Lawyers believe that the Constitutional Court should assess the constitutionality of the Misdemeanor Act, although it would be more effective to file a lawsuit with the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
Written by: Ivica Grčar
[email protected]
Instead of increasing the rights to an impartial review of the (il)legality of the work of public administration and especially the police in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights and the citizens of Croatia, the Misdemeanor Act has reduced these rights, writes a Zagreb lawyer (details in the editorial office).
Still on the land registry
They do not give up on the fakinarija
At the Zagreb Municipal Civil Court, they follow a rhythm that nothing can disrupt. They provided a response to a journalist’s inquiry two weeks after the article ‘Four Fakinarija from the Land Registry Act’ was published, for which they received the inquiry. The response shows that the arrogant judges of the Land Registry Court ‘couldn’t care less’ about the public and think (that they can) persist in applying fakinarija in the Land Registry.
Thus writes Nives Šimunović, judge and spokesperson for the Municipal Civil Court in Zagreb: ‘There is no blank statement form by which a party waives the right to appeal, so it is not possible to provide a sample.’ But later, Šimunović writes: ‘(…) A form is used in which the statement waiving the right to appeal is included only in cases where the party retrieves documents from the file that it submitted with a proposal that was rejected or dismissed…’
Why then did she not provide us with the form ‘that exists’, instead of the one she could not ‘because it does not exist’?
Nives Šimunović also instructed us: ‘In response to your inquiry to comment on the Land Registry Act (provisions on four fakinarija, note a.), we emphasize that the right to access information does not relate to the interpretation of legal regulations, but you can contact the Croatian Bar Association and, possibly, the Faculty of Law, which provide legal opinions and advice.’
First, we did not even ask for an interpretation, but a comment on fakinarija, and when it comes to legal opinions and advice, the spokespersons Nives Šimunović and her namesake Radišić, presidents of the Land Registry Department (Land Registry where fakinarija are applied), are much more needed.
In dry legal terminology, in cases where an authorized prosecutor (tax or foreign currency inspector, police officer, or any ‘authorized prosecutor’) issues a mandatory misdemeanor order (Article 239 of the Misdemeanor Act), and the accused files an objection, an urgent procedure is conducted (Article 221.) in which the court, if it finds the accused guilty, issues a judgment against which no appeal is allowed.
Without control
It looks approximately like this: if someone allegedly commits a traffic offense for which a fine of up to 2,000 kuna is prescribed, the traffic police officer immediately hands them a mandatory misdemeanor order on the spot. If the alleged offender files an objection to the Misdemeanor Court through the police and the court simply confirms that the authorized prosecutors (traffic police officers) have proven everything perfectly and issues a final judgment, the accused has no possibility of impartial review in the second-instance court procedure.
