THE LIMITS OF CRIMINALIZATION AND THE PRINCIPLE OF LEGALITY IN BLANKET ECONOMIC CRIMINAL OFFENSES
Whoever does not deal in good faith shall be punished!
Abstract
This paper analyzes the practice of the Supreme Court (of Cassation) in cases where this court ruled on the limits of criminalization in blanket economic criminal offenses. For many years, defense attorneys in these cases have presented the Supreme Court with the issue of distinguishing between criminal and civil liability, as well as the issue of determining the specific act of commission alleged against suspects when they are prosecuted for blanket economic criminal offenses. Attempts by defense attorneys to obtain an accurate response from the Supreme Court regarding the distinction between criminal and civil liability, and to receive an answer about the extent to which the act of commission of these blanket offenses can be expanded, have not borne fruit. By comparing the positions taken by the Supreme Court in its decisions with the positions of legal theory regarding the significance, nature, and content of guarantees arising from the principle of legality, and further comparing them with the positions taken on this issue by the European Court of Human Rights, this paper concludes that the principle of legality in blanket economic criminal offenses has been completely undermined. It also suggests that suspects are subjected to entirely arbitrary prosecution for these criminal offenses. The flexibility of judicial interpretation in determining the boundaries of liability in blanket economic criminal offenses has gone so far that it can truly be said that courts in Serbia, in these cases, are guided by the principle of good faith rather than the principle of legality, hence the paper's subtitle.
References
Kenneth S. Gallant, The principle of legality in international and comparative criminal law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2009.
Juan Ј. Garcia Blesa, “Neoliberal rationality and the rhetoric of sacrifice in the construction of proportionality discourse: a case-study from the European Court of Human Rights“, The International Journal of Human Rights, 2024, 1-26.
Aleksandar Goldštajn, Trgovačko ugovorno pravo – međunarodno i komparativno, Narodne novine, Zagreb 1991.
Никола Вуковић, Правна заблуда у кривичном праву, Службени Гласник, Београд 2018.
Joko Dragojlović i Gordan Grujić, „Krivično delo zloupotrebe položaja odgovornog lica“, Pravo-teorija i praksa, 35(4-6), 2018, 30-44.
Vojislav Đurđić, „Analogija kao metod tumačenja krivičnog i krivičnog procesnog prava“, Crimen, 7,3/2016, 109-137.
Miodrag Jović, „Blankentna krivična dela“, Pravne teme, 1(03)/2013, 66-76.
Ktarina Jovičić, „Uzročnost i naknada štete“ XXIII Međunarodni naučni skup Prouzrokovanje štete, naknada štete i osiguranje, Beograd-Valjevo, Institut za uporedno pravo, 2020,235-248.
Imanuel Kant, Zasnivanje metafizike morala, Beograd, Dereta 2018.
Ivan Mandić, „Oblici neprava determinisani spoljašnjim elementima prava“, Glasnik Advokatske komore Vojvodine, 89, 1/2017, 5-16.
Jadranka Osrečak, „Poredbenopravni prikaz načela savjesnosti i poštenja“, Zagrebačka pravna revija, 3(1), 2014, 53-77.
Nina Peršak, “EU criminal law and its legitimation: in search for a substantive principle of criminalisation“, European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 26(1), 20-39.
Jožef Salma, „Pravne osobine građansko-pravne odgovornosti - razgraničenje građansko-pravne od krivično-pravne odgovornosti“, Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta, Novi Sad, 42(1-2), 2008, 79-98.
Јожеф Салма, Облигационо право, Правни факултет Универзитета у Новом Саду 2009.
Mikhael Timmerman, (2018). Legality in Europe: on the principle'nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege'in EU law and under the ECHR. Florence : European University Institute, 2018.
Tea Hasić, „Običaji kao izvor trgovačkog prava“, Pravni vjesnik: časopis za pravne i društvene znanosti Pravnog fakulteta Sveučilišta JJ Strossmayera u Osijeku, 30(3-4), 2014, 239-257.
Luzius Wildhaber, “A Constitutional Future for the European Court of Human Rights?“, Human Rights Law Journal, 23(5/7), 2002, 161-165.