Maksima ne bis in idem i pravna sigurnost u krivičnom pravu : Analiza prakse ESLjP i Ustavnog suda Srbije

Abstract

Načelo ne bis in idem predstavlja osnovno ljudsko pravo garantovano međunarodnim i regionalnim dokumentima, načelo Ustava Republike Srbije i procesno načelo u kaznenoj materiji. Član 4 § 1 Protokola 7 Evropske konvencije za zaštitu ljudskih prava i osnovnih sloboda se ne može staviti van snage na osnovu člana 15 Konvencije. Dakle, ovo pravo spada u red apsolutno zaštićenih prava koja se ne smeju derogirati. Analizirajući ustavnosudsku zaštitu u oblasti utvrđivanja da li postoji povreda člana 34 stav 4. jasno je da se polazi od kriterijuma utvrđenih u praksi Evropskog suda za ljudska prava. Ona oblikuje nacionalno zakonodavstvo u onoj meri u kojoj utiče na izmene zakonskih rešenja i na nacionalne pravosudne organe da pravilno tumače uslove za utvrđivanje povrede garantovanih prava. Iz tih razloga smo prvo izložili praksu ESLjP, naročito onu koja se odnosi na zemlje u regionu zbog sličnosti pravnih rešenja sa našim, pa onda postupanje US u predmetima gde je istaknuta povreda člana 34 stav 4. Autor analizira stavove koje je ESLjP izneo u presudi Zolotuhkin protiv Rusije, koja je dugo predstavljala okosnicu odlučivanja na nacionalnom nivou. Međutim, u ovim redovima posebno mesto se poklanja presudi ESLjP A. i B. protiv Norveške. Koristeći kriterijume iz ove presude ESLjP u nekoliko novijih predmeta dolazi do zaključka da nema povrede člana 4 Protokola 7, uprkos činjenici da su se vodila dva postupka

Ne bis in idem represents a basic human right guaranteed by international and regional documents, the principle of the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia and the criminal law principle. Article 4 § 1 of Protocol 7 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms cannot be repealed based on Article 15 of the Convention. Therefore, this right is classified as an absolutely protected right which must not be derogated. Analysing the protection by constitutional courts in determining if there has been violation of Article 34 (4), it is clear that the starting point is in the criteria determined by the practice of the European Court of Human Rights. It shapes national legislation to the extent to which it has impact on the amendments of legal solutions as well as on national judicial bodies to interpret correctly the terms used to determine violations of guaranteed rights. These are the reasons why we have first presented the practice of the ECHR, particularly the practice referring to the countries in the region, as their legal solutions are similar to those in Serbia, and then the practice of the Constitutional Court in cases where violation of Article 34(4) has been pointed out. The author analyses the attitudes presented by the ECHR in the verdict Zolotuhkin vs. Russia, which has for long represented the main framework for national decision-making. However, special place in these lines is dedicated to the ECHR verdict of A. and B. vs. Norway. Using the criteria of this verdict in several recent cases the ECHR has concluded that Article 4 of Protocol 7 has not been violated, despite the fact that two procedures were conducted