| Abstract | Rad se bavi institutom rada za opće dobro kao alternativi novčanoj kazni s naglaskom na prekršajni postupak gdje novčane kazne predstavljaju jednu od najčešće izricanih sankcija. Cilj rada je pobliže prikazati razvoj samog instituta rada za opće dobro te kako je on reguliran, prvenstveno u hrvatskom prekršajnom pravu, ali i u kaznenom, budući da je u kazneno pravo uveden ranije nego u prekršajno. I dok svjetska zakonodavstva rad za opće dobro, kao alternativu zatvorskim kaznama, prvi put spominju 60-ih godina 20.-og stoljeća, kao alternativni način izvršenja sankcije u hrvatsko kazneno zakonodavstvo uveden je 1997. godine dok je u prekršajno zakonodavstvo uveden nešto kasnije – 2002. godine. Iako je u prekršajnom pravu zakonski bio reguliran, zbog nedostatka provedbenih propisa, u punom smislu zaživio je tek 2013. godine.
Osvrćući se na njegovu zakonsku regulativu u našem prekršajnom pravu (od pretpostavki za njegovo izricanje do odredbi koje uređuju njegovu provedbu te na kraju i samu provedu) nameću se i neka otvorenja pitanja – može li se isti izreći češće no što se izriče, treba li isti biti isključivo alternativna sankcija za nenaplaćenu novčanu kaznu ili ga treba uvesti i kao samostalnu kaznu, primjerice za pojedine vrste prekršaja i za one koji učestalo ne plaćaju izrečene kazne, trebaju li rokovi za mogućnost njegova izricanja biti kraći i postoji li dovoljna kontrola u njegovoj provedbi. Naime, odredbe Prekršajnog zakona određuju da se isti može izreći isključivo kao alternativna sankcija za nenaplaćenu novčanu kaznu nakon što ista nije naplaćena ni prisilno u roku od dvije godine. Tek protekom tog roka sud može donijeti odluku o zamijeni novčane kazne radom za opće dobro, a samo izvršenje rada za opće dobro biti će pod kontrolom pravne osobe u kojoj se rad izvršava što otvara mogućnosti malverzacija (primjerice pisanje neodrađenih sati kao odrađenih). Neka od otvorenih pitanja mogu se riješiti kao i u kaznenom pravu gdje u postupku izvršavanja rada za opće dobro sudjeluju Probacijski uredi koji vrše kontrolu nad samim izvršavanjem rada, dok za ostala tek treba iznaći rješenja koja zasigurno postoje u nama bliskim zakonodavstvima drugih država. |
| Abstract (english) | The paper deals with the institute of work for the common good as an alternative to monetary sanctions with an emphasis on misdemeanor proceedings where monetary sanctions are one of the most frequently imposed sanctions. The aim of the work is to show development of the institute of work for the common good and how it is regulated, primarily in Croatian misdemeanor law, but also in criminal law, into the criminal law was introduced earlier than to the misdemeanor law. While world legislation first mentioned community services as an alternative to prison sentences in the 60s of the 20th century, into Croatian criminal legislation was introduced in 1997, while into the misdemeanor legislation was introduced a little late in 2002. Although it was legally regulated in misdemeanour law, due to the lack of implementing regulations, it came to life in the full sense in 2013.
Looking back at his legal regulation in our misdemeanor law (from the assumptions for its pronouncement to the provisions governing its implementation and finally the implementation itself), some open questions arise – can it be pronounced more often than it is pronounced, should the same be exclusively an alternative sanction for an independent penalty, for example for certain types of offenses and for those who often do not pay the imposed monetary sanctions, should the deadlines for the possibility of its imposition be shorter and whether the is sufficient control in its implementation. Namely, the provisions of the Misdemeanor law stipulate that it can only be imposed as an alternative sanction for an unpaid monetary sanctions after it has not been collected of enforced within two years. Only after this period has passed the court can make a decision to replace monetary sanctions with community service, and the performance for community service will be under the control of the legal entity in which the work is performed, which opens up the possibility of malversation (for example, writing off hours not worked as worked hours). Some of the open issues can be resolved, as in criminal law, where Probation Offices participate in the process of performing work for the common good, and control over the performance of the work itself, while for others, solutions have yet to be found, which certainly exist in the legislation of the other countries close to us. |
