PRIDRUŽIVANjE OŠTEĆENOG KRIVIČNOM GONjENjU

Abstract

The paper analyzes the institute of the “joining of criminal prosecution” by the injured party in criminal proceedings — a practice not provided for by the Criminal Procedure Code, yet regularly applied in practice. The author examines whether this statement has legal effect, what consequences it produces, and how it relates to other procedural instruments available to the injured party, such as the subsidiary and private prosecution, the motion for prosecution, and the property claim. By comparing Serbian law with foreign systems — particularly French law, which recognizes the institute of the “associated prosecutor” — the paper concludes that Serbian law does not allow for the parallel existence of two authorized prosecutors. The statement of the injured party about joining the prosecution lacks a procedural legal basis, but in practice it is often interpreted positively, as an expression of interest in the continuation of proceedings or as a statement that may influence the sentencing of the accused. A survey conducted among public prosecutors and judges showed that most of them consider this statement relevant mainly when assessing mitigating and aggravating circumstances. The author concludes that the institution of joining criminal prosecution is redundant and illegitimate, proposing that its use in practice be abolished and that its interpretation be replaced by the application of existing, legally regulated institutes.