Recently, we wrote in favor of the purposive or teleological interpretation in law as a condition that is condicio sine qua non (a condition without which it cannot be). The impetus was the exceptionally brave act of an individual (Tihomir Blagus) who reacted instead of the state and thereby risked a great deal, which was initially only hinted at, but is now clearly visible.
After the publication of the text we received several inquiries indicating that perhaps a more detailed explanation is needed, especially so that non-lawyers can fully understand and accept what is at stake. For this reason, this text should be taken as a kind of supplement to the previous one.
Any doubts about what to do were ultimately resolved by the publication of a document that the state (specifically the Zagreb Police Administration) sent to the aforementioned Mr. Tihomir Blagus, informing him that they would file an indictment proposal against him for acts under Article 13, paragraph 1, and Article 17, paragraph 1 of the Offenses Against Public Order and Peace Act. To make everything maximally clear, it should be stated that these are quite generally (thus broadly) prescribed offenses that are difficult to relate to what Mr. Blagus undoubtedly did in saving property, life, and health for himself and others (the details are already known to the public and boil down to unauthorized, clearly violent entry into a closed space to open a valve and prevent flooding, in which he (FORTUNATELY) succeeded).
—
—
The police, which informed Mr. Blagus that they would file an indictment proposal did not inform the public how the alleged offenses occurred and what the temporal and any other context is with the mentioned actions that he undoubtedly undertook. Namely, at least in principle, all possible combinations are possible and real, but when the public knows about the absolutely positive part, it certainly has the right to know what is potentially not so positive, but certainly also the context in every detail.
For example, it is not the same whether Mr. Blagus allegedly insulted officials after he was previously harassed by being held at the police station beyond all measure and necessity, or whether he (of course, again allegedly, as nothing in this sense has been adjudicated, let alone definitively adjudicated) insulted them because they wanted to identify him (which takes a few minutes).
Globally speaking, regardless of the number of states, it can be said that two legal models prevail. One to which we belong is the so-called continental European legal circle, which rests on a clear separation of powers (legislative, executive, judicial), meaning that courts in the reasoning of their decisions refer to specific laws and specific provisions in those laws, and this system, for example, is present in all EU countries (except for Great Britain, which is in the process of exiting).
A detailed explanation of the law and whether Blagus is guilty or not, as well as the interpretation of certain parts of the law, can be read in the new printed and digital edition of Lider, which you can read starting from Wednesday, August 26.
