International investment arbitration as an alternative dispute resolution mechanism for resolving disputes between foreign investors and host states is also a favourite dispute resolution for investors. It consist of three parts, all of which can be resolved separately. These are jurisdiction, merits and damages. Consequently, it is possible for a tribunal to render one, two or even three arbitral awards, depending on the tribunal decision to bifurcate/trifurcate the proceedings or not. This shows the complexity of each of the stages of the arbitration proceeding. The paper deals with the issue of reparation, specifically compensation for damage caused as the main form of reparation for damage. It gives an overview of the legal issues affecting the amount of awarded damages, the main methods for calculating damages, as well as the applicable case-law and statistics in relation to the legal issues and calculating methods. The paper argues that only a proactive and inclusive approach in respect to determining damages including a detailed fact analysis for legal qualification of the dispute and determination of the best damages assessment methods, can give satisfactory results.
{"title":"ODREĐIVANJE VISINE NAKNADE ŠTETE U MEĐUNARODNOJ INVESTICIJSKOJ ARBITRAŽI S OBZIROM NA UTVRĐENU POVREDU I METODU IZRAČUNA","authors":"Jadranka Osrečak","doi":"10.25234/PV/10178","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.25234/PV/10178","url":null,"abstract":"International investment arbitration as an alternative dispute resolution mechanism for resolving disputes between foreign investors and host states is also a favourite dispute resolution for investors. It consist of three parts, all of which can be resolved separately. These are jurisdiction, merits and damages. Consequently, it is possible for a tribunal to render one, two or even three arbitral awards, depending on the tribunal decision to bifurcate/trifurcate the proceedings or not. This shows the complexity of each of the stages of the arbitration proceeding. The paper deals with the issue of reparation, specifically compensation for damage caused as the main form of reparation for damage. It gives an overview of the legal issues affecting the amount of awarded damages, the main methods for calculating damages, as well as the applicable case-law and statistics in relation to the legal issues and calculating methods. The paper argues that only a proactive and inclusive approach in respect to determining damages including a detailed fact analysis for legal qualification of the dispute and determination of the best damages assessment methods, can give satisfactory results.","PeriodicalId":41100,"journal":{"name":"Pravni Vjesnik","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42135555","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
With the entry into force of the Criminal Procedure Code of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the roles of the prosecutor and the court have been changed significantly compared to the earlier legislation, especially in the investigative procedure. According to the existing normative framework, the role of the court in the investigation is much more passive since at this stage of the procedure the court does not control the merits of conducting the investigation. The mixed accusatorial concept of investigation as the one existing in the criminal justice system of Bosnia and Herzegovina has led to certain restrictions on the rights of the defence in investigation. Investigation is an important stage in criminal proceedings that is conducted for evidence and data collecting necessary to decide whether to file an indictment or discontinue the proceedings, as well as for evidence that can be presented at the main hearing and upon which the judgment is rendered. It is therefore necessary to ensure that a proper and lawful investigation is conducted. This means to make sure that all parties involved in the investigation, especially defence are treated in a fair manner. The right to defence is a fundamental human and constitutional right guaranteed by international conventions. The right to defence results in several individual rights enjoyed by suspects in preliminary proceedings. In order to ensure effective judicial protection of the rights of the suspects, the paper analyses the domestic criminal justice system and presents comparative legal solutions regarding the protection of procedural rights of the defence in investigation. The fundamental issues in analysing regulatory framework in Bosnia and Herzegovina are the lack of effective judicial protection of procedural rights of the defence, the absence of an effective legal remedy to conduct an investigation facilitating the principle of a fair trial for defence and the principle of equality of arms in pre-trial proceedings. In addition, the paper analyses the issue of informing the suspect of an order for investigation, since according to applicable regulations, the suspect does not even need to know about an investigation conducted against him, which is a violation of the principle of right to a fair trial.
{"title":"INSTRUMENTI ZAŠTITE PROCESNIH PRAVA OBRANE U ISTRAZI PREMA ZAKONU O KAZNENOM POSTUPKU BOSNE I HERCEGOVINE","authors":"Maja Pilić, Zdravko Rajić","doi":"10.25234/PV/11997","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.25234/PV/11997","url":null,"abstract":"With the entry into force of the Criminal Procedure Code of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the roles of the prosecutor and the court have been changed significantly compared to the earlier legislation, especially in the investigative procedure. According to the existing normative framework, the role of the court in the investigation is much more passive since at this stage of the procedure the court does not control the merits of conducting the investigation. The mixed accusatorial concept of investigation as the one existing in the criminal justice system of Bosnia and Herzegovina has led to certain restrictions on the rights of the defence in investigation. Investigation is an important stage in criminal proceedings that is conducted for evidence and data collecting necessary to decide whether to file an indictment or discontinue the proceedings, as well as for evidence that can be presented at the main hearing and upon which the judgment is rendered. It is therefore necessary to ensure that a proper and lawful investigation is conducted. This means to make sure that all parties involved in the investigation, especially defence are treated in a fair manner. The right to defence is a fundamental human and constitutional right guaranteed by international conventions. The right to defence results in several individual rights enjoyed by suspects in preliminary proceedings. In order to ensure effective judicial protection of the rights of the suspects, the paper analyses the domestic criminal justice system and presents comparative legal solutions regarding the protection of procedural rights of the defence in investigation. The fundamental issues in analysing regulatory framework in Bosnia and Herzegovina are the lack of effective judicial protection of procedural rights of the defence, the absence of an effective legal remedy to conduct an investigation facilitating the principle of a fair trial for defence and the principle of equality of arms in pre-trial proceedings. In addition, the paper analyses the issue of informing the suspect of an order for investigation, since according to applicable regulations, the suspect does not even need to know about an investigation conducted against him, which is a violation of the principle of right to a fair trial.","PeriodicalId":41100,"journal":{"name":"Pravni Vjesnik","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45118891","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The Republic of Croatia does not have a legal framework for regulating lobbying activities. With the adoption of regulations governing lobbying, this informal activity is translated from the “grey zone” into an activity under the “watchful eye” of the competent authorities. Although there is a large amount of professional and scientific literature on the concept and activity of lobbying, it can be noticed that the academic community is much less concerned with the legal institute of lobbying contract, its classification, characteristics and content. The lobbying contract in the wider context of the Croatian science of civil law and legal practice, comprises the features of certain legal transactions, primarily a contract for services / or a mandate contract. The object of performing a lobbying contract is the execution of a lobbying activity, as a rule for a consideration, and in that sense, it represents a specific form of a contract for services. The mandate contract features found in the formation of the lobbying contract will also be emphasized. The paper aims at presenting the basic features of the lobbying contract and emphasizing certain outstanding issues that may arise in any legal regulation of this legal act in the Republic of Croatia. The comparative approach in the paper points to legal solutions applied by legal systems with a long lobbying tradition as a legitimate part of the legislative process. It also points out the plausible solutions that have emerged from the legal systems of predominantly former communist and transition countries, and which are all the more adequate to possible Croatian lobbying contract regulation.
{"title":"GRAĐANSKOPRAVNO UREĐENJE DJELATNOSTI LOBIRANJA","authors":"Davorin Pichler","doi":"10.25234/PV/12837","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.25234/PV/12837","url":null,"abstract":"The Republic of Croatia does not have a legal framework for regulating lobbying activities. With the adoption of regulations governing lobbying, this informal activity is translated from the “grey zone” into an activity under the “watchful eye” of the competent authorities. Although there is a large amount of professional and scientific literature on the concept and activity of lobbying, it can be noticed that the academic community is much less concerned with the legal institute of lobbying contract, its classification, characteristics and content. The lobbying contract in the wider context of the Croatian science of civil law and legal practice, comprises the features of certain legal transactions, primarily a contract for services / or a mandate contract. The object of performing a lobbying contract is the execution of a lobbying activity, as a rule for a consideration, and in that sense, it represents a specific form of a contract for services. The mandate contract features found in the formation of the lobbying contract will also be emphasized. The paper aims at presenting the basic features of the lobbying contract and emphasizing certain outstanding issues that may arise in any legal regulation of this legal act in the Republic of Croatia. The comparative approach in the paper points to legal solutions applied by legal systems with a long lobbying tradition as a legitimate part of the legislative process. It also points out the plausible solutions that have emerged from the legal systems of predominantly former communist and transition countries, and which are all the more adequate to possible Croatian lobbying contract regulation.","PeriodicalId":41100,"journal":{"name":"Pravni Vjesnik","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44726385","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Elizabeta Ivičević Karas, Zoran Burić, Matko Pajčić
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.
{"title":"COLLABORATORS OF JUSTICE: COMPARATIVE LEGAL SOLUTIONS AND CROATIAN CRIMINAL PROCEDURAL LAW","authors":"Elizabeta Ivičević Karas, Zoran Burić, Matko Pajčić","doi":"10.25234/PV/13602","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.25234/PV/13602","url":null,"abstract":"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.","PeriodicalId":41100,"journal":{"name":"Pravni Vjesnik","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45988507","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The effects of a defendant’s confession are not the same in all legal orders. In civil law systems, confession is usually perceived as an ordinary piece of evidence, while in common law culture it is considered a guilty plea whose truthfulness is not to be questioned by the judge. However, this broad differentiation is not straightforward. In Croatia, if a defendant confesses to a criminal offence punishable by a fine or imprisonment of up to five years at the main hearing and agrees to the sentence proposed by the prosecutor, the trial court is not allowed to impose a sentence higher than the one proposed by the prosecutor. This can motivate tacit agreements and unregulated negotiations between the parties after the main hearing has already begun, and it is unclear if the legislator had such a scenario in mind when enacting this provision. In order to elucidate these problems in a broader perspective, the authors have analysed Croatian, German, Austrian, French, Italian and English law, with an emphasis on the position of the defendant after a confession at the main hearing, the effects of the confession, the role of the court in further proceedings and the victim’s rights. After the comparative analysis, the authors presented their opinion on the current legal situation in Croatia, especially Art. 417a (6) and (7) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, together with a proposal for legislative changes.
{"title":"DEFENDANT’S CONFESSION AT THE MAIN HEARING IN CROATIAN AND COMPARATIVE LAW: JUST ANOTHER PIECE OF EVIDENCE, GUILTY PLEA OR A TACIT AGREEMENT?","authors":"Igor Martinović, I. Radić","doi":"10.25234/PV/13874","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.25234/PV/13874","url":null,"abstract":"The effects of a defendant’s confession are not the same in all legal orders. In civil law systems, confession is usually perceived as an ordinary piece of evidence, while in common law culture it is considered a guilty plea whose truthfulness is not to be questioned by the judge. However, this broad differentiation is not straightforward. In Croatia, if a defendant confesses to a criminal offence punishable by a fine or imprisonment of up to five years at the main hearing and agrees to the sentence proposed by the prosecutor, the trial court is not allowed to impose a sentence higher than the one proposed by the prosecutor. This can motivate tacit agreements and unregulated negotiations between the parties after the main hearing has already begun, and it is unclear if the legislator had such a scenario in mind when enacting this provision. In order to elucidate these problems in a broader perspective, the authors have analysed Croatian, German, Austrian, French, Italian and English law, with an emphasis on the position of the defendant after a confession at the main hearing, the effects of the confession, the role of the court in further proceedings and the victim’s rights. After the comparative analysis, the authors presented their opinion on the current legal situation in Croatia, especially Art. 417a (6) and (7) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, together with a proposal for legislative changes.","PeriodicalId":41100,"journal":{"name":"Pravni Vjesnik","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43975603","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The paper analyses the mechanism of a penal order as a consensual procedure aimed at relieving the criminal justice system in cases of minor criminal offences by avoiding a trial. The study aims to analyse the Croatian normative framework and case law in order to determine the distinctive traits of the penal order procedure in a comparative legal context, disclose the procedural reality and detect its shortcomings. The paper focuses on the substantive and procedural requirements for the issuing of a penal order, the judicial control of the indictment requesting a penal order, the defence rights in the proceedings before the issuing of a penal order and the position of the victim. These key elements were researched through normative, theoretical and comparative analysis of German, Austrian, Italian and French law and conclusions were tested in the case law of the Municipal Criminal Court in Zagreb and the Municipal Court in Split. The results of the research reveal that the expansion of the application of the penal order to graver offences punishable by five years of imprisonment and to more severe penalties such as deprivation of liberty, as well as deviations from some fundamental criminal procedural principles inherent in the penal order procedure, raise the question of providing adequate procedural guarantees for the defendant and the victim.
{"title":"RULE OF LAW CONCERNS IN THE CROATIAN PENAL ORDER PROCEDURE LINKED TO DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY, JUDICIAL CONTROL, ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE AND PROCEDURAL RIGHTS","authors":"Zlata Đurđevć, Marin Bonačić, Marija Pleić","doi":"10.25234/PV/13884","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.25234/PV/13884","url":null,"abstract":"The paper analyses the mechanism of a penal order as a consensual procedure aimed at relieving the criminal justice system in cases of minor criminal offences by avoiding a trial. The study aims to analyse the Croatian normative framework and case law in order to determine the distinctive traits of the penal order procedure in a comparative legal context, disclose the procedural reality and detect its shortcomings. The paper focuses on the substantive and procedural requirements for the issuing of a penal order, the judicial control of the indictment requesting a penal order, the defence rights in the proceedings before the issuing of a penal order and the position of the victim. These key elements were researched through normative, theoretical and comparative analysis of German, Austrian, Italian and French law and conclusions were tested in the case law of the Municipal Criminal Court in Zagreb and the Municipal Court in Split. The results of the research reveal that the expansion of the application of the penal order to graver offences punishable by five years of imprisonment and to more severe penalties such as deprivation of liberty, as well as deviations from some fundamental criminal procedural principles inherent in the penal order procedure, raise the question of providing adequate procedural guarantees for the defendant and the victim.","PeriodicalId":41100,"journal":{"name":"Pravni Vjesnik","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44887616","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Elizabeta Ivičević Karas, Ante Novokmet, Igor Martinović
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.
{"title":"JUDGMENT BASED ON AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES IN CROATIAN LAW: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS FROM THE COMPARATIVE LEGAL PERSPECTIVE","authors":"Elizabeta Ivičević Karas, Ante Novokmet, Igor Martinović","doi":"10.25234/PV/13429","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.25234/PV/13429","url":null,"abstract":"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.","PeriodicalId":41100,"journal":{"name":"Pravni Vjesnik","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48299842","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The article aims mainly at analyzing the issue of legal (dis)continuity between the Kingdom of Serbia and the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (hereinafter the Kingdom of SCS) within the context of an international dispute between Germany and the Kingdom of SCS, and to revealing the reasons for different court decisions interpretations in a particular case. By using the techniques of historical-legal and analytical methods in researching into documents and secondary opinions given by politicians and constitutional lawyers, the paper first gives a brief overview of international circumstances that enabled the post-war states formation. It also summarizes different opinions regarding the legal status of the State of SCS and the character of the First-December Act taking into account historical and modern international and constitutional criteria. The conclusion is made in the context of discussion regarding the central issue that Ivan Žolger’s interpretation that despite the verdict in the particular case, the Kingdom of SCS was a new state, since it was not created in accordance with the 1903 Constitution of the Kingdom of Serbia. In addition to the argument that the State of SCS met the basic criteria of statehood, and that the formation of the Kingdom of SCS interrupted the constitutional continuity of the Kingdom of Serbia, the contribution of the paper lies in the argument that different legal opinions were not so much the result of legal ambiguities, but primarily a reflection of one, out of many, political battles fought between the conflicting state ideologies.
{"title":"POLEMIKE O STATUSU DRŽAVE I KRALJEVINE SHS","authors":"Igor Ivašković","doi":"10.25234/pv/10902","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.25234/pv/10902","url":null,"abstract":"The article aims mainly at analyzing the issue of legal (dis)continuity between the Kingdom of Serbia and the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (hereinafter the Kingdom of SCS) within the context of an international dispute between Germany and the Kingdom of SCS, and to revealing the reasons for different court decisions interpretations in a particular case. By using the techniques of historical-legal and analytical methods in researching into documents and secondary opinions given by politicians and constitutional lawyers, the paper first gives a brief overview of international circumstances that enabled the post-war states formation. It also summarizes different opinions regarding the legal status of the State of SCS and the character of the First-December Act taking into account historical and modern international and constitutional criteria. The conclusion is made in the context of discussion regarding the central issue that Ivan Žolger’s interpretation that despite the verdict in the particular case, the Kingdom of SCS was a new state, since it was not created in accordance with the 1903 Constitution of the Kingdom of Serbia. In addition to the argument that the State of SCS met the basic criteria of statehood, and that the formation of the Kingdom of SCS interrupted the constitutional continuity of the Kingdom of Serbia, the contribution of the paper lies in the argument that different legal opinions were not so much the result of legal ambiguities, but primarily a reflection of one, out of many, political battles fought between the conflicting state ideologies.","PeriodicalId":41100,"journal":{"name":"Pravni Vjesnik","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2020-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42961820","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Summary: The paper examines the normative substance and functional roles of the legal concept of (human) dignity in the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court of Croatia. In these two aspects, the Constitutional Court’s dignity jurisprudence is compared with the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, the Court of Justice of the European Union, and high (constitutional and supreme) courts of other European states.
{"title":"THE CONCEPT OF “DIGNITY” IN JURISPRUDENCE OF THE CROATIAN CONSTITUTIONAL COURT: A EUROPEAN PERSPECTIVE","authors":"Davor Petrić","doi":"10.25234/pv/9688","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.25234/pv/9688","url":null,"abstract":"Summary: The paper examines the normative substance and functional roles of the legal concept of (human) dignity in the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court of Croatia. In these two aspects, the Constitutional Court’s dignity jurisprudence is compared with the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, the Court of Justice of the European Union, and high (constitutional and supreme) courts of other European states.","PeriodicalId":41100,"journal":{"name":"Pravni Vjesnik","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2020-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41422797","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The paper deals with typing of the revision models of actual constitutions in the world, star-ting from the role and importance of the constitution’s revision subjects in the constitution’s revision process. Based on the established features of the constitutional rules on way and po-ssibilities of revising the constitution, the author determines five basic revising constitution models: a) the parliamentary model, b) the referendum model, c) the parliamentary-referen-dum model, d) unipersonal model, and e) the combined or mixed model. Within the scope of these models, eight types and four subtypes of the revision of the constitution are differentia-ted. The parliamentary model is characterized by the decisive role of parliament with certain variations (five types) of this model. In the referendum model, the citizen’s expression is the primary characteristic. Constitutional changes cannot be made and no possibility of annul-ment of the results of the referendum can be determined without the consent of the citizens. The parliamentary-referendum is specific for approximately same importance of the decision of the parliament and the citizens, as none of these entities can independently decide on the changes. However, this model also has certain variations (types). The unipersonal model im-plies constitutional legal systems in which the changes of the constitution are decided by a unipersonal authority. The mixed model is particularly specific because of the possibility of making decisions by different bodies, independently. In addition, the paper provides an overview of the basic constitutional mechanisms of restri-cting and preventing the constitution change, such as a) the complexity of the procedure, b) the limitation of the initiation and submission of proposals, c) the quorum and the majority, d) the eternity clauses. In addition, the paper provides an overview of the basic constitutional mechanisms of restri-cting and preventing the constitution change, such as a) the complexity of the procedure, b) the limitation of the initiation and submission of proposals, c) the quorum and the majority, d) the eternity clauses.
{"title":"MODELI REVIZIJE USTAVA","authors":"Jasmin Hušić","doi":"10.25234/pv/8608","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.25234/pv/8608","url":null,"abstract":"The paper deals with typing of the revision models of actual constitutions in the world, star-ting from the role and importance of the constitution’s revision subjects in the constitution’s revision process. Based on the established features of the constitutional rules on way and po-ssibilities of revising the constitution, the author determines five basic revising constitution models: a) the parliamentary model, b) the referendum model, c) the parliamentary-referen-dum model, d) unipersonal model, and e) the combined or mixed model. Within the scope of these models, eight types and four subtypes of the revision of the constitution are differentia-ted. The parliamentary model is characterized by the decisive role of parliament with certain variations (five types) of this model. In the referendum model, the citizen’s expression is the primary characteristic. Constitutional changes cannot be made and no possibility of annul-ment of the results of the referendum can be determined without the consent of the citizens. The parliamentary-referendum is specific for approximately same importance of the decision of the parliament and the citizens, as none of these entities can independently decide on the changes. However, this model also has certain variations (types). The unipersonal model im-plies constitutional legal systems in which the changes of the constitution are decided by a unipersonal authority. The mixed model is particularly specific because of the possibility of making decisions by different bodies, independently. In addition, the paper provides an overview of the basic constitutional mechanisms of restri-cting and preventing the constitution change, such as a) the complexity of the procedure, b) the limitation of the initiation and submission of proposals, c) the quorum and the majority, d) the eternity clauses. In addition, the paper provides an overview of the basic constitutional mechanisms of restri-cting and preventing the constitution change, such as a) the complexity of the procedure, b) the limitation of the initiation and submission of proposals, c) the quorum and the majority, d) the eternity clauses.","PeriodicalId":41100,"journal":{"name":"Pravni Vjesnik","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2020-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41660157","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：