Magazine Státní zastupitelství 6/2012

JUDr. Lumír Crha, státní zástupce Nejvyššího státního zastupitelství, e-mail: crha@nsz.brn.justice.cz

The paper reacts to the article by Ondřej Vala, a staffer of the Office of the Public Defender of Rights.The author explains why there are differences of opinion between the two offices – they have different tasks and different scopes of authority. Therefore, the differences of opinion are natural. The author pays attention also to the term “the best interest of child”. He concludes that children need not only their rights, but they have also the right to education and guidance, including duties – “the right to duty”.

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

The author of this article deals with the competence of the public prosecution service in the non-criminal field. First he mentions basic theoretical starting points of the non-criminal competence of the public prosecution service, and then he analyses the competence of the public prosecution service of V4 countries in the non-criminal field. In the last chapter the author assesses the analysed legislation and presents his critical comments mostly related to the new legislation on the public prosecution service in Hungary.

Mgr. Ondřej Vala, právník, Kancelář Veřejného ochránce práv, email: vala@ochrance.cz

The paper deals with the current practice of supervision of a public prosecutor over compliance with legal regulations in facilities of institutional and protective education. It particularly refers to the restrictive approach of public prosecution to the specifica-tion of the scope of supervision, and it points to the different approach of prosecutors to this issue in the Czech Republic. The author believes that if prosecut-ors consistently use all their powers, supervisions will not be solely formal. A prosecutor should also focus on respecting children‘s rights in common areas of life where the main criterion is the best interest of the child.

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

The paper elaborates on the question whether the public prosecution as a subject or a party to the proceed-ings outlined in § 35 of Civil Code is authorized to file a motion as outlined in § 102 of Civil Code, rendering a pre-trial emergency ruling under §76 sub 1 letter b) of Civil Code. The affirmative position is supported by the author’s interpretation of the above mentioned legal form and concrete court decisions pertaining to this problem.

JUDr. Jan Řeháček, státní zástupce OSZ v Ústí nad Labem, email: jrehacek@osz.uni.justice.cz

The paper discusses the question if it is appropriate to insist on a compulsory participation of a defender in negotiating an agreement on guilt and punishment. The author deals with conditions under which the agreement on guilt and punishment can be concluded; he analyzes practical problems in applying the institute of an agreement on guilt and punishment especially with respect to accelerated initial proceedings and finally, he touches on the impossibility of waiving the defender in negotiating an agreement on guilt and punishment. In the conclusion, the paper summarizes basic application problems of the agreement on guilt and punishment, including the position of the author on the role of the defender and his possibilities of providing legal assistance in negotiating an agreement on guilt and punishment.

JUDr. Petr Zeman, Ph.D., vedoucí výzkumné skupiny Institut pro kriminologii a sociální prevenci, email: p.zeman@iksp.justice.cz

The article summarizes the results of a public opin-ion poll on crime and the penal policy, relating to the knowledge and attitudes of Czech citizens on punish-ment and its implication. Respondents assessed their own knowledge in the given area; their knowledge was consequently tested by relevant questions, and their opinions and attitudes were sought in respect to the sanction policy in the Czech Republic. Based on the public opinion poll, respondents can be divided into three groups – retributivists, institutionalists, and nihilists.

JUDr. Ivo Ištvan, vrchní státní zástupce v Olomouci, email: istvan@vsz.olm.justice.cz

The paper reverts to the decision of the Disciplinary Court which has assessed the decision of the excluded public prosecutor in his own case. The author analyses a commentary published earlier in the „Státní zastupitelství“ (Public Prosecution) magazine, and questions the view that a less serious mistake was at stake which should not be the subject of disciplinary proceedings. The paper also touches upon providing information within the public prosecution service and in particular, the question under what conditions a higher public prosecutor’s office can interfere with the operation of a lower public prosecutor’s office.

JUDr. Jan Lata, Ph.D., státní zástupce Městského státního zastupitelství v Brně, email: lata@nsz.brn.justice.cz

The paper is a polemics with Vladimír Novák’s article on the concept of the law on the public prosecution service. The paper defends the abolishment of high public prosecutor’s offices and the establishment of a specialized public prosecutor’s office combatting corruption. It also refutes as unfounded fears that the reduction of levels of the public prosecution service will result in an inadequate strengthening of the position of the supreme public prosecutor which would alleged-ly facilitate the interference of the political power in criminal cases.