СОЦИЈАЛНЕ ИМПЛИКАЦИЈЕ ИЗАЗВАНЕ ДРЖАВНОМ РЕАКЦИЈОМ НА КОВИД-19 И ЉУДСКА ПРАВА У РЕПУБЛИЦИ СРБИЈИ
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22190/TEME210822063TKljučne reči:
полицијски час, начело ne bis in idem, мигранти, лишење слободе, људска праваApstrakt
Аутор у раду објашњава проблем кривично правних мера и санкција прописаних у српском кривичном законодавству за време трајања ванредног стања изазваног пандемијом корона вируса. Марта 2020. године, Влада Републике Србије је увела ванредно стање, а истовремено је успостављен тзв. Кризни штаб, са могућношћу да прописује мере кривично правне природе. За време двомесечног трајања ванредног стања извршна власт је готово свакодневно доносила мере које су имале знатан утицај на кривично законодавство. Поставља се питање да ли су донети закони у суштини у складу са стандардима који произлазе из судске праксе Европског суда за људска права. Аутор се у раду бави три кључна питања, и то уведеном забраном напуштања станова, притварањем миграната и начелом непоновљивости кривичног поступка. Аутор посебну пажњу посвећује одлуци Уставног суда Републике Србије у вези са наведеним питањима.
Reference
A. and Others v. the United Kingdom, Application no. 3455/05 (ECtHR February 19, 2009).
Amann v. Switzerland, Application no. 27798/95 (ECtHR February 16, 2000).
Amuur v. France, Application no. 19776/92 (ECtHR June 25, 1996).
Bajović, V. (2014). NačeloNe bis in idem. In Đ. Ignjatović, Kaznenareakcija u Srbiji – IV (pp. 239-252). Beograd: PravnifakultetUniverziteta u Beogradu.
Baranowski v. Poland, Application no. 28358/95 (ECtHR March 28, 2000).
Bozano v. France, Application no. 9990/82 (ECtHR December 18, 1986).
Brand v. the Netherlands, Application no. 49902/99 (ECtHR May 11, 2004).
Chan, H. (2020). Hospitals’ Liabilities in Times of Pandemic: Recalibrating the Legal Obligation to Provide Personal Protective Equipment to Healthcare Workers. Liverpool Law Rev.
Chahal v. the United Kingdom, Application no. 22414/93 (ECtHR November 15, 1996).
Cornelisse, G. (2010). Immigration Detention and Human Rights Rethinking Territorial Sovereignty. Leiden-Boston: MartinusNijhoff Publishers.
Enhorn v. Sweden, (Application no. 56529/00 (ECtHR January 25, 2005).
Eriksen v. Norway, Application no. 17391/90 (ECtHR May 27, 1997).
Fiske, L. (2016). Human Rights, Refugee Protest and Immigration Detention. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Guzzardi v. Italy, Application no. 7367/76 (ECtHR November 06, 1980).
Hilda Hafsteinsdóttir v. Iceland, Application no. 40905/98 (ECtHR June 08, 2004).
Ilić, I., &Milić, I. (2018). Načelo ne bis in idem u kazenompravuRepublikeSrbije. NBP - Žurnal za kriminalistiku i pravo, vol. 23: 1, 51-69.
Janković, B., & Cvetković, V. (2020). Public Perception of Police Behaviors in the Disaster COVID-19 – The Case of Serbia. Policing: An International Journal, Vol. 43, Issue 6, 979-992.
Ječius v. Lithuania, Application no. 34578/97 (ECtHR July 31, 2000).
Khudoyorov v. Russia, Application no. 6847/02 (ECtHR November 08, 2005).
K.-F. v. Germany, Application no. 25629/94 (ECtHR November 27, 1997).
Klatt, M. (2021). What COVID-19 does to our Universities. University of Bologna Law Review, Vol. 6, no. 1, 1-5.
Lundgren, M., &Klamberg, M. S. (2020). Emergency Powers in Response to COVID-19: Policy Diffusion, Democracy, and Preparedness. Nordic Journal of Human Rights, Vol. 38, no. 4, 305-318.
Martin, R. (2006). The exercise of public health powers in cases of infectious disease: human rights implications. Enhorn v. Sweden. Med Law Rev, Vol. 14, no. 1, 132-143.
Mowbray, A. (2005). Compulsory Detention to Prevent Spreading of Infectious Diseases. Human Rights Law Review, Vol. 5, Issue 2, 387-391.
Nada v.Switzerland, Application no. 10593/08 (ECtHR September 12, 2012).
Nasrulloyev v. Russia, Application no. 656/06 (ECtHR October 01, 2007).
Rustamov v. Russia, Application no. 11209/10 (ECtHR July 03, 2012).
Saadi v. the United Kingdom, Application no. 13229/03 (ECtHR January 28, 2008).
Shamsa v. Poland, Application nos. 45355/99 and 45357/99 (ECtHR November 27, 2003)
Steel and Others v. The United Kingdom, Application no. 24838/94 (ECtHR September 23, 1998).
Stickle, B., &Felson, M. (2020). Crime Rates in a Pandemic: the Largest Criminological Experiment in History. American Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 45, 525-536
Steel and Others v The United Kingdom, Application no. 24838/94 (ECtHR September 23, 1998).
Turanjanin, V., & Radulović, D. (2020). Coronavirus (Covid-19) and Possibilities for Criminal Law Reaction in Europe: A Review. Iranian Journal of Public Health, Vol. 49, Suppl. 1, 4-11.
Turanjanin, V. (2020). Video Surveillance of the Employees Between the Rights to Privacy and Rights to Property after Lopez Ribalda and Others v. Spain. University of Bologna Law Review, Vol. 5, no. 2, 268-293.
Turanjanin, V. (2021). The Principle of Immediacy Versus the Efficiency of Criminal Proceedings: Do Changes in the Composition of the Trial Panel Violate the Right to a Fair Trial? Nordic Journal of Human Rights, 39:1, 73-87.
Turanjanin, V. (2021b). Unforeseeability and abuse of criminal law during the Covid-19 pandemic in Serbia. EU and comparative law issues and challenges series (ECLIC) 5, 223-246.
Turanjanin, V., &Soković, S. (2019). Migrants in detention: approach of the European Court of Human Rights. Teme, vol. 43, no. 4, 957-980.
Varbanov v. Bulgaria, Application no. 31365/96 (ECtHR October 05, 2000).
Vasileva v. Denmark, Application no. 52792/99 (ECtHR September 25, 2003).
WitoldLitwa v. Poland, Application no. 26629/95 (ECtHR April 04, 2000).
Zupančič, B. (2011). Ne bis in idem - zabranaponovnogsuđenja za istodelo - la belle dame sans merci. Crimen, vol. 2: 2, 171-178.
