Title Jamstvo kao alternativna mjera istražnom zatvoru Title (english) Bail as alternative measure to pre-trial detention Author Petar Mišić Mentor Elizabeta Ivičević Karas (mentor)Committee member Elizabeta Ivičević Karas (predsjednik povjerenstva)Committee member Zlata Đurđević (član povjerenstva)Committee member Zoran Burić (član povjerenstva)Granter University of Zagreb Defense date and country 2024-07-11, Croatia Scientific / art field, SOCIAL SCIENCES Abstract Pojam jamstva u Republici Hrvatskoj uređen je Zakonom o kaznenom postupku Ustavom Republike Hrvatske, te Konvencijom za zaštitu ljudskih prava i temeljnih sloboda. Jamstvo omogućuje pritvoreniku obranu sa slobode uz polaganje zakonskog jamstva, što je manje represivna mjera u odnosu na istražni zatvor. Ustav RH daje zakonodavcu mogućnost propisivanja slučajeva u kojima se jamstvo može koristiti, a ZKP predviđa njegovu primjenu samo u slučaju opasnosti od bijega. Visina jamstva određuje se s obzirom na težinu kaznenog djela, osobne okolnosti i imovno stanje okrivljenika. Jamstvo može biti u obliku gotovog novca, vrijednosnih papira, dragocjenosti, pokretnina ili hipoteke na nekretnine. Odluka o jamstvu može biti predmet žalbe. Kada rješenje o jamstvu postane pravomoćno, istražni zatvor se ukida. Jamstvo može prestati zbog propasti (nepridržavanje uvjeta) ili ukidanjem (prikrivanje okolnosti, novi razlozi za istražni zatvor, završetak kaznenog postupka). Ako jamstvo prestane, jamčevina se vraća polagatelju ili odlazi u državni proračun. Jamstvo se može ukinuti i kada nisu ispunjene pretpostavke za istražni zatvor ili se ista svrha može postići blažim mjerama. Europski sud za ljudska prava u svojoj praksi naglašava važnost razmjernosti u odlučivanju o trajanju istražnog zatvora, kao i nužnost posebne revnosti u vođenju postupaka protiv osoba lišenih slobode. ESLJP je također kritizirao nacionalne sudove zbog nedostatka razmatranja blažih mjera umjesto istražnog zatvora, što je bio slučaj u predmetu Dervishi protiv Hrvatske. ESLJP je utvrdio povredu čl. 5. st. 3. Konvencije zbog nepostojanja napretka u postupku i nespremnosti domaćih vlasti da razmotre alternativne mjere, poput mjera opreza. Sličan zaključak ponovljen je u predmetu Dragin protiv Hrvatske, gdje su domaći sudovi koristili stereotipne razloge za produljenje pritvora, bez konkretne analize specifičnih okolnosti slučaja. Praksa nacionalnih sudova je ipak pokazala da postoji poboljšanje i da su neke odluke u skladu s visokim pravnim standardima, a objavljivanje detaljnih presuda i edukacija pravosudnih dužnosnika omogućilo bi bolju analizu i kritiku pravosudnih praksi, što bi moglo dovesti do dodatnih poboljšanja.
Abstract (english) The concept of bail in the Republic of Croatia is regulated by the Criminal Procedure Act, the Constitution of the Republic of Croatia, and the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Bail allows a detainee to defend themselves from liberty by providing legal surety, which is a less repressive measure compared to pre-trial detention. The Croatian Constitution gives the legislature the authority to prescribe cases in which bail can be used, and the Criminal Procedure Act allows its application only in cases of flight risk. The amount of bail is determined based on the severity of the crime, the personal circumstances, and the financial status of the accused. Bail can be in the form of cash, securities, valuables, movable property, or a mortgage on real estate. The decision on bail can be appealed. Once the bail decision becomes final, pre-trial detention is lifted. Bail can cease due to forfeiture (non-compliance with conditions) or cancellation (concealment of circumstances, new reasons for pre-trial detention, conclusion of criminal proceedings). If bail ceases, the surety is returned to the depositor or goes to the state budget. Bail can also be cancelled when the conditions for pre-trial detention are not met, or the same purpose can be achieved by milder measures. The European Court of Human Rights emphasizes the importance of proportionality in decisions regarding the duration of pre-trial detention and the necessity of special diligence in proceedings against persons deprived of liberty. The ECHR has also criticized national courts for failing to consider milder measures instead of pre-trial detention, as was the case in Dervishi v. Croatia. The ECHR found a violation of Article 5 §3 of the Convention due to a lack of progress in the proceedings and the domestic authorities' unwillingness to consider alternative measures, such as precautionary measures. A similar conclusion was reiterated in Dragin v. Croatia, where national courts used stereotypical reasons for extending detention without a concrete analysis of the specific circumstances of the case. However, the practice of national courts has shown improvement, and some decisions are in line with high legal standards. The publication of detailed judgments and the education of judicial officials would allow better analysis and critique of judicial practices, potentially leading to further improvements.
Keywords
jamstvo
istražni zatvor
mjere opreza
načelo razmjernosti
Europski sud za ljudska prava
Keywords (english)
bail
pre-trial detention
precautionary measures
principle of proportionality
European Court of Human Rights
Language croatian URN:NBN urn:nbn:hr:199:946609 Study programme Title: Law Type of resource Text File origin Born digital Access conditions Open access Terms of use Created on 2024-07-16 09:28:26
