GLASNIK OF THE BAR ASSOCIATION OF VOJVODINA – JOURNAL OF LEGAL THEORY AND PRACTICE

Authors:
Milena Mrvić
Higher Public Prosecutor’s Office in Novi Pazar
Lejla Hubić Nurković
Basic Public Prosecutor’s Office in Novi Pazar

ABSTRACT: Criminal offenses against the environment, as a special group of criminal offenses, are prescribed in Chapter XXIV of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Serbia and constitute a specific group of criminal offenses that reflects contemporary challenges in preserving natural resources and human health, because they disturb the ecological balance, endanger human health, and cause lasting consequences for natural resources. Their specificity lies in the fact that the consequences are most often not limited to an individual or the moment of commission, but rather affect the broader community, the public interest, and future generations. Sentencing for these criminal offenses should involve a different approach compared to classic criminal offenses, that is, for this type of criminal offense, when determining the sentence, special consideration should be given to the scope and severity of the actual or potential damage to the environment, the duration and irreparability of the consequences, the degree to which human health was endangered, the motive and benefit obtained by the perpetrator, and especially the conduct of the accused after the commission of the criminal offense (remediation, compensation, cooperation with the competent authorities). The paper examines the normative frameworks of the Republic of Serbia and the European Union, analyzes the special circumstances that arise in the sentencing process, and provides an overview of prosecutorial and judicial practice of domestic courts, as well as the standards developed in the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. Special attention is devoted to the efforts of the Republic of Serbia to harmonize its legislation and practice with European standards in the field of environmental protection. The aim of the paper is to demonstrate the specific features of criminal offenses against the environment, which require a differentiated, stricter, and remedial approach to sentencing, one that should be proportionate, deterrent, and aimed at preventing future violations, all in order to ensure effective environmental protection and achieve the goals of general and special prevention.

Keywords: environment, natural resources, sentence

Authors:
Božidar Banović, PhD.
Faculty of Security Studies, University of Belgrade
Aleksanda Ilić, PhD.
Faculty of Security Studies, University of Belgrade

ABSTRACT: The standards for the protection and improvement of the environment are in obvious and profound discord with the actual situation. The environment is threatened and damaged continuously, on a daily basis, through numerous and diverse individual and collective activities. Over time, many of these activitieshave been prohibited and sanctioned through various types of regulations, while some have been recognized as exceptionally socially dangerous and sanctioned through criminal legislation. Environmental crime encompasses a wide range of illegal activities and harmful consequences, which is why no universally accepted definition exists. In addition to direct and indirect harmful consequences for the environment and human health, certain forms of environmental crime are aimed at obtaining benefits. The United Nations has singled out environmental crime as a key factor aggravating the so-called “triple planetary crisis” – climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution. Organized criminal groups and networks perceive environmental criminal offenses as an opportunity for high profit with relatively low risk, enabling them to finance other illegal activities and expand their influence. Environmental crime has been identified as the fourth most lucrative criminal activity in the world, following trafficking in human beings, drugs, and weapons. The effective suppression of environmental criminal offenses still does not rank among priorities in many states. The introductory part of this paper provides conceptual definitions of environmental and organized crime, after which the focus shifts to key areas. In addition, the operational methodology of criminal networks is examined, with particular emphasis on corruption and money laundering as key factors contributing to convergence, as well as on the role of corporations and state authorities in those mechanisms. Finally, the paper offers a brief critical review of the dynamics and state of environmental crime in Serbia.

Keywords: environmental crime, organized crime, criminal networks, convergence of organized and environmental crime, corruption, money laundering

Author:
Mladen Jeličić, PhD.
Higher Court in Šabac

ABSTRACT: In this paper, the author examines Directive (EU) 2024/1203 on environmental crime, which, inter alia, recommends that Member States establish a special fund that should have a dual function. First, its function would be preventive, since the funds would be used to improve environmental protection measures and prevent the commission of criminal offenses against the environment. The remedial function of this fund would be reflected in the use of fund resources to remediate the consequences caused by the commission of criminal offenses against the environment. In the introduction, the author points out the importance of environmental protection and the malignancy of environmental criminal offenses. The paper then briefly outlines the purpose and standards of the Directive, as well as certain provisions of the Law on Environmental Protection that are relevant to the topic of the paper. The author analyzes the expediency of establishing a special fund and the legislative framework in the Republic of Serbia that would enable the implementation of this project. The paper indicates possible ways of financing the fund by analyzing the recommendations from the Directive regarding additional sanctions and measures that can be imposed on offenders and the confiscation of financial (pecuniary) gains obtained by the commission of a criminal offense. Other possible methods of financing the fund are also considered, as well as the criteria for using those resources. The author concludes that the establishment of a special fund for environmental protection and for the remediation of the consequences of criminal offenses against the environment could have significant positive effects, primarily from the preventive perspective, through the implementation of more effective environmental protection measures, which should be the primary goal, but also from the remedial perspective, through the remediation of the consequences caused by the commission of such criminal offenses.

Keywords: Directive (EU) 2024/1203, environment, environmental criminal offenses, special fund.

Author:
Mladen M. Milošević, PhD.
University of Belgrade, Faculty of Security Studies
Jovana M. Banović, PhD.
University of Belgrade, Faculty of Security Studies

ABSTRACT: A healthy environment is the subject of continuous attention in almost all forms of human activity: from civic activism, through various development strategies, to legal regulation and the sanctioning of violations of the rights to healthy water, air, soil, flora, and fauna. Protection through criminal law is an important segment in this regard, ranging from “classic” environmental violations and endangerment, such as pollution, to those forms that take environmental crime to a “higher level” and make it profitable. One of the reasons contributing to this is the inefficiency of criminal justice mechanisms, as well as the ineffectiveness of penalties when they have been imposed. This was also one of the motives for adopting Directive 2024/1203 on the protection of the environment through criminal law. In addition, some of the key issues of criminal law doctrine can be observed almost paradigmatically precisely through the example of environmental criminal offenses. This primarily refers to certain substantive-law dilemmas concerning the subjective elements of these criminal offenses; then the concept of liability of legal persons for criminal offenses, whose potential may be realized precisely in the field of environmental offenses; and also the limits and justification of a criminal law response in this area, especially with regard to its relationship with other measures, such as administrative, civil, and other penal-law measures. The Directive and international instruments mentioned above mainly use the notions of intention and serious negligence as subjective components of criminal offenses. This is a dominant feature of the Anglo-Saxon legal tradition, whose structure of the general concept of a criminal offense is somewhat different from the continental European one. Nevertheless, the subjective element is singled out as a separate element, whether through the so-called mens rea component or through the concept of culpability. Roughly speaking, intention and serious negligence, as subjective forms provided for by the Directive, would correspond to intent and negligence in domestic law. However, the assumption is that they overlap only in certain respects and that it is not justified to equate them too readily. At the same time, the Directive contains a provision referring to the interpretation of these elements under the rules of national law, which, with certain specific features, nevertheless relativizes this hypothesis. Accordingly, the focus of this paper will be on analyzing these subjective elements on the basis of environmental criminal offenses and the meaning of the terms prescribed by Directive 2024/1203. In addition, the paper seeks to examine the possibilities of implementing these provisions in domestic law, while also pointing to the capacity of the existing provisions of the Criminal Code in this area. Furthermore, an attempt will be made to formulate certain practical guidelines for understanding and applying the rules on intention and serious negligence, with a view to proving them more efficiently.

Keywords: environmental criminal offenses, intention, serious negligence, intent, negligence, Directive 2024/1203, environment

Author:
Veljko Turanjanin, PhD.
Faculty of Law, University of Kragujevac

ABSTRACT: By adopting Directive (EU) 2024/1203 on the protection of the environment through criminal law, the European Union has established a new, uniform, and comprehensive standard in the field of environmental criminal law. This legal instrument replaces the earlier Directives 2008/99/EC and 2009/123/EC. One of its key novelties is the requirement for a multidisciplinary approach to the prevention, detection, investigation, and prosecution of criminal offenses against the environment. Environmental crime has a complex, cross-border, and often transnational dimension. In addition to legal and criminal procedure instruments, it requires the integration of knowledge and resources from different disciplines: law, criminology, ecology, chemistry, biology, toxicology, economics, and information technology.

The Directive expressly emphasizes the obligation of Member States to provide sufficient qualified staff and adequate financial, technical, and technological resources for combating environmental crime. In addition, the Directive highlights the importance of coordination and cooperation not only within a single state (between different institutions), but also at the level of the European Union. It underscores the role of Eurojust, Europol, the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, and the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) in providing technical and operational support. Such an approach implies that the fight against environmental crime cannot be reduced exclusively to criminal prosecution, but requires the integration of preventive measures, administrative sanctions, civil liability, and criminal-law instruments into a single comprehensive system. The multidisciplinary approach also includes the participation of the public and non-governmental organizations. Article 15 of the Directive provides procedural rights for persons and associations that protect the environment, thereby creating space for citizens and the civil sector to contribute to the protection of a public good. The Directive confirms the position that contemporary environmental crime cannot be successfully sanctioned without the integration of knowledge and cooperation among different disciplines and actors. The standard of multidisciplinarity is an essential element of the European system for the protection of the environment through criminal law and a model that, in the process of harmonization, will also have a strong influence on candidate countries for EU membership.

Keywords: Directive (EU) 2024/1203, environmental crime, multidisciplinary approach, criminal law, environmental protection, investigation and prosecution, European Union

Author:
Marina N. Simonović, PhD.
Faculty of Legal Sciences, Pan-European University “Apeiron”

ABSTRACT: The system of environmental criminal offenses in the Criminal Code of the Republika Srpska provides for several criminal offenses against the environment, in their basic or qualified forms, together with penalties for their perpetrators. Given the need for effective and comprehensive protection of the environment through criminal law either as a whole or of its individual elements, it is necessary to constantly update the existing statutory solutions in order to improve them, both from the perspective of the needs of a contemporary crime suppression policy and, even more so, because of the emergence of new and different forms of harm to or endangerment of the environment. This is also reinforced by the need to harmonize national criminal-law systems with relevant international standards. In this paper, the author analyzes the new solutions contained in the 2024 European Union Directive on the protection of the environment through criminal law from the perspective of their implementation in the criminal legislation of the Republika Srpska.

Keywords: environment, endangerment, criminal offense, directive, Republika Srpska

Author:
Ivan Đokić, PhD.
Faculty of Law, University of Belgrade

ABSTRACT: The insufficiently precise normative framework established by the 2008 Environmental Crime Directive (2008/99/EC), as well as the unsatisfactory and extremely modest effects of its application, prompted the proposal to improve the regulatory framework of the European Union in the field of environmental protection. This ultimately resulted in the adoption of the new Directive 2024/1203 on the protection of the environment through criminal law setting. The Directive also introduces a series of new solutions aimed at improving cross-border cooperation, as well as coordination and cooperation among competent authorities within each Member State. However, the revolutionary change lies in the way the Directive defines the relationship between criminal law and administrative law. For all criminal offenses introduced by the new Directive, the requirement remains that the conduct in question must constitute an unlawful act. Yet, under the new definition, conduct is considered unlawful not only when it breaches EU law, but even when it is carried out on the basis of a decision by a competent authority of a Member State, if that authorization was obtained through fraud, corruption, extortion, coercion, or if such authorization manifestly violates relevant substantive legal requirements. The question remains how Member States will incorporate this concept into their national legislation; a concept which, regardless of any criminal-policy justification, poses a serious risk to the principle of legality, which requires that the conditions for criminal liability be precisely and clearly defined. Moreover, the seemingly “iron rule” that criminal law must not sanction what another field of law explicitly permits appears to have lost its former value.

Keywords: environment, environmental crime, European Union, directive

Author:
Natalija Lukić, PhD.
Faculty of Law, University of Belgrade

ABSTRACT: The insufficiently precise normative framework established by the 2008 Directive on environmental crime (2008/99/EC), as well as the unsatisfactory and extremely modest effects of its application, prompted a proposal to improve the European Union regulatory framework in the field of environmental protection. This resulted in the adoption of the new Directive 2024/1203 in the field of the protection of the environment through criminal law. The Directive also introduces an entire range of new solutions aimed at more successful cross-border cooperation, as well as coordination and cooperation among competent authorities within a Member State. However, the truly revolutionary change lies in the way in which the Directive defines the relationship between criminal law and administrative law. For all criminal offenses provided for by the new Directive, the conduct in question must constitute an unlawful act. Under the new definition, however, conduct is considered unlawful not only where it breaches a specific rule of Union law, but even where it is carried out on the basis of a decision of the competent authority of a Member State, if that authorization was obtained fraudulently or by corruption, extortion, or coercion, or if the authorization is in manifest breach of relevant substantive legal requirements. The question remains open as to how Member States will incorporate this concept into their national legislation, since, regardless of its potential criminal-policy effect, it poses a serious threat to the principle of legality, which requires the conditions for criminal liability to be determined precisely and clearly. Moreover, it appears that the “iron rule,” according to which criminal law must not sanction what another branch of law expressly permits, no longer has any value.

Keywords: Directive 2024/1203, criminal offenses, environment, criminal sanctions, measures

Author:
Stojana Petrović, Ph.D.
Faculty of Law, University of Banja Luka

ABSTRACT: In both observed entities of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republika Srpska and the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, there are areas where the existing real estate records have been destroyed or damaged, and their restoration will certainly be carried out. Since establishing real estate records is a lengthy process, legislators provide for special procedural rules when such real estate is proposed as an object of compulsory enforcement. In this way, legislators are trying to compensate enforcement creditors for the still-present irregular maintenance of public registers, or rather their non-existence in certain areas, and to enable carrying out compulsory enforcement against such real estate as well. This is especially true in situations where the enforcement debtor has no other object of enforcement that they could propose. The aim of this research is a normative-dogmatic analysis of the domestic legislative model for enforcement against real estate that is not entered in the public register because the register has been destroyed or damaged. The analysis of domestic and comparative dicates that the special procedural rules applied in this situation in both entities of Bosnia and Herzegovina do not correspond to the interest of the enforcement creditor in the realization of efficient enforcement against such real estate. Given the observed weakening of the general principle of judicial management of the proceedings, a conclusion can be drawn about the excessive burden on the enforcement creditor, as well as the unjustified, overly conditional, and therefore rare judicial conduct of such real estate seizure inventory.

Keywords: enforcement proceedings, real estate, registration of real estate rights, cadastre, land register

Author:
Marija Milojević
Faculty of Law, University of Kragujevac

ABSTRACT: This paper analyzes the concept of the criminal procedural subject through a theoretical, normative, and comparative framework, with particular reference to the position of the injured party and the victim of a criminal offense in criminal proceedings. It begins with the traditional understanding according to which criminal procedural subjects are holders of certain procedural functions – adjudication, prosecution, and defense – and classifies them as principal and secondary subjects. Within this framework, the injured party is defined as a secondary procedural subject, but one with a complex procedural status, as they may simultaneously perform multiple functions (e.g., testifying, initiating prosecution, or submitting a property claim). Special attention is devoted to distinguishing between the concepts of the injured party and the victim of a criminal offense in domestic legislation and international instruments, particularly Directive 2012/29/EU and the 1985 UN Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power. The analysis demonstrates that the concept of a victim encompasses a broader range of rights, including extraprocedural protection, support, and assistance, thereby transcending the traditional procedural framework of the injured party. The paper concludes that harmonizing domestic legislation with international standards requires either the normative recognition of the victim as a distinct procedural subject or the expansion of the existing concept of the injured party, while preserving the adversarial nature of criminal proceedings and ensuring effective victim protection both within and beyond their formal scope.

Keywords: criminal procedural function, secondary procedural subject, injured party, victim of a criminal offense, three-dimensional model of criminal proceedings, international standards in victims’

Author:
Miodraga Tošić
Basic Court in Sokolac, Bosnia and Herzegovina

ABSTRACT: In practice, it is necessary to distinguish between dismissal for failure to achieve work results and dismissal for the lack of knowledge and skills required to perform a particular job, since these are two separate grounds for dismissal, while legal gaps and the lack of case law make it more difficult to effectively exercise the right to protection against unjustified dismissal. In that regard, the author begins with the premise that legal certainty and the objective determination of work norms contribute to preventing abuse of the right to dismiss; that introducing a statutory obligation to establish criteria and authority for assessing employees’ knowledge and skills contributes to greater legal certainty in the field of protection against unjustified dismissal; and that a more complex dismissal procedure may play a significant role in preventing labor disputes. The article also concludes that the current statutory solutions are rightly subject to significant criticism, because they cannot be identical for all grounds for dismissal, and that reinstatement, as a legal consequence of unlawful dismissal, has no practical significance in the case of this ground for dismissal.

Keywords: dismissal, failure to achieve work results, lack of knowledge and skills, reinstatement

Author:
Andrijana Ristić
Faculty of Law, University of Belgrade

ABSTRACT: The development of technology and accelerated changes in the world of work have led to the emergence of new, specific forms of employment, which are seen as a response to the changed needs of employers and workers shaped by these circumstances. However, the distinctive features of these forms of employment, and the fact that in most countries around the world they remain legally unregulated, have resulted in workers engaged in them remaining largely “invisible” to legal systems, whereby they are not guaranteed even the minimum level of labor and social rights that should be available to all economically active individuals. Such a situation poses a serious risk to the enjoyment of the right to decent work and creates a favorable environment for the emergence of labor exploitation. In light of the growing importance of new forms of employment, these circumstances represent the key reasons that prompted the author to choose this topic. Accordingly, the paper analyzes the interconnection of new forms of employment, the labor-law position of workers engaged in them, and the increased risk of labor exploitation. Finally, the author seeks to concisely highlight the need to reconsider the existing boundaries of labor-law protection in light of new forms of employment, as well as to propose legal solutions that may contribute to overcoming the problems identified in this regard.

Keywords: new forms of employment, work based on information and communication technologies, online work, labor exploitation, decent work

Author:
Natalija Nedeljković
Faculty of law, University of Niš

ABSTRACT: The European Court of Human Rights consistently recognizes the right to know one’s biological origins as an integral element of the right to respect for private and family life, as well as the internationally recognized right of the child to identity. States Parties to the European Convention on Human Rights have a positive obligation to ensure a fair balance between the child’s right to know their origins, on the one hand, and the putative parent’s right to respect for private life and physical integrity, or the existing legal parents’ right to preserve the stability of family relations, on the other hand. In this paper, the author examines the scope and probative value of DNA analysis, while addressing broader socioethical issues – whether DNA analysis can or should be mandatory, the consequences of non-compliance, and whether the legal system provides alternatives to refusal. This research aims to synthesize the key standards in this field through a theoretical and empirical analysis of the Court’s case law. The author employed the following methods in the paper: the normative-dogmatic method, the comparative law method, content analysis, the case study method, and purposive sampling.

Keywords: DNA analysis; medical expert testimony; right to know one’s origins; case law of the European Court of Human Rights; right to respect for private and family life; maternity and paternity disputes