Magazine Státní zastupitelství 4/2016
- Differentiation Attempted Crime from its Preparation for the Validity of the Criminal Code of 1852 (Pavel Kučera)
- Current Issues of Corruption Evidence in Criminal Matters (Zdeněk Michora)
- Insolvency Proceedings, Prosecutors and § 206 Paragraph. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Code, or the Beginning and End of Adhesion Control in the Preliminary Criminal Proceedings (Miroslav Petrák)
- Ensuring the Rights of the Detained Suspect’s Statement Defense to the Simplified Procedure (Roman Vicherek)
- To What Extent is Entitled to Evaluate the Expert Opinion of a Counterparty?
(Roman Hradil, Jiří Kožina)
Annotation of Articles from Státní zastupitelství 4/2016
JUDr. Pavel Kučera, státní zástupce Nejvyššího státního zastupitelství, e-mail: PKucera@nsz.brn.justice.cz
The article deals with the differences between preparation of a crime and attempt thereof under the Criminal Code of 1852. After the introduction follows a passage, in which is it briefly discussed the theoretical possibilities of distinguishing preparatory action from attempt and which is followed by the key part of the article. Firstly, there is a discourse on the legal nature of attempted crime stipulated by the Criminal Code of 1852, followed by a summary of opinions contained in the contemporary doctrine and also a description of opinions advocated by case law. The author also did not neglect to mention some of the reasons behind the changes in the approach towards the institution of attempt, or by extension of preparation in the period when the Criminal Code of 1852 was in force.
Mgr. Zdeněk Michora, asistent soudce trestního kolegia Nejvyššího soudu, doktorand na Katedře trestního práva PrF MU, e-mail: email@example.com
This paper deals with the lack of the evidence in corruption cases. After the definition of this phenomenon, the author briefly mentions general requirements of the struggle against corruption and also specific instruments and measures adopted in the Czech Republic. Finally, it focuses on specific instruments used to motivate subjects participating in corruption cases to inform law enforcement authorities, because this kind of cases usually suffers for the lack of evidence.
Insolvency Proceedings, Prosecutors and § 206 Paragraph. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Code, or the Beginning and End of Adhesion Control in the Preliminary Criminal Proceedings
JUDr. Miroslav Petrák, Okresní státní zastupitelství v Jindřichově Hradci
For the Prosecutors should be to achieve (in compliance with all legal conditions) purpose of criminal proceedings other than the standard way, by diverting its course to an alternative outcome of the proceedings. One such method may be conditional cessation of prosecution. The leitmotif of the article contains following questions: “Can (perhaps seemingly imperfect) recent modification of Criminal Procedure complicate decision on suspension of the prosecutor in cases in which is the parallel insolvency proceedings? Can the absence of legal decision on the impossibility claim for damages under § 206 Paragraph. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Code bridge to analogy to the other?”
JUDr. Roman Vicherek, soudce Okresního soudu v Ostravě, externí doktorand na katedře trestního práva PrF MU, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Tthe author deals with the simplified procedure that is relatively separate of proceedings taking place before a single judge, and builds on the summary preliminary hearing. The author mainly deals with the statement of defense ensuring the rights of the suspect at time when he is arrested and suspect before a judge. The author tries to analyze the situation and propose measures to improve the rights of advocacy suspect in this situation.
plk. Ing. Roman Hradil, Ph.D., vedoucí oddělení genetických analýz Kriminalistického ústavu Praha
Mgr. Jiří Kožina, státní zástupce Okresního státního zastupitelství v Chomutově, e-mail: email@example.com
The article deals with the practical problems encountered in applying the provisions of § 110a Paragraph of the Criminal Code. Regulations in relation to the expert´s reports from the field of genetics emphasizes specifics identification of genetics, whose ignorance may lead to acceptance of disproportionate requirements when submitting party expert opinion.