*** Ovaj rad izrađen je u okviru projekta Multidisciplinary Research Cluster on Crime in Transition-Trafficking in Human Beings, Corruption and Economic Crime, koji financira Hrvatska zaklada za znanost.
U članku se razmatra jedno od najkompleksnijih pravnih pitanja u kontekstu trgovine ljudima – pitanje nekažnjavanja, tj. nepoduzimanja kaznenog progona prema žrtvama trgovine ljudima koje su ostvarile obilježja kaznenog djela u svezi sa svojom viktimizacijom, odnosno kao rezultat iste. Zaključci su utemeljeni na sveobuhvatnoj analizi tzv. klauzule o nekažnjavanju u obvezujućim međunarodnim dokumentima (Konvenciji Vijeća Europe, Direktivi EU), međunarodnim smjernicama i modelima (npr. Preporuke Visokog povjerenika UN-a za ljudska prava o ljudskim pravima i trgovanju ljudima), te u poredbenom zakonodavstvu i praksi. Dostupna poredbena praksa država ukazuje na nedostatke postojećih pravnih rješenja te na potrebu da se pitanje nekažnjivosti žrtava trgovine ljudima riješi na nedvosmislen način, bilo kroz uvođenje izričite i precizne odredbe o nekažnjavanju ili kroz uspostavu jasnih instruktivnih kriterija za postupanje u takvim slučajevima. Autori predlažu novi model nekažnjavanja i nepoduzimanja kaznenog progona prema žrtvama trgovine ljudima u RH, s ciljem izbjegavanja dodatne viktimizacije žrtava i u skladu s potrebama svakog konkretnog slučaja. Potreban je višedimenzionalan i fleksibilan pristup na temelju jasnih odredbi materijalnog i procesnog kaznenog prava, ali i smjernica koje će tužiteljima i sucima omogućiti da uspostave prikladnu ravnotežu između temeljnih načela hrvatskog pravnog sustava i prava osoba koje valja prvenstveno promatrati kao žrtve, a ne kao počinitelje.
This paper will deal with the positive conflicts of jurisdiction in the EU. At the outset, as an introduction, it will seek to identify the reasons which may lead to positive conflicts of jurisdiction in the EU and explain why such conflicts may create problems on different levels; foremost for concerned individuals, who may face prosecutions in different states, but also for the efficiency of judiciary of the member states and the rule of law in the EU. The existing legal framework has so far remained unsuccessful in addressing this issue, although several initiatives have tried to provide some guiding principles and solutions aimed at avoiding positive conflicts within the joint Area of Freedom, Security and Justice. Despite these efforts, to date the only binding mechanism which can conclusively settle conflicts of jurisdictions in the EU is the ne bis in idem principle. The issue of ne bis in idem has received a lot of scholarly attention, so the purpose of this paper is not to analyze the transnational application of ne bis in idem principle in detail, as this has been done elsewhere, but to look at the most recent decisions of the CJEU. Some of these decisions cast doubt on the idea of mutual trust on which this principle lies. Furthermore, this mechanism is far from perfect and there are many problems surrounding its application, indicating that conflicts of jurisdiction should be solved in another, more principled and forward looking manner. The paper will conclude with the set of proposals for preventing and solving conflicts of jurisdictions and assessment of their viability.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.