Magazine Státní zastupitelství 4/2012

Holger Schmidt, státní zástupce, Státní zastupitelství v Bautzenu (Svobodný stát Sasko)

The paper elaborates on the structure of the public prosecution service in Germany, including a brief historical excursion and relations between federal and state public prosecution services. It compares basic terms of the German and Czech legal concepts. In addition the paper informs about the conditions of appointing and recalling public prosecutors, and their position within the judicial system.

Mgr. Tomáš Palovský, Ph.D., Okresní státní zastupitelství Brno-venkov, email: tpalovsky@osz.brnv.justice.cz

The paper deals with the organization, functions, and the position ofthe Polish Public ProsecutionService after a major transformation in 2010. The Polish Prosecution Service represents a monocratic, hierarchical and subordinate organization, which does not fulfill only the role of the public prosecutor in criminalproceedings, but it also protects and preserves the rule of law and public interest in other legal branches.

JUDr. Kateřina Horká, Nejvyšší státní zastupitelství, email: horka@nsz.brn.justice.cz

The paper deals with the structure of public prosecution in Austria. It describes the levels of public prosecution, their competences, relations among individual levels, and relations between public prosecution and police. The paper consequently elaborates on the personnel issue, mentioning in particular the conditions for the appointment of public prosecutors.

Mgr. Vít Peštuka, akademický pracovník, Justiční akademie Kroměříž, email: vpestuka@akademie.justice.cz

The paper focuses on the structure of the public prosecution service in Italy. It explains the sense and implications of basic terms in this area. It elaborates in particular on the specifics of the operation of the public prosecution service in Italy: cooperation between the public prosecution service and police, and the existence and powers of national and regional centers fighting organized crime. The paper also deals with the conditions which have an impact on the independence of the public prosecution service in Italy mentioning, in this respect, the autonomy of the judicial system and its supreme body – the Supreme Judicial Council.

JUDr. Bystrík Šramel, interný doktorand, Fakulta práva Paneurópskej vysokej školy, email: bystrik.sramel@gmail.com

The paper deals with the public prosecution system in the United States of America. It examines the historical background of the origin of public prosecution and points to the present state of public prosecution. Subsequently it analyzes the public prosecution system on the federal as well as the state levels, its organisation and position, and the role in the American criminal procedure.

JUDr. Filip Melzer, Ph.D., náměstkem ministra spravedlnosti pro oblast justice
JUDr. Martin Staněk, krajský státní zástupce

Ministry of Justice official Filip Melzer and regional public prosecutor in Prague Martin Staněk discuss the issue of the selection of the future generation of public prosecutors. The question is to what extent should public prosecutors recruit from the ranks of judicial trainees who, for the most part have practical training only within the public prosecution service, or whether the public prosecution service should benefi t from opening up to applicants outside the public prosecution service (for example lawyers).

JUDr. Michal Basík, státní zástupce, Okresní státní zastupitelství pro Prahu 10, email: mbasik@osz.pha10.justice.cz

The author reacts to the enactment of the institute of the agreement on guilt and punishment in the amendment to Penal Code No. 193/2012. He discusses some controversial elements of the new legislation from a practical point of view, pointing to some differences compared to a similar Slovak legislation. On the basis of these pieces of information he takes a critical view of the new legislation, mentioning in conclusion its small contribution in practice and, consequently, a bigger impact on the work load of bodies responsible for penal proceedings.

Mgr. Pavel Nevěděl, náměstek okresního státního zástupce, OSZ Brno-venkov, pnevedel@osz.brnv.justice.cz
JUDr. Petr Růžička, okresní státní zástupce, OSZ Brno-venkov, pruzicka@osz.brnv.justice.cz

The paper focuses on current territorial disproportions between the venue jurisdiction of ordinary courts and corresponding district public prosecution offi ces, and regional administrative division of the Czech Republic, which corresponds with the activity of police bodies. The paper aims at alerting colleagues from diction to the District Public Prosecution Office Brno-other public prosecution offices in the Czech Republic venkov. The paper offers a possible solution to this about the situation with respect to their frequently situation in the form of an amendment to the law incorrect delegation of cases in regard of venue juris-on courts and judges.