Search

The prohibition of being liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings for the same offence ne bis in idem - is one of fundamental criminal proceeding principles and a basic human right. It protects the defendant from reopening the proceedings for the same criminal offence in respect of which the proceedings were finalized. Primarily, the effect of this principle is related to final court decisions. Regarding the decisions of the public prosecutor, there is a legal gap. As the reformed criminal procedure provides broader jurisdiction to the public prosecutor, it has seemed a necessity to consider in this paper what status is given in practice to the decisions of this procedural entity regarding the prohibition of ne bis in idem. During the review, the views of the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union are presented, which plays a key role in defining the principles and setting standards for the application of the principle, as well as domestic case-law. The author believes that a broader interpretation should be accepted so that the effect of the ne bis in idem principle is not limited only to court decisions but also to include the decisions of the public prosecutor. In this way complete legal certainty is achieved and uncertain legal situations are eliminated.

Copyright of Kırıkkale Law Journal (KLJ) is the property of Kirikkale Law Journal 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 understanding of the role of preliminary proceedings within the Czech criminal process is changing in historical development. In some periods, the preliminary proceedings are given a key role in the sense that the center of evidence lies in it, while at other times, on the contrary, it is emphasized that its function is only auxiliary, since the center of evidence must lie in the proceedings before the court. Ideas are also changing about which authorities should carry out preliminary proceedings - whether it should be the police or the public prosecutor - and whether the court should also participate in the preliminary proceedings. The question of whether the participation of the accused and the defense attorney in the preliminary proceedings should be allowed is also regulated differently. These different concepts are reflected in the legislation and the wording of the Criminal Procedure Act. The author takes a position on these debatable issues and pronounces de lege ferenda. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Jurist-Diction is the property of Universitas Airlangga 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 critically analyzes the provisions of the amendments of the Constitution adopted in 2022, regarding the change of the position of the public prosecutor's office. The third initiative for the partial change of the Constitution was fruitful. The provisions which regulate the constitutional position of judiciary and prosecutor's office were changed, with the initial aim to create the independence guarantees of the judiciary, as well as the autonomy of the prosecutor's office. Certain steps that would go in the direction of achieving the given aim, can be recognized in the norms of the amendments. Those amendments have been also confirmed by the Venice Commission, which are considered as the key factor. However, the first impression created by the amendment provisions is that they are the result of a compromise and therefore partly inconsistent, between: the initiator of constitutional amendments (Government), representatives of the court's and the prosecutor's associations, other members of the working group, and, lastly, international community. Within that impression, the new position of the public prosecutor's office primarily indicates that the prosecutor's office rose to the rank which the judicial branch of power enjoys, by copying the provisions of the judiciary, with only a few differences.

One of the most important features of the criminal procedural legislation of the Republic of Serbia is the institute of conditional deferral of criminal prosecution as a key aspect of the principle of opportunity, which was standardized in order to create a normative basis for increasing the efficiency of criminal proceedings. The subject of the paper is an analysis of the extent of the application of the institute, both in general and in terms of the structure of some of the obligations imposed on the suspect by the public prosecutor during the deferral of criminal prosecution in the Republic of Serbia from 2019 to in 2021. The aim of the paper is to point out the exceptional importance of the institute and to point out the fact of the necessity of both the adequate normative elaboration of the institute and its adequate application. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Law 2/2023 of 20 February on protecting persons who report statutory infringements and on the fight against corruption, which transposes the Whistleblower Directive into Spanish law, has introduced an obligation to report criminal offences to the Public Prosecutor's Office that come to light in the context of internal and external whistleblowing channels. This article analyses the background to that obligation, its scope and what it means for private-sector entities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Advocate General in the Parliament of Paris, Jérôme Bignon is remembered in history both as one of the great names of parliamentary eloquence, and as a highly respected scholar of the Republic of Letters for his erudition. With the help of his Vie published in 1747 by the Abbé Pérau, this article tries to better identify the links between the legal culture of a high-ranking officer, his public career, and his scholarly research, in which religious controversies occupy a central part. This also leads us to take into consideration the very great place he gives to Catholic devotion.

The paper critically analyzes the provisions of the amendments of the Constitution adopted in 2022, regarding the change of the position of the public prosecutor's office. The third initiative for the partial change of the Constitution was fruitful. The provisions which regulate the constitutional position of judiciary and prosecutor's office were changed, with the initial aim to create the independence guarantees of the judiciary, as well as the autonomy of the prosecutor's office. Certain steps that would go in the direction of achieving the given aim, can be recognized in the norms of the amendments. Those amendments have been also confirmed by the Venice Commission, which are considered as the key factor. However, the first impression created by the amendment provisions is that they are the result of a compromise and therefore partly inconsistent, between: the initiator of constitutional amendments (Government), representatives of the court's and the prosecutor's associations, other members of the working group, and, lastly, international community. Within that impression, the new position of the public prosecutor's office primarily indicates that the prosecutor's office rose to the rank which the judicial branch of power enjoys, by copying the provisions of the judiciary, with only a few differences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Ius et Praxis (07172877) is the property of Universidad de Talca 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 criticizes the obligation of the court to discontinue criminal proceedings or prosecutions if the public prosecutor refuses to prosecute in terms of preventing such consequences from obstructing the court’s unique function of resolving a criminal case. The purpose of the work is to develop theoretical provisions justifying the need for legislative improvement of the public prosecutor’s withdrawal of the charge in order to ensure the procedural independence of judges. The article uses the methods of system analysis, synthesis, sociological survey and generalization. Results: on the basis of the analysis of criminal case files and the results of the judges' questionnaires, it is proved that the lack of an alternative effect of the public prosecutor’s with-drawal of prosecution is an unjustified restriction of the judge’s discretion in making the final decision and the lack of a real possibility for the court to en-sure the procedural interests in the actual presence of sufficiently accurate grounds. In this part, the author compares criminal proceedings to civil and ar-bitration proceedings, noting that the plaintiff’s waiver is possible only if it does not violate the fundamental principles of justice and the interests of third parties. It is proposed to remove from the law the rule of mandatory dismissal of a criminal case when the public prosecutor withdraws the charge, and to leave the matter to the reasoned discretion of the court, as it was done in the Statute of Criminal Procedure of 1864.

(Series Information) European Papers - A Journal on Law and Integration, 2022 7(1), 1-14 | European Forum Insight/Highlight of 22 March 2022 | (Table of Contents) I. Introduzione. - II. La causa XK: la normativa rilevante e il rinvio della Procura di Trento. - III. La causa XK: le conclusioni dell'AG e la sentenza della Corte di giustizia. - IV. Considerazioni critiche sul ruolo della Procura della Repubblica quale autorità giudiziaria di esecuzione dell'OEI e sulla risposta della Corte di giustizia. - V. Conclusioni. | (Abstract) In 1996, the Court of Justice ruled out that prosecutors could refer questions for a preliminary ruling on the grounds that their task is not to settle a dispute in complete independence but to submit it to a court by means of criminal prosecution. In case C-66/20 XK ECLI:EU:C:2021:200, the Court was asked to deal with the same issue in the light of the peculiar EU and national rules governing the execution of European Investigation Orders. The divergent solutions proposed by the AG and the Court of Justice are here illustrated. Subsequently, some thoughts are devoted to prosecutors as European Investigation Order executing authorities, to establish whether they may ensure effective judicial protection. Besides, a potentially problematic aspect resulting from the Court's ruling is high-lighted, which may exclude the referral of preliminary questions by European Investigation Order executing authorities altogether.

This research aims to analyze the legal authority of public prosecutors to conduct wiretapping in corruption cases and to identify the regulatory weaknesses in the implementation of this authority. The research employs normative legal research, a process used to discover legal rules, legal principles, and legal doctrines to address the legal issues at hand. The normative research approach in this study focuses on three approaches: 1) the statute approach, 2) the conceptual approach, and 3) the comparative approach. The findings indicate that the legal authority of public prosecutors to conduct wiretapping is explicitly stipulated in Article 30C letter (i) of Law No. 11 of 2021, amending Law No. 16 of 2004 on the Prosecutor's Office of the Republic of Indonesia. However, there are several weaknesses in the regulations, including deficiencies in legal substance, legal structure, and legal culture. The weaknesses in legal substance include the absence of specific legislation on wiretapping. The weaknesses in legal structure involve overlapping authority among institutions such as the Prosecutor's Office, BIN, Police, and KPK, as well as the lack of digital forensic laboratories and skilled human resources in wiretapping operations.

Copyright of Journal of Kufa Legal & Political Science is the property of Republic of Iraq Ministry of Higher Education & Scientific Research (MOHESR) 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 aim of this research was to confront the unconstitutionality of the criminal sentence in view of the absolutory manifestation by the Public Prosecutor, and, consequently, the incompatibility between article 385 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Republic’s Constitution of 1988. This is because, from the legal-procedural construction of the Democratic State of Law, several provisions still present in the Code of Criminal Procedure, as a result of its historical-political conception, do not fit with the current constitutional order. Based on the hypothetical-deductive method, the legal literature and jurisprudence were reviewed to conclude that article 385 of the Code of Criminal Procedure violates the democratic procedural established in the Republic’s Constitution of 1988, mainly because of the mitigation of the impartiality of the judgment, the inertia of the jurisdiction and the separation of the functions established to the procedural subjects.

Accusations of pedophilia are now proliferating within the Catholic Church. The problem is global and demands an immediate solution. Some possibilities of investigation of this nefarious crime have been tested but the truth is that until now they have not provided an adequate and satisfactory response for the parties involved. Faced with this situation, the current government has proposed the participation of the Ombudsman. The present work studies this possibility and its implications and argues that this institution is not the most appropriate to solve the problem effectively. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Prosecution service was born in France in the 13th century, and it was shaped over the following hundreds of years in order to become a permanent as well as a highly significant and well-regarded element of the judiciary in the twilight of absolute monarchy. There has been an insignificant output concerning this period of history of the prosecution in Polish language literature. In order to fill this void, the author analyzes the circumstances surrounding the creation of the French prosecution and subsequently delineates its organization, functioning as well as its most important tasks all the while paying special attention to the 17th and to the 18th centuries. Prosecution is presented in its historic costume and, when this garb is put aside, it reveals an institution which needs to deal with timeless challenges. Contemporary prosecutors enjoyed far-reaching levels of independence which was simultaneously subject to the king as well as to court hierarchy. Moreover, they successfully performed contradictory functions of the members of the judiciary and those of the representatives of the royal authority in courts, defenders of individual rights and exponents of the interests of the central authority, functionaries creating the law and watching over its application, members of the social elite, and advocates for widows and orphans. The paper also presents the specificity of the contemporary prosecution service, including its strong internal differentiation into individual categories of officers as well as its functioning in a collegial manner, which made it similar to a court chamber in parliaments. The author also cites examples of prosecutors' actions in the legal reality of the period, including the procedural positions presented by them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the presented article, the author analyzes practical issues related to the service of process of the public prosecutor’s decisions related to the search and seizure during the course of the preparatory proceedings. The first part of the paper discusses the search and seizure regulations in urgent cases. In the course of further deliberations, the focus is on search and seizure regulations, obligation on the service of public prosecutor’s decisions and opportunity of its appealing. The author points out that this practice is wrong and suggest what the optimal solution should look like, even without legislative changes, but with the right interpretation of the current regulations. All the considerations lead him to present his own final conclusions and de lege ferenda postulates.

This paper will analyse the position of the injured party in an investigation conducted by the public prosecutor's office, which was implemented in the Republic of Serbia in 2011. After we have given the definitions of the injured party and the difference with the term victim, as a criminological category, we will discuss whether the Serbian Criminal Procedure Code (2011) takes a step back when it comes to the position of the injured party in criminal proceedings. First of all, the ability of the injured party to become a subsidiary prosecutor was limited, as it was prescribed that the injured party can take over criminal prosecution only after the confirmation of the public prosecutor's indictment, so the opportunity to acts as a subsidiary prosecutor does not exist in the manner in which it existed under the Criminal Procedure Code from 2001 of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Then, we shall demonstrate how the position of the injured party was exacerbated in relation to deferred prosecution, as the injured party cannot submit an objection to the higher public prosecutor to re-examine the decision not to prosecute and the injured party's consent is not needed for this decision. The research conducted among deputy public prosecutors and attorneys for the purposes of this paper confirms the presumption that the Criminal Procedure Code in force downgraded the injured party's impact on the criminal proceedings.

The article is devoted to the pre-trial procedure for qualifying information, information materials, posted on information and telecommunication networks, including the Internet, as extremist and prohibited for distribution as a condition for applying to court. The object of the study was a complex of public relations aimed at countering extremism. As a result of the study, the author concluded that part of the complex of preventive measures, carried out by the authorized bodies in order to counter extremism, can be assessed by the court as a pre-trial procedure for qualifying information as extremist. The author draws attention to the lack of certainty in the terms extrajudicial procedure and pre-trial procedure, which requires improvement of the legislation; the need to determine the mechanism of pre-trial procedure of applying to court by establishing criteria, specific and sufficient actions of the authorized bodies to apply to court.

Copyright of Revista Española de Derecho Constitucional is the property of Centro de Estudios Politicos y Constitucionales 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 appeal is one of the remedies that give litigants the opportunity to correct the mistakes committed by the courts, it said in a guidebook by the courts portal. The material below will tell you everything you need to know about ordinary appeal call from cases in which you can declare appeal to items that must be included in the appeal. The article analyzes some aspects of participation of public prosecutor in criminal cases in trial in court of appeal, general provisions of the appeal proceeding, prosecution powers in appeal court. Author analyzes the scientific concepts on the participation of the prosecutor in the court of second instance, sets a goal and functions of the prosecutor in considering criminal cases in the court of first instance; determines the concept and to find out the essence of the legal status of the prosecutor in criminal proceedings. The scientific relevant problem solved is in conceptualization of prosecutor’s participation in the court of appeal; the result is the optimization of the prosecutor’s activity in the court of second instance on the basis of the improved legislation on criminal procedure in order to increase the efficiency of criminal procedure. Expose conclusion on the active participation of the prosecutor in the research evidence in criminal cases in trial in court of appeal.

The public ministry is the body that represents the society by the repression of criminals and the mobilization and exercising the public action on every type of offence, basing on the competences provided by the law because of its competence. Kinship influents on the work of public ministry by the restriction of its freedom in exercising criminal prosecution proceedings, it constitutes an obstacle to the public prosecutor in appreciating the public action in both normal and exceptional offences, because of the kinship relationship.

The paper discusses the principle of legal information in the Polish criminal procedure. The decision of the Supreme Court refers to the existing case-law on instructing professional entities. This has been the line of case-law that raised doubts in some scholars in the field. The whole wording of the justification of the decision commented herein eads, however, to the conclusion that the position adopted differs significantly from the previously expressed one and therefore has significant consequences for professional participants (defence counsels, representatives, social interest advocates). The conclusion states that further restrictive interpretation of Article 16 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure will significantly affect the guarantees for the parties to the proceedings, including the right to defence and the standard of fair trial. Each party should therefore be instructed in accordance the Article. The author suggests modifications in its wording to make it similar to relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

According to the Article 27, paragraph 1 of the Constitution of Republic of Serbia (2006), the right to liberty is guaranteed to all domestic and foreign persons, which is derived from the constitutional provision that the holder of this right is “everyone”. Everyone has the right to move freely, to settle in Republic of Serbia, to leave it, and to return to it. This freedom may be restricted by law if it is necessary to conduct a criminal proceedings, protect the public order and peace, prevent the spread of infectious diseases, or defense of Republic of Serbia (the Constitution of Republic of Serbia, 2006, the Article 39, paragraph 2). Deprivation of liberty is allowed only for legal reasons and in the procedure provided by law. Both minors and adults may be deprived of their liberty. A person who has not reached the age of 14 is considered a child, and he/she cannot be deprived of liberty in the pre-investigation procedure because, according to our legal regulations, children are not subject to criminal liability. The aim of this paper will be to explore the concept of deprivation of liberty by arresting and/or detaining a suspect in the pre-investigation procedure according to the criminal procedure legislation of Republic of Serbia, with examples from previous practice and a proposal for some legal improvements.

Copyright of Galatasaray Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi is the property of GALATASARAY UNIVERSITESI HUKUK FAKULTESI 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 Revista Jurídica de Castilla y León is the property of Junta de Castilla y Leon, Direccion de Servicios Juridicos 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 principle of legalism places upon the public prosecutor the obligation o pressing charges to a court of law and then to support this claim in the course of the lawsuit. It seems obvious that in order to execute this duty in an appropriate manner, the public prosecutor should attend the trial and actively participate in it. However, in regulation Art. 46 §2 k.p.k., which was introduced by way of an amendment issued on 11 March 2016, the legislator stipulated a regulation which permits the public prosecutor not to appear during the trial, if the preliminary legal proceedings concluded in the form of investigation. Obviously, the task of this regulation is to accelerate the proceedings in cases of lesser calibre, which are cases in which an investigation is conducted. However, it is necessary to consider the aforementioned regulation in the context of the basic principles of a criminal lawsuit and the analysis of the consequences of such regulations. Therefore, in the first instance one made reference to the most important regulations contained in the basis acts of international law, i.e. the European Convention of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which emphasise above all the significance of independence and impartiality, as well as the principle of a quick and efficient operation of the procedure. It was also necessary to refer the substantive regulation to the principle of the contradictoriness of the criminal lawsuit, which stipulates inter alia the separation of lawsuit-related roles and the passivity of the court in reference to the initiative of the parties who argue their cases.

Copyright of Türkiye Adalet Akademisi Dergisi is the property of Justice Academy of Turkey 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 Ius Novum is the property of Sciendo 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 Journal of Contemporary History / Časopis za Suvremenu Povijest is the property of Croatia Institute for History 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 Internal Security is the property of Police Academy in Szczytno 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.)