Misdemeanor

Autorica u referatu analizira položaj ovlaštenog tužitelja kao stranke u prekršajnom postupku, prema odredbama Zakona o prekršajima, koji je stupio na snagu 1. listopada 2002., odnosno na koji se način i u kojoj mjeri ta stranka koristi u praksi svojim postupovnim ovlaštenjima tijekom prvostupanjskog prekršajnog postupka, do završetka glavne rasprave. Drugi dio teksta sadržava bilješke autorice uz radni tekst Nacrta prije-dloga zakona o prekršajima. UVOD Ustavom RH 1 propisano je akuzatorno načelo da se kazneni postupak može pokrenuti samo pred sudom na zahtjev ovlaštenog tužitelja. Za razliku od kaz-nenog postupka, u Ustavu RH ne postoji odgovarajuća odredba za prekršajni postupak, ali je odredbom Zakona o državnom odvjetništvu 2 propisano da nadležno državno odvjetništvo poduzima progon i zastupa optužbu, između ostalog i u prekršajnom postupku, sukladno zakonskim ovlastima. Prema odred-bama Zakona o prekršajima 3 , sud nikada ne pokreće prekršajni postupak, ali donosi odluku o njegovu započinjanju određivanjem glavne rasprave. U postupovnim odredbama ZOP/02, kao temeljnog zakona prekršajnog prava u RH, državni odvjetnik pozicioniran je kao ovlašteni podnositelj zahtjeva za pokretanje prekršajnog postupka (dalje: ovlašteni tužitelj), dakle kao jedna od stranaka u prekršajnom postupku, s tim da je temeljno pravo i dužnost državnog odvjetnika progon prekršaja kao kažnjivih djela. Međutim, u praksi prekršajnih sudova utvrđen je kontinuitet iz vremena prije 1. listopada 2002. da se kao ovlašteni tužitelji isključivo pojavljuju druga tijela ili oštećenik.

The petty offences have a dual nature in majority of the European continental legal systems: they are on the crossroads of administrative and criminal law. A similar model evolved in Hungary after the 19 th century. The Hungarian regulation on petty offences has moved between administrative and criminal law. Although art 6 of the ECHR is interpreted broadly by the ECtHR, the European Union legislation (the Directive 343/2016/EU) cannot be applied in the Hungarian petty offence procedures. Despite this narrow approach of the EU legislation, the main guarantees of the Directive are prevailed by the major petty offence cases. If the procedures can result a detention nature punishment (in Hungary: elzárás-custodial arrest) the guarantees of the presence of the defendants mainly prevails. In more administrative-thus minor-cases in Hungary simplified and administrative nature procedural rules are applied. However, the significance of the administrative criminal law is decreasing in Hungary, especially the rise of the 'administratisation' of the liability for minor infringements. Keywords: • petty offence • right to fair trial • presence in criminal cases • Hungary • procedure • dual nature • practice of ECtHR • Directive 343/2016/EU

Misdemeanor charges not only appear on a person’s criminal records but are also treated with strict action. Punishment involves jail time, fines, and social service on probation. Handling a misdemeanor charge if found guilty needs to be dealt with with an experienced Attorney’s help. However, the consequence of a misdemeanor charge can be taken to trial, and costs can be negotiated before understanding the result.

In June 2009, the Standing Committee on the Federal Rules of Procedure and Evidence authorized publication for comment on a number of technology-related rules of criminal procedure.  Criminal Rule 1 would state that the terms “telephone,” “telephonic,” or “telephonically” mean any form or live electronic voice communication.  Rule 3 would allow officers to submit a complaint and supporting material electronically.  Changes to Rule 4 would address electronically processed and submitted arrest warrants.  Proposed new Rule 4.1 would permit magistrate judges to consider information presented electronically in deciding whether to issue a warrant or summons or approve a complaint.  The amendment to Rule 9 would permit a court to issue a summons or arrest warrant based on information supplied by telephone or other reliable electronic means.  Under the amendment to Rule 32.1, a court may allow use of video teleconferencing in a proceeding to decide whether to revoke or modify the defendant’s probation or supervised release.  Rule 40 would permit video teleconferencing for appearances under the rule.  Rule 41 would move the current provisions dealing with requesting warrants by electronic means to proposed Rule 4.1.  Rule 43 would be changed to permit the court to use video teleconferencing for the arraignment, plea, trial, and sentencing in misdemeanor cases.  Finally, the Rule 49 amendment addresses electronic service and filing.