Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisorKnežević, Saša S.
dc.contributor.otherBugarski, Tatjana
dc.contributor.otherIlić, Ivan B.
dc.creatorRistić Vezenković, Mirjana
dc.date.accessioned2021-03-23T10:02:30Z
dc.date.available2021-03-23T10:02:30Z
dc.date.issued2020-06-26
dc.identifier.urihttp://eteze.ni.ac.rs/application/showtheses?thesesId=7847
dc.identifier.urihttps://fedorani.ni.ac.rs/fedora/get/o:1675/bdef:Content/download
dc.identifier.urihttp://vbs.rs/scripts/cobiss?command=DISPLAY&base=70052&RID=20778249
dc.identifier.urihttps://nardus.mpn.gov.rs/handle/123456789/18147
dc.descriptionThe subject of this scientific research is the position of the Public prosecutor in the criminal proceedings against adult offenders, according to the reformed Criminal Procedure Code of Serbia. The aim of the scientific research was to describe, classify and explain the powers and duties of the Public Prosecutor that constitute their general procedural position in pre-trials and all stages of the ordinary criminal proceedings, especially in the diversionary and simplified procedural forms. The established factors were linked to the quantum of the Public Prosecutor's rights and duties under the previously applicable regulations, in order to determine the quantitative and qualitative changes in their procedural position and the degree of strengthening of the Public Prosecutor's power in the process of criminal repression. In line with the topic of this dissertation, the methods of scientific description and scientific explanation were used as general methods for researching social phenomena. Among the specific scientific methods we used the analytic-synthetic method, inductive-deductive method, and the method of abstraction and generalization. The authors also used comparative-legal method and historical-legal method, characteristic for the research of legal phenomena. The overall conclusion is that the results of the research showed that, in the new model of the Serbian Criminal Procedure Code, the procedural position of the Public Prosecutor has been radically changed. With the initiation of a formal Public Prosecutor's Inquiry, the Public Prosecutor becomes the dominus litis of the pretrial and pre-trial criminal proceedings, while all the evidence presented in the inquiry has the same evidentiary power as the judicial evidence. Due to the established and theoretically clarified conceptual shortcomings of the regulation, it was proposed to introduce a onephase informal inquiry in which the Public Prosecutor would only collect and not present the evidence. Based on the theoretical analysis of the principles and procedural institutions on which the adversarial model of judicial criminal proceedings was built, it was concluded that the responsibility to establish factual situation should be transferred to the Public Prosecutor and that in legal remedies the public prosecutor is the protector of legality instead of the court. The result of a detailed theoretical analysis of the diversionary and simplified forms of resolving criminal matters is the view that the Public Prosecutor in the diversionary proceedings takes on the attributes of the judicial authority because they impose para-penal measures on the perpetrators, and in simplified forms, they have a decisive influence over the criminal policies of the courts. The final conclusion is that the constitutional position of the Public Prosecutor is not in harmony with their new role in the reformed criminal procedure, leading to the proposal to ensure the necessary functional independence through constitutional and legal norms and to explicitly include the Public Prosecutor's Office in standard judicial bodies.en
dc.formatapplication/pdf
dc.languagesr
dc.publisherУниверзитет у Нишу, Правни факултетsr
dc.rightsopenAccessen
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
dc.sourceУниверзитет у Нишуsr
dc.subjectkrivični postupaksr
dc.subjectCriminal procedureen
dc.subjectpublic prosecutoren
dc.subjectprosecutionen
dc.subjectinquiryen
dc.subjectindictmenten
dc.subjectmain trialen
dc.subjectlegal remediesen
dc.subjectthe principle of the opportunity for prosecutionen
dc.subjectsimplified procedural formsen
dc.subjectpenal policyen
dc.subjectjavni tužilacsr
dc.subjectkrivično gonjenjesr
dc.subjectistragasr
dc.subjectoptuženjesr
dc.subjectglavni pretressr
dc.subjectpravni lekovisr
dc.subjectnačelo oportuniteta krivičnog gonjenjasr
dc.subjectuprošćene procesne formesr
dc.subjectkaznena politikasr
dc.titlePoložaj javnog tužioca u reformisanom krivičnom postupku Srbijesr
dc.typePhD thesis
dc.rights.licenseBY-NC-ND
dc.identifier.fulltexthttp://nardus.mpn.gov.rs/bitstream/id/70358/Disertacija.pdf
dc.identifier.fulltexthttp://nardus.mpn.gov.rs/bitstream/id/70359/Ristic_Vezenkovic_Mirjana_R.pdf
dc.identifier.rcubhttps://hdl.handle.net/21.15107/rcub_nardus_18147


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

openAccess
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as openAccess