DENIAL OF INFORMATION TO THE OFFICER OF THE COMMUNAL MILITIA, POLICE AND SECURITY SERVICES: BETWEEN PUNISHMENT AND NON PUNISHMENT

  • Bogoljub Milosavljević Pravni fakultet Univerziteta Union
Keywords: collecting of information, principle of obligingness and willingness, denial of information, police interview, comunal militie, police, security service, discretionary power

Abstract


The paper is dealing with authorities of the comunal militie, police and security services to collect information from citizens and legal persons. While the authorities of police and security services are based on willingness of givinginformation, at the same time the authorities of communal militie are based on obligingness of giving information. The person who does not provide requested information to communal policeman is warned by fine, which is unconditional (there is no legal reason for denial of information). The very request for giving information is exlusively based on resonable presumption of the communal policeman which is based on his discretionary power. In this paper the author also points out to certain lack of solutions in the legal provisions of the Law on Police  which determine the authorities of the police to collect information, as well the authorities to invite persons for police interview in order to request information which is differently set up in regard to the Law on Criminal Procedure. In the conclusion it is emphasised that regulations of the Law on Communal Militie and the Law on Police give broader discretionary power to police officers what is not in accordance with the rule of law. Also, the punishment for denial of giving information to communal militie is not in accordance with the Constitution and with fundamental human rights, as well analised examples show the obvious weakness of legal process and consitutional control of law. 

References

LITERATURA 

1. Aleksić, Ž. i Milovanović, Z., 1995, Leksikon kriminalistike, 2. izdanje, Beograd, Glosarijum.

2. Dixon, D., 1997, Law in Policing: Legal Regulation and Police Practices, Oxford, Clarendon Press.

3. Grubač, M., 2006, Krivično procesno pravo, 4. izdanje, Beograd, Pravni fakultet Univerziteta Union i Službeni glasnik. 

4. Grubač, M., Vasiljević, T., 2013, Komentar Zakonika o krivičnom postupku, Beograd, Projuris.

5. Lazin, Đ., 1984, Pojam i stepenovanje sumnje u krivičnom postupku, Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta u Zagrebu, 1-2.

6. Loveland, I., 2009, Constitutional Law, Administrative Law, and Human Rights: A Critical Introduction, 5th edition, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

7. Lukić, R., 1994, Uvod u pravo, 11. izdanje, Beograd, Službeni list SRJ.

8. Marković, B., 1921, O dokazima u krivičnom postupku, 2. izdanje, Beograd, Geca Kon.  

9. Mekbrajd, Dž., 2009, Ljudska prava u krivičnom postupku: praksa Evropskog suda za ljudska prava, Beograd, Savet Evrope – Kancelarija u Beogradu.

10. Miletić, S., 2009, Komentar Zakona o policiji, Beograd, Službeni glasnik.

11. Miletić, S., Jugović, S., 2019, Pravo unutrašnjih poslova, 4. izdanje, Beograd, Kriminalističko-policijski univerzitet.

12. Milosavljević, B., 1997, Nauka o policiji, Beograd, Policijska akademija.

13. Milosavljević, B., 1997, Uporedni modeli policijske organizacije, sa posebnim osvrtom na ovlašćenja policije,Beograd, Viša škola unutrašnjih poslova.

14. Milosavljević, B., 2004, Građanski nadzor nad policijom: mogući model za Srbiju, Beograd, Centar za antiratnu akciju.

15. Philips, O. H., Jackson, P., 2001, Constitutional and Administrative Law, 8th edition, London, Sweet and Maxwell.

16. Vasiljević, T., Grubač, M., 2011, Komentar Zakonika o krivičnom postupku, 12. izdanje, Beograd, Službeni glasnik i Pravni fakultet Univerziteta Union.

17) Vodinelić, V., 1977, Osnovi sumnje i osnovana sumnja u nauci krivičnog procesnog prava, Naša zakonitost, 9, str. 65-81.

 

PRAVNI IZVORI

 

1. Zakon o komunalnoj miliciji, Službeni glasnik RS, br. 49/19. 

2. Zakon o komunalnoj policiji, Službeni glasnik RS, br.51/09.

3. Zakonik o krivičnom postupku, Službeni glasnik RS, br. 72/11, 101/11, 121/12, 32/13, 45/13, 55/14, 35/19, 27/21 – US i 62/21 – US.

4. Krivični zakonik, Službeni glasnik RS, br. 85/05, 88/05 – ispravka, 107/05 – ispravka, 72/09, 111/09, 121/12, 104/13, 108/14, 94/16 i 35/19.

5. Zakon o policiji, Službeni glasnik RS, br. 6/16, 26/18 i 87/18, 101/05, 63/09 – US, 92/11 i 64/15.

6. Zakon o evidencijama i obradi podataka u oblasti unutrašnjih poslova, Službeni glasnik RS, br. 24/18.

7. Zakon o osnovama uređenja službi bezbednosti Republike Srbije, Službeni glasnik RS, br. 116/07 i 72/12.

8. Zakon o Bezbednosno-informativnoj agenciji, Službeni glasnik RS, br. 42/02, 111/09, 65/14 – US, 68/14 i 36/18.

9. Zakon o Vojnobezbednosnoj agenciji i Vojnoobaveštajnoj agenciji, Službeni glasnik RS, br. 88/09, 55/12 – US i 17/13.

10. Zakon o bezbednosti saobraćaja na putevima, Službeni glasnik RS, br. 41/09, 53/10, 101/11, 32/13 – US, 55/14, 96/15 – drugi zakon, 9/16 – US, 24/18, 41/18, 41/18 – drugi zakon, 87/18, 23/19 i 128/20 – drugi zakon.

11. Zakon o prebivalištu i boravištu građana, Službeni glasnik RS, br. 87/11. 

12. Zakon o zaštiti od požara, Službeni glasnik RS, br. 111/09, 20/15, 87/18, 87/18 – drugi zakon i 87/18 – drugi zakon.

13. Zakon o prekršajima, Službeni glasnik RS, br. 65/13, 13/16, 98/16 – US, 91/19 – drugi zakon i 91/19.

14. UK, The Police Act 1996, http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/16/contents"> lang="sr" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; color: windowtext; text-decoration: none;">www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/16/contents.  

15. Pravilnik o policijskim ovlašćenjima, Službeni glasnik RS, br. 41/19.

16. Pravilnik o načinu i uslovima primene ovlašćenja prema maloletnim licima, Službeni glasnik RS, br. 83/19.

 

SUDSKA PRAKSA

 Presude i oduke Evropskog suda za ljudska prava: 

1. EctHR, Funke v. France, no. 10828/84, Judgment of 25 February 1991. 

2. EctHR, Murray v. United Kingdom, no. 41/1994/488/570, Judgment of 8 February 1996. 

3. EctHR, Saunders v. United Kingdom, no. 943/1994/490/572, Judgment of 17 December 1996. 

4. EctHR, Heaney and McGuiness v. Ireland, 34720/97, Judgment of 21. December 2000. 

5. EctHR, Allen v. United Kingdom, 76574/01, Decision of 10. September 2002. 

6. Weh v. Austria, 38544/97, Judgment of 8. april 2004. 

7. EctHR, O`Halloran and Francis v. United Kingdom, nos. 15809/02 and 25624/02, Judgments of 29 June 2007. 

Published
2022/12/23
Section
Original Scientific Paper