Public Prosecutor as Key Entity of the Criminal Procedure Legislation Reform Process of the Republic of Serbia

Abstract

Purpose: the aim of this paper is to analyze the efficiency of the public prosecutor’s conduct in the reformed criminal procedure legislation of Serbia. Methods: in the analysis of the subject matter in question, in addition to the theoretical and normative method, a statistical method was also used to collect and analyze statistical indicators of the number of filed charges, initiated investigations and filed indictments based on the Report of the Republic Public Prosecutor’s Office in 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019. Results: the process of reforming the criminal procedure legislation of the Republic of Serbia began with the adoption of the Criminal Procedure Code in 2001, and the latest result of that process is the now valid Criminal Procedure Code from 2011, which has already been amended seven times. The results of the practical application of these amendments are increasing the efficiency of criminal proceedings in the Republic of Serbia as a key goal of the process of reforming its criminal procedure legislation in general, strengthening the capacity of the public prosecutor in detecting and proving criminal acts, but also the need to continue working on reforming criminal procedure legislation of Serbia with the aim of achieving international legal standard. Discussion: the reform of the criminal procedure legislation of the Republic of Serbia, which began in 2001, brought about numerous novelties, primarily in the Criminal Procedure Code as its key representative. The novelties are such that it can be said that the previous concept of criminal procedure, which was based on the classical institutes of the continental legal system, has been almost completely abandoned (such as, for example, judicial investigation). The most important novelties brought by the reform process concern the procedural position of the public prosecutor, which has changed so much that it can be freely said that he has become a key subject of criminal proceedings. This is the case not only due to the fact that through the use of new institutes (the principle of opportunity of criminal prosecution and plea agreements which have not existed before) he can almost independently solve an extremely large percentage of criminal cases (now over 20% of all filed criminal charges annually), but also for the reason that he got other new powers. In a word, his position is now based on key institutes of the Anglo-Saxon legal system, which was not the case before.

Detention in the criminal procedure legislation of Serbia and experiences of the public prosecutor's office for organized crime: (Non) compliance with European standards?

“…The grounds relating to detention are determined as follows: ''in the case of lawful arrest or deprivation of liberty for the purpose of being brought before a competent judicial authority on suspicion of having committed a criminal offense or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent the commission of a criminal offense or escape after its execution'' . 6 In accordance with the above, we can see that the extensive approach when it comes to the reasons for detention in the criminal procedure legislation of Serbia in relation to the EC is considered legitimate, given the legal, political heritage of our country and the field of free assessment, and when it comes to the relevant provisions of the CPC, we can classify them into four groups: the risk of escape, the risk of obstruction of justice, the need to prevent crime and the need to preserve public order. However, a critical analysis is required as regards the legal solution that refers to the material condition for ordering detention, and that is reasonable suspicion (Bejatović, 2014a;Škulić, 2014a).…”