Granice odgovornosti i kažnjivosti saizvršioca u crnogorskom krivičnom pravu. (Bosnian)

LIMITS OF LIABILITY AND PUNISHMENT OF CO-PERPETRATORS IN THE CRIMINAL LAW OF MONTENEGRO. (English)

Co-perpetration represents a specific form of participation of several persons in committing a criminal offence, which, according to its characteristics, is somewhere between perpetration and classic forms of complicity, including incitement and aiding and abetting. Although in Yugoslav and Montenegrin literature, it is traditionally considered a form of complicity in a broader sense, in comparative doctrine and legislation, it is treated, in addition to direct and indirect perpetration, as a separate and independent form of perpetration. Nevertheless, it can be expected that, after the introduction of the explicit norm about the perpetrator of the criminal act in the Montenegrin Criminal Code, the theory according to which co-perpetration is dogmatically treated as an independent form of perpetration will be accepted. The commission of a criminal offence by several persons by direct participation in the act of execution or in some other way that significantly contributes to the execution of a criminal offence is often encountered in practice. For this reason, special rules are needed that would precisely determine the role and position of each participant. Despite the fact that the governing definition of co-perpetration is considerably more precise than that contained in the previous regulations, many questions are still open and difficult to resolve satisfactorily. Apart from the issues concerning the quality and importance of the objective contribution to the criminal act, the question of the limits of the co-perpetrator's responsibility is also disputed. In this sense, any significant deviation of one co-perpetrator from the adopted agreement is an excess, for which only that co-perpetrator is responsible, while others are responsible within the limits of their intent or negligence, or in other words, they are responsible only for the criminal offence that was included in the joint decision. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Saizvršilaštvo je posebna forma učestvovanja više lica u ostvarenju krivičnog dela, koja se po svojim odlikama nalazi negde između izvršilaštva, kao najintenzivnije forme ostvarenja krivičnog dela i klasičnih oblika sudelovanja u tuđem delu, u koje spadaju podstrekavanje i pomaganje. Iako se ono u jugoslovenskoj i crnogorskoj literaturi tradicionalno smatra oblikom saučesništva u jednom uslovnom, širem smislu, u uporednoj doktrini i zakonodavstvu ono je pravnodogmatski uklopljeno u izvršilaštvo i tretira se, pored neposrednog i posrednog izvršilaštva, njegovom zasebnom i samostalnom formom, za koju važe i neka posebna pravila. Ipak, može se očekivati da će se, nakon uvođenja u Krivični zakonik izričite norme o izvršiocu krivičnog dela i u crnogorskoj doktrini sve više probijati učenje prema kome se saizvršilaštvo dogmatski tretira jednom samostalnom formom izvršilaštva. Vršenje krivičnog dela od strane više lica neposrednim učestvovanjem u inkriminisanoj radnji, ili na neki drugi način približne težine i značaja, sreće se veoma često u praksi, pa su zato potrebna naročita pravila koja bi normativno izrazila ulogu i položaj svakog učesnika. Uprkos tome što je vladajuća definicija saizvršilaštva u znatnoj meri preciznija nego ona koju su sadržali raniji propisi, mnoga pitanja su još uvek otvorena i teško ih je na zadovoljavajući način rešiti. Osim pitanja koja se tiču kvaliteta i značaja objektivnog doprinosa koji bi se u slučaju da izostane učestvovanje u radnji izvršenja mogao smatrati jednako vrednim kao i udeo u radnji izvršenja, sporno je i pitanje granica odgovornosti saizvršioca, s obzirom na činjenicu da saizvršilaštvo po definiciji podrazumeva zajedničko vršenje krivičnog dela koje je zasnovano na sporazumu učestvujućih aktera, a da nije uvek lako utvrditi precizne konture planiranog poduhvata u kome se saučestvuje. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Studia Luridica Montenegrina is the property of University of Donja Gorica, Faculty of Legal Sciences and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)