals and the whole third part). Rules on enforcement of judgements were modified exclusive of several provisions. The Commission also passed a multitude of remarks on contents and style of the draft's articles, whereas the first-mentioned were far more frequent. Only a few provisions did not undergo any modifications. By reason of considerable corrections had been made, the Commission decided that the draft should be reproduced and confined that task to Maksim Simonović, its most qualified member. Howsoever, it turned out to be overcomplicated due to excessive changes and inability to reproduce some titles in a fashion to regulate respective matters detailedly enough. Consequently, the Commission ordered Simonović to write an entirely new draft, which meant Hadžić's draft was definitely rejected as the basis for future civil procedure code. Notwithstanding the rejection, Hadžić's draft is a document of great importance for Serbian legal history. It may be considered the first complete civil procedure code draft prepared by an expert. Thus it serves as a link between antecedent Vasilije Lazarević's draft and subsequent complete and fully conserved texts.

The article sheds light on several data about application of Forests Regulation (1857) and its amendments. Forests Regulation was aimed to procure better protection of Serbian woods, prescribing restrictive conditions under which deforestation was allowed and the obligation to dismantle illegal enclosures. None of the two aims was turned into reality. In an attempt to broaden their lands, people were persistant in prohibited wood-cutting. Deforestation culminated in 1859, for the reason that due to a dynastic change new government was still unable to acquire authority. Plus, the Government was unsure about people not resisting to destruction of enclosures and was thus compelled to tacitly legalize illegaly occupied lands. Formally at the initiative of state bodies, but practically at the insistance of people, the Regulation was amended three times. Firstly, the procedure according to which a piece of land is attributed to the poor was significantly simplified. Tax for wood-cutting permits was reduced to a great extent. Alterations regarding enclosure dismantling largely relativized the Regulation's provions in terms of that matter. The Regulation was doomed to failure due to three major factors. People had no consciousness about importance of forests and considered them self-regenerative. However, the authorities tasked with protection of woods were not any better either. On many occasions, they silently approved wood-cutting. Moreover, village and county-chiefs were not rarely actively engaged as accomplices in that crime.

The article sheds light on the circumstances predominantly causing that Forest Regulation (1857) be introduced, the very procedure of its introduction, puts forward the contents of that act and systematizes its articles. Not very long after the introduction of the Regulation on Deforestation (1839), the public expressed discontent with the effects it had caused. From the mid-forties ever more criticism emerges towards that rule, demanding its abolition and replacement with another regulation which would protect forests in a better manner. In the beginning of fifties the voices that Serbia was being mercilessly deforested provoke the first drafts of new regulation. In 1855, State Council proposes the prince the outline of Forest Regulation consisting of 27 articles and containing provisions on the sorts of wood whose cutting is permitted, the procedure of issuing tree-cutting permit, taxes for downed trees depending on the purposes of their use and sort of wood, penalty provisions and attribution of lands covered by forests to the poor. Nevertheless, in 1856 the prince declined his sanction and requested the Council to reconsider its draft. Due to the request, the Council decided to confide reproduction of the outline to the Commission antecedently formed in order to examine state income and expenditure and draw up a tax reform. The Commission completed its task in February 1857, sending the Council altered version of prime draft, in some places significantly differing from the original. However, the Council failed to adopt the majority of Commission's remarks. Instead, it withdrew some of original provisions and replaced it to its own new resolutions. Such text was sent to the prince on May 18th,1857. The ruler expressed his approval and requested the Council to resend him the draft in the appropriate form of regulation. The Council had granted the recommendation and the draft, now in requested form, was sent anew to the prince, who eventually, on June 26th approved the introduction of the Forest Regulation. Withal, some loopholes were noticed afterwards, so the Council decided to unify three authentic interpretations issued on the initiative of Ministries of Finances and Internal Affairs into a single act - supplement to the Regulation. Future research on this field should focus on the reactions that the Regulation caused among the public, its comparison to the Regulation on Deforestation and further elaborate the social context that preceded the Regulation's enactment. Only after having deepened actual knowledge on the Regulation with answers to aforementioned questions, will the Regulation be wholly scientifically examined.

The article sheds light on the first attempts to codify civil procedure in Serbia, in the period between 1829 and 1844. Predominantly focused on the earliest code-preparing works in the fields of penal and civil law, Serbian legal history neglected the third, equally important compilation - code of civil procedure. The quantity of hitherto established data on this subject did not suffice. It was known, for instance, what foreign code served as a model in the very beginning of lawgiving work. Serbian legal history was also acquainted with the fact in what manner two future codifiers - a member of Novi Sad City Council Jovan Hadžić and the mayor of Zemun Vasilije Lazarević, declared on the contents of the draft produced prior to their arrival in Serbia in 1837. Likewise, legal historian were familiar with the datum that Hadžić and Lazarević had been initially drafting new code in concert, but later divided jobs, so that thenceforth Lazarević alone was tasked with its creation. Exclusive of certain data of lesser significance, nothing was determined in relation to his work whatsoever. Leaning on disposable information, the author made an effort to deepen knowledge on prime codificatory works in this field. In terms of the earliest phase of codification, he expected to acquire new data with the help of foreign literature. Regarding Lazarević's work on the code, however, the author undertook a research in the archives believed to possess valuable documents. Having attentively scrutinized some allegations presented in the correspondence between the president of so-called Legislative Commission (established in 1829 and tasked with production of the code) and Serbian language reformer Vuk Karadžić and his associate Jernej Kopitar, the curator of Austrian Court Library, the author sought for unidentified volumes cited as recourse in the process of code-preparing. By reason of some publications showing a large extent of consistence with the unfamiliar works referred to in Karadžić and Kopitar's letters, the author proposed the hypothesis that the indicated were supplementary literature in Legislative Commission's work. Nonetheless, he failed to obtain any data as for the contents of subsequently prepared Legislative Commission's draft code. Research through archival materials was fecund solely to a degree. A number of utile details were ascertained, among which one should accentuate the terms of contract between Lazarević and Serbian government on the preparation of the draft code, more circumstantiating disclosures on the dispute over the interpretation of the aforementioned agreement and consignment of the compendium. Per contra, very few findings pertain to the contents of Lazarević's draft. Save new discoveries appertaining the very outlook of the produced draft codes, further progress in the scientific research on this topic can not be made. New materials enabling continuance of undertaken exposition of the inceptive codification ought to be found in Croatian State Archives (Hrvatski državni arhiv) and Austrian State Archives (Österreichisches Staatsarchiv), whose documents are oftentimes cited in antecedent works concerning this question. Withal, one may never exclude the possibility of detecting unexposed documents in Serbian archives.

The author sheds light on Regulation on Deforestation, introduced in Serbia in 1839 and an example of its application in practice - trials for deforestation before the Court of Kragujevac District in 1844, the year before the Regulation was amended. A number of elements of those trials were analyzed, among which how many perpetrators were trialed, in what manner offenses were executed, what evidence the Court used in order to acquire complete knowledge on cases and what punishments were inflicted. The number of offenders was much larger in comparison with years that preceded 1844. The perpetrators never appeared as individuals; deforestation was regularly carried out by several persons at the same time. Regarding evidence, the Court leaned on confessions, statements of witnesses and documentary evidence. Interestingly, none of perpetrators denied they committed the very act of offense. Whilst some of them gave full confessions, other attempted to either find grounds which would present their act as unpunishable, or base their defense on certain mitigating circumstances. Many of perpetrators considered the fact to have cut woods on their own land as the key factor excluding punishability of their acts. Similarly, some of them hoped to soften the Court stating that they cut woods because of utterly difficult financial situation. The testimonies of witnesses in one case served to corroborate charges against defendants, as in other situations they testified on behalf of alleged offenders. Documentary evidence were, as well as testimonies of witnesses, presented only in situations when the defendants would not confess to an offence, and they appear in the form of reports sent by District Police, tasked with investigation. The Court always administered two punishments. Besides fines, appearing in all trials, it cumulatively inflicted corporal punishment, prison or deprivation of titles. Corporal punishment is meted out in convincing majority of cases.

The article sheds light on some unfamiliar details related to Penal Code Draft for Serbia from 1839, authored by the mayor of Zemun Vasilije Lazarević. As this document to a large extent remained neglected in monographs and articles in relation with codification of criminal law in Serbia in 19th century, the author resolved to explore this topic thoroughly. Archival materials provided solid basis to learn more information in terms of what occurred to forgotten draft after Ministry of Justice had received it. Lazarević consigned his draft to Ministry of Justice between the end of July and beginning of October 1839. Not long afterwards, the Ministry proposed State Council to form a committee tasked with revision of the draft. State Council rejected the proposal, instructing the Ministry to appoint persons to revise the draft on its own. Only when they have finished revision, the draft would be examined by the State Council's committee. In the following year, 1840, Ministry of Justice requested Prince Mihailo Obrenović (1839-1842, 1860-1868) to elect members of the committee to revise Lazarević's draft. Not having jurisdiction over fullfillment of such request, the prince recommended State Council to do so. State Council opted for Minister of Justice Stefan Stefanović-Tenka, legislator Jovan Hadžić, judge of Appellate Court Lazar Zuban and head of Depatment of Police and Economics in Ministry of Internal affairs Stefan Radičević. However, due to turbulent political climate in Serbia, the committee was unable to execute its duty. In 1841, a new comittee was formed by State Council. It was made up of member of State Council Golub Petrović, Minister of Justice Stefan Radičević, head of Department of Quarantine and Sanitation in Ministry of Internal Affairs Jovan Stejić and professor of law Jovan Raić. Existing historical sources and literature reveal contradictory data regarding the committee's activity. The last commission was appointed in 1843, and it included member of State Council Lazar Zuban, head of Department of Ministry of Justice Sava Šilić, president of Belgrade District Court Lazar Arsenijević-Batalaka and legislator Jovan Hadžić. The committee had only partly revised the draft, after which it lied in the archives of State Council. At initiative of Department of Justice, State Council adopted the resolution that new drafts of Penal Code and Code of Criminal Procedure should be composed, which meant Lazarević's work ceased to represent basis for codification of criminal law. Lacking information on the contents of the draft and observations of committees, available archival materials do not allow to draw resolute conclusions on the topic. Nevertheless, the records of Petrovaradin Border Regiment kept in Croatian State Archives in Zagreb, some of which contain data on early codification of criminal and civil law in Serbia, may potentially offer more explanations to this subject.

The article sheds light on three interpretations of Return of the Lands Act, introduced in 1839 and entitling landowners whose land was usurped by prince Miloš Obrenović (1815-1839, 1858-1860) and distinguished people's headmen to claim retrial of litigations over land adjudicated unjustly and return of their lawlessly disposed property. Two main questions arose in relation with interpretive rules - what were legislative power's goals when interpreting the Act and to what they were due. The author seeked the answer to the first dilemma by scrutinizing texts of interpretations, in order to determine their semantic meaning. In an attempt to provide the explanation for the second problem, he explored social context preceeding introduction of interpretive rules (namely, number of litigations before courts and political ambiance in Serbia). The first interpretation, dating back to March, 2nd 1843, is inclined towards previous owners of the land. Such solution was caused mainly by the political situation - Russia contested Aleksandar Karađorđević's first election for prince of Serbia in 1842 and the assembly foreseen to elect ruler anew was to be summoned in June 1843 In the meantime, new regime embodied in so-called constitution-defenders (the group of distinguished political leaders opposed to Obrenović dynasty) struggled to ensure enthronement of its candidate and therefore issued a demagogic interpretation. On the contrary, two remaining interpretations, from the years 1844 and 1845, were aimed to retain status quo regarding land property by diminishing possibilities for new trial. The legislators opted for restrictions having learned that number of litigations had increased greatly. Besides, political climate was to the most extent convenient for taking such measures, as several lesser rebellions incited by the followers of Obrenović dynasty had been quelled easily, after which the opponents of the regime remained passive for a longer period of time. Future research in this area should be directed towards other interpretive rules introduced during the reign of prince Aleksandar Karađorđević (1842- 1858). Potential researchers should link analyzed interpretations and examine whether common intentions of legislative power existed.

At a time when various changes in the economy are taking place in the world, VIZ professionals are also feeling changes in the field of education. Teachers, educators, and other professionals in the field of education are looking for various opportunities for improvement, presentation, and introduction of innovation in various fields of learning and education of students. Since September 2020, when the new school year began, sports educators have noticed a big drop in the field of psycho-physical and social development of students. As an expert in the field of sports, I can say that for me, sport is an art through which we express and strengthen the mental as well as motor and social abilities of the students we teach. For this reason, I also activated sports activities at our school in teleworking, which we then continued after returning to school. Teleworking due to Covid-19 has led to deterioration in all areas. I found that students’ motor skills deteriorated. To improve, I started looking for different resources and opportunities to help students with distance learning and in school, through which they will strengthen their skills in different areas. After consulting with the principal, counsellors, and sports assets, we agreed to perform various sports activities through the MS Teams application, where we presented various movement activities and activities with which children began to redevelop their motor skills. We found (also with the help of measurements for sports education card) that the body weight of students increased during teleworking, and decreased mobility, strength and, above all, endurance. The very motivation to get involved in MS Teams and to have the opportunity to work with their classmates in different sports areas has influenced their psycho-physical, cognitive, and social development. Students learned about different sports, chatted, or talked to classmates in a virtual environment, and shared some experiences. Therefore, I decided to present in the article some games that I learned with students in distance learning and continued with these games in school. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

В­ дан­ной ра­бо­те ав­тор ана­ли­зи­ру­ет не­ко­тоые указы принятые во время чрезвычайно­го по­ло­же­ния, огра­ни­чи­вающие свобо­ду пе­ре­дви­же­ния. Он указыва­ет, пре­жде все­го, на их не­кон­сти­ту­ци­он­ность, не­за­кон­ность­и­дру­гие не­до­стат­ки. Целью статьи является рас­смо­тре­ние по­ло­же­ний­о­так называ­е­мом ко­мен­дант­ском ча­се­и­ука­за­ние на то, какбыли оштра­фо­ваны гра­жда­не Ре­спу­бли­ки Сер­бия,­хотя­для­это­го­не­было ни­ка­ких пра­вовых осно­ва­ний. Ав­тор­даёт­ответ на во­просы по уго­ловной ответ­ствен­но­сти за на­ру­ше­ние тзв. ко­мен­дант­ско­го ча­са по­сле от­мены чрезвычайно­го по­ло­же­ния. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

From the very beginning of their love relationship to the engagement (on July, 8th 1900) king Alexander Obrenovich and Draga Masin were in very intensive correspondence. Besides mutual love gushes, the correspondence contains some significant political events. Among these can be found Ivanjdan attempt and Martial Court introduced after the attempt had been carried out. The author showed the contents of preserved king's letters to his beloved whose subjects are Ivanjdan attempt and Martial Court and, relying on presented data, strive to answer to what extent the correspondence can be helpful in explaining the background of Ivanjdan attempt and Martial Court (above all, the king's acquaintance with them and his influence on their courses), explore the consistence of given information with the truth, and examine whether Draga Masin influenced the king's decisions connected to the attempt and trial before the Martial Court. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Milenko Vesnic, lawyer, politician and diplomat, was tried before the Martial Court for Ivanjdan assassination. Legislation referring to the trials conducted by this establishment significantly differed from the acts that shaped ordinary criminal procedure. The author tends to show in what way and to what extent these two sorts of regulations were applied in proceedings against Vesnic and how it reflected defendant's position in trial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]