CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC HEALTH IN CROATIA AND BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

The criminal protection of human health, public health is based on the punishment procedures doctor, pharmacist, ordinary citizen, manufacturers and merchants. It is justified to singleout these crimes in a special group of criminal offenses within the particular part, which is particularly true for those offenses where the focus is not on false threats to the health of a particular individual, but when it may lead to more people lose their lives or get to poor health of more people. This paper will point out the fundamental characteristics of these criminal offenses, their justification to identify a separate chapter in the criminal law, the importance of respect ethical standards in scientific activity, the criminal liability of doctors as fundamental carriers of health activities with regard to the offenses for which the perpetrators appear primary doctor

MODERN FORMS OF FRAUD AND COUNTERFEITING OF NON-CASH PAYMENT INSTRUMENTS UNDER DIRECTIVE 2019/713/EU

Dinamičnim društvenim promjenama i razvojem suvremenih načina plaćanja roba i usluga nastali su različiti instrumenti bezgotovinskog plaćanja, osobito oni u nefi zičkom obliku. Transakcije platnim karticama najrašireniji su oblik plaćanja u Europskoj uniji, pa su često i meta kriminalnim skupinama, koje putem prijevara i krivotvorenja protupravno prisvajaju impozantne novčane iznose. Osigurati kaznenopravnu zaštitu imovine u obliku nematerijalnog pravnog dobra glede prijevarnih oblika postupanja s bezgotovinskim sredstvima plaćanja izazov je i za zakonopisca i za sudsku praksu. S druge strane to je i nužnost s obzirom na gubitke koji nastaju njihovim činjenjem. Autorica se u ovom radu bavi analizom recentne Direktive Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 17. travnja 2019. o borbi protiv prijevara i krivotvorenja u vezi s bezgotovinskim sredstvima plaćanja i zamjeni Okvirne odluke Vijeća 2001/413/PUP. Direktiva je stupila na snagu 30. svibnja 2019. godine, a njezina bi implementacija u hrvatsko kazneno zakonodavstvo trebala uslijediti do 31. svibnja 2021. godine. Stoga se u radu iznose temeljne postavke na kojima počiva Direktiva, uz analizu novih oblika kaznenih djela s bezgotovinskim instrumentima plaćanja, te njezina implementacija u hrvatsko kazneno zakonodavstvo.With the dynamic social changes that are taking place and the development of modern methods of payment for goods and services, various instruments of non-cash payment have emerged, especially those in a non-physical form. Payment card transactions are the most widespread form of payment in the European Union, so they are often the target of criminal groups that illegally misappropriate substantial amounts of money through fraud and counterfeiting. Ensuring the criminal protection of property in the form of an intangible legal good with regard to fraudulent forms of handling non-cash means of payment is a challenge for both the legislator and the case law. On the other hand, this is also a necessity given the losses that occur. In this paper, the author analyses the recent Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on combating fraud and counterfeiting of non-cash means of payment and replacing Council Framework Decision 2001/413/JHA. The Directive entered into force on 30 May 2019, and its implementation in Croatian criminal law should follow by 31 May 2021. Therefore, the paper presents the basic assumptions on which the Directive is based, along with an analysis of new forms of criminal offences related to non-cash payment instruments and their implementation in Croatian criminal legislation

Criminal law aspects of piracy at sea according to the UNCLOS with reference to the Croatian legal system1

Piracy is traditionally one of the oldest forms of violation of international law and a global threat to maritime traffic. It is a serious international offense against which criminal protection is ensured in the domestic legal system, relying on the postulates of international maritime law, and in particular the Convention on the Law of the Sea. In this paper, the authors deal with the legal analysis of the incrimination of piracy at the international and national levels. In relation to the Republic of Croatia, the authors present recent regulations regarding this international criminal offense in the domestic legal system. This paper aims to point out the fundamental problems caused by the existing regulations regarding this international crime, especially when it comes to jurisdiction over piracy, universal jurisdiction, taking over criminal prosecution, etc

CRIMINAL INTENT AS CONDITION OF LIABILITY OF PERSONS RESPONSIBLE FOR DELICTA PROPRIA

Radom se problematizira pitanje utvrđivanja kaznene odgovornosti odgovornih osoba koje se javljaju kao počinitelji niza kaznenih djela iz posebnog dijela Kaznenog zakona Federacije BiH, osobito gospodarskih. Za utvrđivanje njihove krivnje, osim složenih radnji dokazivanja zbog prirode gospodarskih kaznenih djela, na nekim mjestima zakon propisuje i izravnu namjeru. Ona se ogleda u znanju odgovorne osobe o osobnom svojstvu te znanju o protupravnosti djela. Međutim, kod delicta propria, kakva su većina gospodarskih kaznenih djela, utvrđivanje znanja kao uvjeta kaznene odgovornosti odgovorne osobe relativizira mogućnost kažnjavanja iste, što vodi pravnoj nesigurnosti koja povlači za posljedicu i ostavljanje nesankcionirane odgovorne osobe te pravne osobe u kojima odgovorne osobe predstavljaju jednu vrstu alter ega. Takve de lege lata odredbe rezultat su dinamičnih izmjena kaznenog zakonodavstva kao posljedica novih pojavnih oblika kriminaliteta, kaznenih djela i njihovih počinitelja. Stoga, rad problematizira nekoliko naizgled odvojenih, ali u stvari nužno povezanih pitanja koje je potrebno uskladiti. Na temelju analize pojedinih instituta kaznene odgovornosti, vrsta kaznenih djela s obzirom na krug počinitelja, te napose pojma odgovorne osobe, rad pretendira da ponudi de lege ferenda rješenja u odnosu i na sami pojam odgovorne osobe, ali osobito uvjete i način utvrđivanja njezine kažnjivosti. Cilj je dogmatičkim pristupom ovim institutima olakšati put pronalaženja i otkrivanja počinitelja teških kaznenih djela iz posebnog dijela Kaznenog zakona, te na taj način omogućiti postizanje svrhe kažnjavanja i svrhe izricanja kaznenopravnih sankcija.The paper deals with the issue of determining the criminal liability of the responsible persons, who appear to be perpetrators of a series criminal offenses from a special part of the Criminal Code of the Federation of BiH, particularly economic ones. In determining their guilt, in addition to complex evidence-based actions for the purpose of economic crimes, the law also prescribes direct intent in some places. It is reflected in the knowledge of the responsible person about his personal capacity and knowledge of the illegality of the offense. However, in delicta propria, as most of the economic crimes, the determination of knowledge as a condition for criminal responsibility of the responsible person relativizes the possibility to punish them, which leads to legal insecurity that leads to the consequence leaving unsanctioned responsible person and legal persons in which the responsible persons represent one kind of alter ego. Such de lege lata provisions are the result of dynamic changes in criminal legislation as a result of new forms of crime, criminal offenses and their perpetrators. Therefore, the paper deals with several, seemingly, separate, but necessarily related, issues that need to be matched. Based on the analysis of individual institutes of criminal responsibility, the type of criminal offenses with regard to the perpetrator\u27s circle, and especially the concept of responsible person, the work claims to offer de lege ferenda solutions in relation to the notion of responsible person, but especially the conditions and the way of determining its punishability. The aim is with dogmatic approach to these institutes facilitate the way of finding and detecting the perpetrators of serious criminal offenses from a special part of the Criminal Code, and thereby enabling the purpose of punishment and the purpose of imposing criminal sanctions

European Investigation Order As a New Instrument of Judicial Cooperation Between Member States in Criminal Cases With a Special Focus on Croatian Law

Ulazak u Europsku uniju za Republiku Hrvatsku značio je posve novo razdoblje u njezinu povijesnom i društvenom razvoju. Na području kaznenog prava to je podrazumijevalo implementaciju i harmonizaciju niza instituta kojima je cilj olakšati postupanje pravosudnih tijela i njihovu suradnju u kaznenim predmetima između država članica. U pet godina učinjeni su određeni koraci na tom putu. Međutim, osim analize učinjenog u ovom je razdoblju vrlo važno upozoriti i na otvorena pitanja čija praktična implikacija tek slijedi. Stoga je cilj rada uputiti na institut europskoga istražnog naloga koji je u hrvatsko kazneno zakonodavstvo, u skladu s Direktivom 2014/41/EU Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 3. travnja 2014. godine o europskom istražnom nalogu u kaznenim stvarima, uveden Zakonom o izmjenama i dopunama Zakona o pravosudnoj suradnji u kaznenim stvarima s državama članicama Europske unije u listopadu 2017. godine, a novi je institut u pravnim sustavima i drugih država članica. Europski je istražni nalog nakon implementacije europskoga uhidbenog naloga nastavak nastojanja harmonizirana djelovanja pravosudnih tijela država članica Europske unije u kaznenom postupku u cilju pribavljanja dokaza istražnim mjerama. Premda njegove implikacije tek slijede, radom se prikazuju prednosti njegova uvođenja i nedostatci koji proizlaze iz tumačenja pojedinih zakonskih odredaba i stavova kaznenopravne javnosti.The accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union opened a whole new era in its historical and social development. In the area of criminal law, this involves the implementation and harmonization of a number of institutes aimed at facilitating the treatment of judicial organs and their cooperation in criminal cases between Member States. Over a period of five years, certain steps have been taken in this direction. However, in addition to analyzing the results achieved in this period, it is very important to point to open questions whose practical implications will be discussed. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to point to the institute of European Investigation Order, which was introduced in Croatian criminal legislation by the Act on Amendments of the Law on Judicial Co-operation in Criminal Matters with the Member States of the European Union of October 2017 in accordance with Directive 2014/41 / EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of April 3th 2014 on a European Investigation Order in Criminal Matters, which is a new institute in the legal systems of other Member States. Following the implementation of the European Arrest Warrant, the European Investigation Order is a continuation of the efforts to harmonize activities of judicial organs of EU Member States in criminal proceedings with the aim of obtaining evidence through investigative measures. Although its implications will be seen in the future, the paper discusses all the advantages of its introduction and the deficiencies that arise from the interpretation of certain legal provisions by criminal law scholars

Investigation and verification of criminal aspects of doping as a crime in sport law

O dopingu kao kažnjivoj radnji postoje različita teorijska stajališta i mišljenja. Jedni smatraju da se doping treba kažnjavati kaznenopravnim sankcijama, drugi da je dovoljna prekršajnopravna, a treći stegovna sankcija, kako bi se postigla svrha kažnjavanja. U našem pravnom sustavu borba protiv dopinga evoluirala je tako da danas imamo samodoping kao stegovno djelo koje se kažnjava prema pravilima proisteklima iz Svjetskog antidoping kodeksa. S druge strane, zakonodavac propisuje neovlaštenu proizvodnju i promet tvari zabranjenih u sportu kao zasebno kazneno djelo delicta communia, za koje se kažnjava, inter alia, onaj koji omogućava i stavlja na raspolaganje zabranjene tvari sportašu ili koji drugoga navodi na trošenje tih tvari, a to može biti i sam sportaš. Međutim, borba protiv dopinga ne uključuje samo materijalnopravno normiranje nego, štoviše, pitanja načina dokazivanja, otkrivanja i procesuiranja mogućih počinitelja. Stoga autori u ovom radu iznose procesnopravne odredbe kojima je regulirana borba protiv dopinga, što ukazuje na distinkcije koje postoje u pogledu pojedinih počinitelja ovog kaznenog/stegovnog djela. Doping je opasnost modernog svijeta koji se sastoji u prijevarnom postupanju počinitelja uzimanjem zabranjenih tvari radi postizanja vrhunskih rezultata. Pored toga što je nespojiv s etičkim načelima sporta, te što se uzimanjem dopinga može narušiti zdravlje sportaša, doping predstavlja delikt koji je potrebno sankcionirati. Pri tome, ostvariti punitivnu svrhu a ne utjecati negativno na ugled sporta, izazov je koji je stavljen i pred zakonodavca i pred sustav sporta općenito. Stoga borba protiv dopinga mora obuhvaćati sustavnu koordinaciju materijalnopravnih i postupovnih odredbi u cilju zaštite integriteta čistog sporta.There are different theoretical views and opinions on doping as a punitive act. Some believe that doping should be punished by criminal sanctions, others that a misdemeanor law is sufficient, the and third is a disciplinary sanction, to achieve the purpose of punishment. In our legal system, the fight against doping has evolved so that today we have self-doping as a disciplinary offense punishable under the rules of the World Anti-Doping Code. On the other hand, the legislator prescribes the unauthorized production and marketing of substances banned in sport as a separate offense of delicta communia, punishable, inter alia, by one who, permits and makes prohibited substances available to the athlete or who induces another to consume those substances, which may be himself athlete. However, the fight against doping involves not only substantive legal standardization but, moreover, questions of how to prove, detect and prosecute possible perpetrators. Therefore, the authors of this paper present procedural provisions governing the fight against doping, which points to the differences that exist with respect to the perpetrators of this criminal / disciplinary offense. Doping is a danger in the modern world, consisting in the fraudulent treatment of perpetrators by taking illicit substances in order to achieve superior results. In addition to being incompatible with the ethical principles of sport, and doping can impair the health of athletes, doping is a tort that needs to be sanctioned. In doing so, to pursue a punitive purpose and not adversely affect the reputation of sport is a challenge that has been put before both the legislature and the sport system in general. Therefore, the fight against doping must include the systematic coordination of substantive and procedural provisions in order to safeguard the integrity of pure sport

Theoretical and Practical Aspects of Judicial Cooperation Between Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina in Extraditing Their Citizens

Institut izručenja najstariji je oblik međunarodne pravne pomoći koji je među državama članicama Europske unije zamijenjen europskim uhidbenim nalogom. U odnosu na treće države kakva je Bosna i Hercegovina izručenje je jedini instrument kojim se omogućava transfer osoba koje se trebaju izručiti zbog vođenja kaznenog postupka, ili izvršenja kazne zatvora, ili zbog druge mjere koja podrazumijeva oduzimanje slobode u državi moliteljici. Radi stalna nastojanja da se osiguraju pravna sigurnost, načelo zakonitosti i vladavina prava, države kao subjekti međunarodnog prava svoje odnose na području ekstradicijskog prava sve više reguliraju potpisivanjem bilateralnih sporazuma kojima žele ostvariti taj cilj. U tom smjeru Hrvatska i Bosna i Hercegovina zaključile su 28. studenog 2012. Ugovor o izručenju koji se s tim datumom počeo privremeno primjenjivati, a stupio je na snagu 6. ožujka 2014. Ugovorom su, između ostalog, ekstenzivnije uređene odredbe o izručenju vlastitih državljana, čime se na određen način odstupilo od tradicionalnog načela neizručenja vlastitih državljana. Autori u radu analiziraju odredbe Ugovora o izručenju s posebnim osvrtom na odredbe o izručenju vlastitih državljana, osobito državljana koji imaju dvojno državljanstvo, što je nerijetko slučaj državljana Hrvatske i Bosne i Hercegovine. Mnoge države u Europi i svijetu tradicionalno se snažno protive izručenju vlastitih državljana. Načelo neizručenja vlastitih državljana proizlazi iz suverenosti država i njezinih državljana te obveza koje ih vežu, a osobito nepovjerenja u pravosudne sustave drugih država. Međutim, imajući u vidu da je temeljni cilj izručenja borba protiv nekažnjavanja osoba za koje se sumnja da su počinile kazneno djelo ili koje su osuđene za to, tada bi se nepovjerenje kao razlog neizručenja vlastitih državljana trebalo uzeti s velikim oprezom. Da je načelo neizručenja vlastitih državljana u suvremenome kaznenom pravu zastarjelo, potvrđuje još i Konvencija o izručenju između država članica Europske unije navodeći da se izručenje ne smije odbiti s obrazloženjem da je osoba državljanin države moliteljice. Cilj je ovog rada analizom postojećega normativnog okvira i praktičnih primjera (ne)izručenja vlastitih državljana između Hrvatske i Bosne i Hercegovine upozoriti na probleme koji utječu na učinkovitu pravosudnu suradnju tih dviju država te ponuditi stajališta koja bi mogla pridonijeti razmatranju vrlo aktualnih pitanja.The institute of extradition is the oldest form of international legal assistance which has been replaced by the European arrest warrant in Member States of the European Union. Regarding the third countries, such as Bosnia and Herzegovina, extradition is the only instrument enabling the transfer of persons that have to be extradited for criminal trial, imprisonment, or any other measure of deprivation of freedom in the applicant state. In an effort to ensure legal certainty, the principle of legality and the rule of law, states as subjects of international law increasingly regulate their relations in the field of extradition law by signing bilateral agreements in order to achieve that aim. Within this framework, Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina concluded the Treaty on Extradition on 28 November 2012. The Treaty was applied temporarily starting from the above date, and it came into force on 6 March 2014. The Treaty regulates the extradition of citizens, departing from the traditional principle of non-extradition of a state’s own citizens. The authors analyse the Treaty on Extradition with a special focus on extradition of a country’s own citizens, especially those with dual citizenship, which is often the case with citizens of Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Many European and world countries strongly oppose the extradition of their own citizens. The principle of non-extradition of a country’s own citizens is based on the concept of the sovereignty of states and their citizens and their mutual obligations, and it is often a consequence of distrust of judicial systems of other states. However, bearing in mind that the fundamental aim of extradition is the struggle against the absence of punishment for persons suspected or convicted of criminal offences, distrust as a reason for non-extradition should be taken with the greatest caution. The fact that the principle of non-extradition of a state’s own citizens is outdated in modern criminal law is confirmed by the Convention on Extradition between EU Member States according to which extradition cannot be rejected because a person is a citizen of applicant state. The aim of the paper is to draw attention to problems that have an impact on judicial cooperation between Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina by analysing the existing normative framework and practical examples of (non)extradition of citizens of one’s own state and offer a contribution to solve these important issues

Prognostic and predictive significance of VEGF, CD31, and Ang-1 in patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma treated with first-line sunitinib

The most common type of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC), which has a high metastatic potential. Even though the International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) risk model is conventionally utilized for selection and stratification of patients with metastatic RCC (mRCC), there remains an unmet demand for novel prognostic and predictive markers. The goal of this study was to analyze the expression of Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), Cluster of Differentiation 31 (CD31) to determine microvessel density, and Angiopoietin-1 (Ang-1) in primary kidney tumors, as well as their predictive and prognostic value in patients with metastatic ccRCC (mccRCC) who were treated with first-line sunitinib. The study included 35 mccRCC patients who were treated with first-line sunitinib in period between 2009 and 2019. Immunofluorescence was used to examine biomarker expression in tissue specimens of the primary tumor and surrounding normal kidney tissue. Median disease-free survival (DFS) was longer in patients with negative and low tumor VEGF score than in patients with medium tumor VEGF score (p=0.02). Those with low tumor CD31 expression had a longer median DFS than patients with high tumor CD31 expression (p=0.019). There was no correlation between Ang-1 expression and DFS. The expression of biomarkers in normal kidney tissue was significantly lower than in tumor tissue (p<0.001). In conclusion, higher VEGF scores and greater CD31 expression were associated with longer DFS, but neither of these biomarkers correlated with progression-free survival or overall survival