1

UNIVERSITY OF NOVI SAD FACULTY OF LAW NOVI SAD

(SERBIA)

COLLECTED PAPERS

XLVII 2 (2013)

, 2013. , XLVII , . 2 (2013)

3

2

: . (1966), . (19671968),

. (19691973), . (19741976), . (19771983), . (19841988), . (19891991), . (19921997),

. (19982003), . (20042007).

.

.

.

: . , prof. dr Damjan Koroec (),

prof. dr Wilhelm Brauneder (); prof. dr Tams Prugberger (), prof. dr Serge Regourd (), prof. dr Grard Marcou (),

prof. dr Heinz Mayer (A), prof. dr Peter Mader (A), . , ,

, , ,

, , , , , ,

2008. Proceedings of Novi Sad Faculty of Law

EBSCO Academic Search Complete. 2010.

: International & Non-U.S. Law Journals HeinOnline.

.

: : 200

3

, ....................................................................................................... 7 , .................................. 25 , ................................ 39 , .......... 59 , ................................................................................... 79 , 2011 . ................................................................................... 93 , () ....................................................................................... 107 , , ....... 131 , ; , ( ) ....................................................................... 147 , Constitutio criminalis theresiana-corpus delicti ................................................. 163 , ................................................. 187 , ........... 199 . , 2011. ..... 215

4

, ; , ......................................................... 247 , ........................... 261 , , ....................................................... 279 , , ................................. 303 , ; , .......................... 315 , ? .................................................................. 331 A. , .............................................................. 349 , . (19201941) ........................... 367 , (, , , , ) ......... 385 , ......................................................................... 419 , ....................................... 431 -, . 80 .................................................... 449 , ............................................................................... 461 , .............................................. 481 , (1845) ................... 495 , ..................................................... 515 , ....................................................................... 535

5

TABLE OF CONTENTS Boin Vlakovi, Ph.D., Full Professor Technical Effect and Scope of Patent Protection of Chemical and Biotech Inovations ............................................................................................. 7 Sran arki, Ph.D., Full Professor Russian Attempts on Constitutional Issue of Insurgent Serbia (18041813) .... 25 Jzsef Szalma, Academician, DSC, Dr.Hc., Full Professor Annuity as a Form of Compensation for Future Loss Caused by Torts ............ 39 Mile Vranje, Ph.D., Full Professor On cooperation of Customs Administrations in the European Union and Serbia ...... 59 Rodoljub Etinski, Ph.D., Full Professor Specific Features of Human Rights Guaranteed by the Aarhus Convention ..... 79 Zoran Arsi, Ph.D., Full Professor Convocation of Shareholders Meeting ............................................................... 93 Gordana Kovaek Stani, Ph.D., Full Professor Parent-Child Relationship in Serbia (Vojvodina) in Historical Perspective and Today ........................................................................................................... 107 Danica Popov, Ph.D., Full Professor Principles of Environmental Legislation in UN, EU and Republic of Serbia .... 131 Ljubomir Staji, Ph.D., Full Professor; Katarina trbac, Ph.D., Colonel The Role of International Humanitarian Organizations of the Western Balkans (Serbia Case) ............................................................................................................... 147 Itvan Feje, Ph.D., Full Professor Constitutio Criminalis Theresiana Corpus Delicti .......................................... 163 Marija Salma, Ph.D., Full Professor Facts as Subject Matter of Declaratory Action .................................................. 187 Drago Divljak, Ph.D., Full Professor Legal Significance of Environmental Protection in Foreign Investments Law ....... 199 Sneana S. Brki, Ph.D., Full Professor Innovations in Regulation of Simplified Procedure in Serbian Code of Criminal Procedure from 2011 .......................................................................................... 215

6

Vojislav uri, Ph.D., Full Professor; Marko Trajkovi, Ph.D., Assistant Professor Towards Pluri-Perspectivism Bioethics ............................................................. 25 Vuk Radovi, Ph.D., Associate Professor Principle of Pure Universality in International Bankruptcy ............................... 261 Magdolna Si, Ph.D., Associate Professor Roman Cadastres, Land Registers and instrumentum venditionis the Elements of Modern Land Registries ........................................................ 279 Dragia Draki, Ph.D., Associate Professor Biomedical Technology, Ethics and Criminal Law ........................................... 303 Marija Ignjatovi, Ph.D., Assistant Professor; Tanja Kitanovi, Ph.D., Assistant Professor Divorce by Consent in Roman Law and Contemporary Law ..................................... 315 Oliver Laji, Ph.D., Assistant Professor Is there any alternative to the confiscation of criminal assets, which is implemented in a criminal proceeding? ......................................................... 331 Emir A. orovi, Ph.D., Assistant Professor The Principle of Guilt as a Basis for Criminal Sanctions Justification Review in the Criminal Law in Serbia ............................................................................ 349 Gordana Draki, Ph.D., Assistant Professor Department B. of the Court of Cassation in Novi Sad (19201941) ................. 367 Jelena Vidi Trnini, Assistant Professor Exceptions to the Rules of Intestacy in the Former Yugoslavia (Serbia, Slovenia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Republic of Srpska) ..................... 385 Vladimir Marjanski, Ph.D., Assistant Professor Specific Private Law Instruments of Financing In Vitro Fertilization Procedure .... 419 Dragutin Avramovi, Ph.D., Assistant Professor Mount Athos between Autonomy and Statehood ........................................... 431 Sandra Fier-obot, Ph.D., Assistant Professor Exemption of the Seller under Art. 80 of the UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods .................................................................... 449 Attila Duds, Ph.D., Assistant The Evolution of Regulation of Compulsory Licence in International and Serbian Sources of Patent Law .................................................................... 461 Nataa Raji, Assistant Justification of Establishing Jurisdiction of Initiation of the Procces of Controling Constitutionality of Statutes with Regard to Ombudsman .......... 481 Uro Stankovi, Assistant van Hadis Civil Procedure Code Draft (1845) .......................................... 495 Luka Baturan, Assistant The Ban on Foreigners Acquiring Property Rights on Agricultural nd Forest Land in Serbia and Other Region Countries ...................................................... 515

PROFESSIONAL PAPERS

Dragan Kalaba, Deputy Public Prosecutor The Extension of Detention ............................................................................... 535

, 2/2013

7

347.771:[54+57 doi:10.5937/zrpfns47-3812

,

: - , -, . 98/44 - . - . , , , - .

: , , -

, .

I

. -, . , , - .

. -, , -

,,XXI , . 179012, .

, ... (. 723)

8

. . , .

. - - . 98/44, - . , - , . - . - , - , . .

, - - , , , . .

- . - , a .

2.

2.1. -

. , - .

1889. ,,Kongorot" - , , .1 " " - -. , , . , -

1 Rudolf Busse, Patentgesetz, 5. Auflage, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin 1999, . 57-58.

, 2/2013

9

, .2

, - . - .

- - .3 , , .

- . , - , - - . , . - .

2.2.

. . o , , -, . .

- : ,, - . - , - ."4

2 Hermann Schwanhusser, Stoff- und Verfahrensschutz chemische Erfindungen, Heymann, Kln 1962, . 31.

3 Beil Walter, Der ,, technische Efekt" beim chemischen Analogieverfahren, Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht 7/1961, . 319.

4 Jrgen Klar, Zur Problematik des chemischen Analogieverfahrens, Chemiker Apparatur 7/1966, . 221.

, ... (. 723)

10

,,Einlegesohle".5 , , , -, . , . -: ,, - . - -, . . 123, . 2, - , . - ."6

: ,, , ."7

- , - . , , , . , - .

,,Appetitzgler I". - : ,, , - . , , - , ."8

5 BGH, 22.09. 1961, I ZR 130/57, Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht 2/1962, . 83.

6 Europisches Patentamt, 18.03.1993, T 409/91, Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheber-recht Int 11/1994, . 957.

7 Bernhard Geisler, Der Umfang des Stoffschutzes fr chemishe Erfindungen, Heymann, Kln-Mnchen 1972, . 146-166.

8 BGH, 3.2. 1966, Ia ZB 26/64, Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht GRUR 6/1966, . 312.

, 2/2013

11

- , -.

, - "Imidazoline"9 . - , . , , . , . - , .

2.3.

- , .10 , , - . -, , - , - . 11

9 BGH, 14.3.1972, X ZB 2/71, Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht 9/1972, . 541.

10 ckehart v. Pechmann, Wider aktuell: Ist die besondere technische, therapeutische oder biologische Wirkung Offenbarungserfordernis bei der Anmeldung chemischer Stofferfindungen? Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht Internationaler Teil 4/1996, . 371.

11 , , -. , , . , , . 4 , -. : , , , , 1 .

, ... (. 723)

12

, , , -.12 - ,,Imidazoline" , . , "" , - , , - . , - , , -, - .13 () , -. - , .

3.

3.1. Imidazoline "Imidazoline" -

- . - - . - . - . , - . , , - - .14

12 ckehart v. Pechmann, , . 372. 13 Ibid, . 373. 14 BGH, 14.3.1972, X ZB 2/71, Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht 9/1972,

. 541.

, 2/2013

13

.15 , , "Imidazoline" - , , -. , , 1968. .16 . , -. , , , , . , .

Bruchhausen, "Imidazoline", - , . , , - .17

"Imidazoline" - - . , , - . , , , - -.18 . - - .19

15 Horst P. Gtting, Kritische Bemerkungen zum absoluten Stoffschutz, Gewerblcher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht, Nr. 3-4/2009, . 256.

16 Friedrich Feuerlein, Patentrechtliche Probleme der Biotechnologie, Gewerblcher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht, Nr. 7/2001, . 564.

17 Horst P. Gtting, , . 257. 18 Uta Kster, Absoluter oder auf die Funktion eingeschrnkter Stoffschutz im Rahmen von

Biotech-Erfindungen, insbesondere bei Gen-Patenten, Gewerblcher Rechtsschutz und Urheber-recht, Nr. 10/2002, .834.

19 Dieter Schneider & Doris Walter, Ist der absolute Stoffschutz noch zu retten, Gewerblcher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht, Nr. 10/2007, .843.

, ... (. 723)

14

"Imidazoline" , - 20 , . , , , , - . , .

3.2.

, . "cimetidina"21 1988. - , . , - , -. , . , , - , . , , .

- , , - . "cefatri-cina"22 1995. - - .

, , . , , -. , .

20 Doris Walter, Harmonisierung und angemessene Anspruchsbreite bei der Gensequenzpa-tentierung, Gewerblcher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht, Nr. 7/2001, . 291.

21 Doris Walter, , . 287. 22 Ibid, . 288.

, 2/2013

15

"Biogen vs. Medeva" House of Lords je . 23 - , - . "O Reilly vs. Morse" 1854. . , Morse . , - . Morse .

, . , , , - - .

, "Blasenfreie Gummibahn" 2003. , : ,, , - . , numerus lausus ."24

3.3.

"Imida-zoline" -, - . , , , -

23 House of Lords, 31.10. 1996, "Biogen vs. Medeva", Gewerblcher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht Int. 5/1998, . 412-419.

24 BGH, 24.9.2003, X ZR 7/00, Gewerblcher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht 1/2004, . 47.

, ... (. 723)

16

.25 . - . . , - . - , -. , -, , .

- , . , - , , - .26

, - , . - , .

. , , - .27

-

25 Doris Walter, , . 286. 26 Retro Hilty, Schutzgegenstand und Schutzbereich berlegungen zur Formulierung von

Patentansprchen. In: Festschrift fr Reimar Knig. Kln, Carl Heymanns Verlag 2003, . 167. 27 PierreTreichel, Die Sanktionen der Patentverletzung und ihre Gerichtliche Durchsetzung

im Deuetschen und Franzzischen Recht, Haymann, Mnchen 2001, . 107.

, 2/2013

17

, - , .28

4.

. 98/44 4.1.

29 , - , - . . 5, . 2. , -, , . , -. , . 3. - , . , - .

9. , , , .

4.2.

. 8. . , . , - , .

- 23. - , .

28 Retro Hilty, Schutzgegenstand und Schutzbereich berlegungen zur Formulierung von Patentansprchen. In: Festschrift fr Reimar Knig. Kln, Carl Heymanns Verlag 2003, . 216.

29 Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions, OJ L 213, 30.7.1998, . 1321.

, ... (. 723)

18

4.3. ,

- . 30 - . 2003. - - . - .

31 2005. , , . -, - . . 2005. - - . , , , - .

5.

5.1. 32 . 1 (3)

- .

30 Erster Bericht der Kommission an den Rat und das Europische Parlaments nach Art. 16 c RL 98/44/EG vom 7.10.2002, http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/internal market/de/indprop/in-vent/index.htm>, poseen 3.2.2013.

31 Zweiter Bericht der Kommission an den Rat und das Europische Parlaments nach Art. 16 c RL 98/44/EG vom 14.7. 2005, http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/internal market/de/ind-prop/invent/index.htm>, poseen 3.2.2013.

32 31. 7. 2009, BGBl. I, . 2521.

, 2/2013

19

. 1 (4) : ,, , , , , (3) , ."

1 (4) , . - - , .

5.2.

. 1 -, . . .

. - . 1 (3). , . , -. - . , , - . - . - -. , , .

, -, , , - , , .33

33 Drucksache 15/1790, www.landtag.rlp.de/.../drucksachen/1790-15, 4.3. 2013, . 10.

, ... (. 723)

20

, , 1 (4) , - , . . , , - .34 M , .35

- . , . - . - . . , .36

, - . , "Imidazoline".

6.

. , , . 9, . , , , - .37

34 Joachim Feldges, Ende des absoluten Stoffschutzes?, Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Ur-heberrecht 12/2005, . 977-984, Christian Kilger & Hans-Rainer Jaenichen, Ende des absoluten Stoffschutzes?, Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht 12/2005, .984-998.

35 Doris Walter, , . 287. 36 Drucksache 15/1790, www.landtag.rlp.de/.../drucksachen/1790-15, 4.3. 2013, . 11. 37 6.7.2010, (Case 428/08, Amtsblatt EPA, 8-9/2010),

. 428-447.

, 2/2013

21

. , . - . , - . . -, . - . , .

, . - . , , - . , - . , - , , . . 9, , . . 9, . . 9, , , - , - .

, , . , , , , .

. , - - . - , ,

, ... (. 723)

22

, , . , , , , , , , - .

"Imidazoline" - , . - j - . , . . , - , , . - - . , , - . - . , , - .

. 98/44 , . , . , , . - .

, 2/2013

23

Boin Vlakovi, Ph.D., Full Professor University of Kragujevac Faulty of Law Kragujeva

Technical Effect and Scope of Patent Protection of Chemical and Biotech Inovations

Abstract: Whereas that sequences and parts of gene sequences by their na-ture are chemical substances, and not only holders of specific information, with the Directive no. 98/44 are actualizing, in a new light and in full measure, and are opening the issues about scope of patent protection for inventions chemical matters in general. Directive not given a direct answer to the question of the scope of their patent protection. However, the European Court of Justice deci-ded that in the case of inventions sequences and parts of gene sequences that their protection limited with function which exercised.

Key words: analog process, disclosure, sequences and parts of gene sequ-ences, function.

, ... (. 723)

24

, 2/2013

25

342.5(497.11)1804/1813 doi:10.5937/zrpfns47-4417

,

1

( )

: - (1804-1813). - , . , - , -, . 1807. , - , 1807. 1809. - - , , .

- , , , . , .

: , , , -

, , . (1804-1813),

, .

1 ( ),

, (. 2537)

26

, .2

, . -, , , . - , -, . , - , , .3 , 15. 1805, , - , .4

2 , - Die serbische Revolution, Aus serbischen Papieren und Mittheilungen. Von Leopold Ranke. Mit einer Charte von Serbien, Hamburg 1829. , Serbien und die Trkei im 19 Jahrhudert ( 19. ), Hamburg 1879. - 1864. , ( ) . 1892.

3 (1777-1854), - (Adam Czartorysky), . 1804. . - , [] (). , , 1867, . 187. , - , 1898, . 61. , (1911-1990), -, (Srpska drava prvog ustanka, Beograd 1984), 1964. , , - (. , . 97, 11). - .

4 . , , . , , - . , . 300 , . , . 189. Cf. D. Jankovi, nav. delo, str. 95-97.

, 2/2013

27

, , , . 1807. , . , , .

1)

. , , . , . 1. - 1804. - . -,5 6 .7

5 (1777-1854), - XIX . , 16 , ( = ). , , - XIX (2. 1804). - , - . , , . (27. 1805 1807). (1814-1815), . -, , (1842-1852). , . (1811-1813), , - .

6 . , (1804, ) . , - (1805) (1807). 1808. . . , , II, 1884 ( 1971), . 43-47.

7 ( 1773 1825), , . , , (1821). . -, , 1888 ( 1979), . 580-582.

, (. 2537)

28

, , - .8 (- 1804), ( ), . .9

- ( Pozsony, ) (26. 1805). - , . - , . - .

, 1806. , - , , ( ) ( , ). - , .10 , -

8 , , 1776. ( ). . , , 1805. . . , , . -, , 1807. . . , . , . 738-739.

9 , . 122; 1804-1813 . , . 1804-1807, M 1980, . 66.

10 , ( 30. / 12. 1806. -) , - . . , . , II, . 89, , . , , , ( -), (1807). . , . , II, . 88-90.

, 2/2013

29

11 ( Iai, -), . , - .

27. 1806. - . (11. 1807), , , - -, , .12

-. , - . , - ; , , . , -, , , , 1812.13

, , , (Philippo Osipovich Paulucci), - .

. (1806), .14

11 . - .

12. , m nm I, i em, . 46, 1863, . 115.

13 28. - 1812. , .

14 1779. . , 1806. . - (1811), . - ( ), . 1812 . - 1829. , - . 13/25. 1849. . - . , , , 1912 ( 1981), . 529-543; . , , 1926, . 70-71.

, (. 2537)

30

, ,15 . , . , , , . - , . , ,16 . .17

21. 1807, 7. . , , , . , . - , 18. . - - , - , -, . -, , - () - -

15 ( , 1750-1812), - ( Andreas Eberhard von Budberg), XVI . , 1759. - 1768-1774. 1783. - . II, , 1784. 1795. , . 1793. V ( -). 1795. 1799. . , - , I 1804. . 1806. 1807. , - 7. 1807. . 1812. .

16 , , - . .

17, . , II, . 530-532.

, 2/2013

31

. - (, , ), . , . , , (- , ) -, , , ,18 .19

, . , - -, . - , - . 28. /10. 1807, , . , - , , , : , , -, - . , -.20

. - - .21 13 :

(e) - -

18, . , II, . 533. 19 7. 1807. 1500

10 1809. . , . , . 91 , -, , , - , -. 1810. .

20 , . , , 1980, . 87.

21 , , .

, (. 2537)

32

, - () - ( ), , .

1) - .

( ) - - ( ) - ( - ), ( ),22 .

2) - , [ ] (e ) , () ( ).23

3) , ,24 , , ( , - ), .

4) - -, , , .

5) 3 000 , () , , ( ) 20 000 .

6)

22 . , , 1835. -, .

23 = , ( ). , .

24 , - , - ( ).

, 2/2013

33

. , , -, , 15 - , .

7) , - . , , , -. , .

8) , - .

9) , , . , .

10) 10 000 , .

11) - .

12) , - , .

13) , , -, , - (, Feldspitler), - .

, , - , .

28. 1807. . ,

[] , -

[] , 25

25 . -

: . , . , II, . 539-541; , , . , 1977, . 270-271; . - , . I, 1804-1809, 1998, . 274-280. -

, (. 2537)

34

, ,26 , .27

. - I - (7. ) . , , , , - .

31. 1807, .28 , , , ,29 30 - , -- . - .

26 , - . . -, , , . -, ( , ), 15 000 - . - . , 18. -, ( ): Je ne pourrai jamais ou-blier les dernieurs mots quil me dit au moment quil prit cong de moi: Rappellez Vous, Mon-sieur, que je ne desire autre chose, que de voir ma patrie libre de tout crainte et de ce voir derechef sous le joug ottoman; alors je renoncerai tout, pour aller ma charrue ( [] : - , , , ; ). . , . . , - 1872, . 105. . . , . , II, . 538, 668-669.

27 , - . . - . . , . , . 278.

28Il (Czerni George) finit par me dire quil tait prt faire tout ce que je conseillerais et me demand dtablir une convention ( [ ] ). , . , . 105.

29 (1769-1831) - . , - , , , , - . -. ( 1811),

, 2/2013

35

, . - , , , . , , , , .31 ? ?

. , , ee, , ,32 - , , la convention (, , ).33 - XIX , - . .. , - 1806-1813, - ( ) (-, ).34 , - 1804. 1859, .35 . , 1806-1812, 28. 1807. .36

-, . , 1963. , 6 (), . , . . , . , . 691-694.

30 (1781-1859) . 1806. - . - (1806). 1807. - . , - 1811. . 1815. 1856. ( 1825. -). 1859. . . . , . , . 88-91.

31 D. ankovi, nav. delo, str. 127-129. 32. (. , . 274),

. 33 28. 34 , 1864, 7, . 30-31. 35 . -

, . I, 1870, . 55. 36. , 1806-1812 , I, . 1885, .

243. . . , , . 1909, . 119, . . , , 1947, . 149.

, (. 2537)

36

, - .37 , - , . - - , . , , , , . . , , - .38

- . - , - , . . , , . , -, , - .39

37 , I, . . , . . , . . -

, . . , 1963, . 316. 38

XIX XX ( XIX XX , IV, - 1961, . 554), . . ( -, Balcanica VIII/1977, p. 238 sq).

39 - . , , - 1804-1813, 18. 26. 1980. , , , . XVII, , . 4, 1983, . 250-253.

, 2/2013

37

Sran arki, Ph.D., Full Professor University of Novi Sad Faculty of Law Novi Sad

Russian Attempts on Constitutional Issue of Insurgent Serbia (18041813)

(Part One The so-called Paulucci Convention)

Abstract: Alongside the struggle for independence, the First Serbian Upri-sing signified the beginning of the formation of the Serbian state and an over-throw of the feudal order. This fact was already remarked by Leopold von Ran-ke in his book Die serbische Revolution.

The key issue was, of course, the organization of power. The leader of the uprising, Karaore Petrovi, held the title of Vod, i.e. leader or chief, which endowed him with sweeping powers. In order to limit them, the most pro-minent military commanders proposed to establish a Praviteljstvujui sovjet, i. e. council or government. Karaore approved on this at an assembly in the vil-lage of Borak on August 15, 1805. But owing to the fact that the relations bet-ween the Vod and the council had not been regulated by a legal document, some mutual conflicts arose. Therefore, several attempst to find a solution to the basic constitutional issue were made.

The Russians, trying hereby to ensure their influence in Serbia, made the first of these attempts. The result was a convention between a Russian colonel, Marquis Paulucci (an Italian who first served in the French army before mo-ving to the Russian service in 1806), and Serbian representatives headed by Ka-raore, who gathered in the city of Negotin in Eastern Serbia on June 28, 1807. First of all, the convention expressed the desire of the Serbian people to be under the protection of Russian Tsar and to obtain from him as soon as pos-sible a capable zemljeupravitelj (land governer). Thereupon, this governor was supposed to establish order and, in the name of the Tsar, to give a Konstitucija, a constitution, to the people. Furtheremore, according to the convention, the appointing of Serbian officers was to be carried out in the name of the Russian Tsar and Russian military garrisons were to be stationed in Serbian towns. Ka-raore agreed to the convention, thereby hoping to ensure Russian aid for Ser-bia, but at the precise moment when the document was to be sealed by him, he excused himself for having lost the seal.

Key words: First Serbian Uprising, Karaore, Council, the so-called Paulucci Convention, Russian Tsar, agreement.

, (. 2537)

38

, 2/2013

39

347.464:347.5 doi:10.5937/zrpfns47-4341

,

: () . , - . , , , - . , , , , . - , . - . - : , -, - , . , - . - , , , , - , -. -, .

- ( ) , .

, ... (. 3957)

40

: , , , , , - , , .

I

1. . () -

, . ( ) , , , . - . , (, ), -, , ( - , - ).

. - ( , , - ), ( - , ).

, . -, ( - , ) . , , - (. - - ) - . , (. ) -, , . - , . - , , , . ( ), , . - . . ,

, 2/2013

41

, .

2. . .1 -, -. . - , .

()2 , , , - , . - , , .3 , - . - .4 , , . . 5 . , , , , , . , , -

1 . 188/1 , , , , , , . .2 , , . . 2. . 195 - , - . - . , 19.12.2004, . . 1869/05.

2 (), Sl. list SFRJ, . 29/1978, : Sl. list SFRJ, .39/1989, 57/1989, Sl. list SRJ, . 31/1993. , Sl.list SRJ, br. 31/93 Sl. list SCG, . 1/2003.

3 . Joef Salma, Obligaciono pravo, Novi Sad, 2009, str.616; . . 188/2 .. 4 (BGB) ,

, . . : Enneccerus-Kipp-Wolff . (Lehmann), Recht der Schuldverhltnisse, J.C.B. Mohr, Tbingen, Bd. II., 1958, . 774., .1/2.

5 . 760 . - .

, ... (. 3957)

42

.6 , .

. , . . , , -. . , .

( ). , -.7 .8 , , . , - () . , . , , (. ). , , . , , . - . .9 10 - , 11, - . - ,

6 . . 842-846 - (BGB) in: BGB Brgerliches Gesetzbuch mit dem Einfhrungsgesetz zum BGB, Area Verlag, Kln, 2005, . 182-183.

7 (), , . 46/1995, . 358/95, . .101/2003. . . 194-205. , : .203, 202. . 2, 203. .

8 . 759 . (1) (BGB) (Leibren-te) , , . . (2) . . (3) , . ., BGB Brgerliches Gesetzbuch mit dem Einfhrungsgesetz zum BGB, Area Verlag, Kln, 2005, .171-172.

9 . . 1. . 194. . 10 . . 182-193. . 11 . . 1. . 183. .

, 2/2013

43

. , - , , , , . - , -, . , , .12 , , . 13, 14, 15 -.16 , , - .

3. () . . . . - . , , , . -

12 . Koziol-Welser, Brgerliches Recht, Band II: Welser, Schuldrecht Allgemeiner Teil, Schuldrecht Besonderer Teil, Erbrecht, 12, Auflage, Manz Verlag Wien, 2001, . 255.

13 . . 1284 : In Leibrentenvertrag verspricht ein Teil eine Leistung gegen die Zu-sage einer Rennte auf Lebensdauer. .

14 . . 759-761 , in: BGB, Area, Kln, 2005, . 171-172.

15 . .46. . 16 j Polgri Trvnyknyv ( ), 2o13. vi V. Trvny, Novissima Kiad, Buda-

pest, 2o13, . 6:497: letjradki szerzds . . . 6:528 (jvedelemptl jradk ) - . . -: Polgri Trvnyknyv, Ptk 1959-Ptk 2013, Gt.2006- Ptk 2013, Csjt. 1952-Ptk 2013, .217; 320-321; Polgri trvnyknyvrl szl 2013. vi V. trvny tkrs szerkezetben (a hatlyos joganyaggal), I.-II. ktet, Novotni Alaptvny, Miskolc, 2013 (szerk.Juhsz gnes, Pusztahelyi Rka, Rvsz Katalin, lekt. Br Gyrgy), II.. 572;562-564. - . 356-357. - . 358. . .:Szalma Jzsef, Szerzdsen kvli (deliktulis felelssg) ( ), LTE JK Budapest, Bbor Kiad Miskolc, 2008, .329.

, ... (. 3957)

44

, , -. -. , , , , . - , - . - , . , , . . - , . .17 - , , ., .18

II

?

4. . - (1981) - -. , , ( ), -.19 ,

17 . , . , 09.10.2002.. , . .2.1017/02. - (. 4. 5. .188. .2. .195. ) .p , .II 1017/2002, od 09.10.2002.g., Bilten sudske prakse VSS, br. 2/2003, str.60.

18 ., Joef Salma, Obligaciono pravo, Novi Sad, 2009, . 617; . 188/4,5 . 19 08.05,1981, . .12/1981,

, 2/2013

45

, , , - . - , - . -, . . , - -, , . , , , , - , , .

5. 20 - (, , .) - . . , - , . -. , , - - , . . -, . , - . , . () - . - - , . -, , , - , . , , . - . -, , .

20 . . 1. . 200. .

, ... (. 3957)

46

, , - , . - . - , . , , . -, - , .

III

, :

6. - .21 , . - ( ) -. , - , - , , , . . , . . - -. , .22 , -

21 . . 2. .193. . , . , . .1. 2. . 194. . - , , , . .2. . 195. .

22 . 2. . 195. -. , - , -., , 13. 09, 2003. ., ..2676/92.

, 2/2013

47

.23 () - .

, - ( , .), .24 , , , , .

, - , , , , , , , -. , , , . , , -.

IV

7. - , (), - , . , , - . - .

23 . . 1-5. . 188. , . 2. . 193. . , (...) . - , . . - . , , , . , - . - . , 10.11. 2005.., . .880/05.

24 . . 1.. 200. .

, ... (. 3957)

48

, , . , , , . , ., , , -, , . . - , - . . , . , . - . - , . - .

8. . , - , ( x), , -, , , - ( y). , -, . (x-y: ). . -. , - , - - . , - . - , , . , , -. , . . , . , . , , . -

, 2/2013

49

( - ) ( ) , , - . , - . , . , . , - .

, (, . 195) , - . - . - . 25 , - . - , . , .

9. - . , , . , . , - . , . bis in idem-a ( ), , - . , . - , , . , . , .

10. - ( ). j - - -. -

25 . , .1435/2010 04.03.2010.

, ... (. 3957)

50

. - .26 -. . o - , ( ) .27 .28 , . .29

(2002) , .30 , . - .31 , -, . . , , .32 .33

- . -. , , . , , , ,

26 . SGB Sozialgesetzbuch, VI. 27 . . 67. No. 3 SGB, VI. 28 . Hein Ktz, Gerhard Wagner, Deliktsrecht, Zehnte neubearbeitete Auflage, Luchter-

hand, Wolters Kluwer Deutscland GMBH, Nnchen, 2006, .19-20, .42-44. 29 . Hein Ktz, Gerhard Wagner, Deliktsrecht, Zehnte neubearbeitete Auflage, Luchter-

hand, Wolters Kluwer Deutschland GMBH, Mnchen, 2006, . 20-21., . 45-47. - . - . , - , . . Ktz-Wagner, Deliktsrecht, op. cit. . 294-295. . 761-766.

30 . . 843. (BGB) Geldrente ( ).. ., Hans Prtting, Gerhard Wegen, Gerd Weinreich, BGB Kommentar, 2. Auflage, Luchterhand, Wolters Kluwer, Neuwied, 2007, . 1650.

31 . . 1. 2. . 843. . 760. . 32 . Hans Prtting, Gerhard Wegen, Gerd Weinreich, BGB Kommentar, 2. Auflage, Luc-

hterhand, Wolters Kluwer, Neuwied, 2007, . 1651. . 4. 5. 33 . . 323. Zivilprozessordnung-a (BRD) .

, 2/2013

51

, .34

, 35 , , - . , , , , -, ( ).36

, .37

, , , ( ) . , - (. 1. .154. . 155., . 2.. 195. ).38

11. . . , , , .39 , , .40 , .41

- (OR 46), - . (OR 45,3).

34 . 13. 02. 2003.. . . 4077/02. 35 . . 1. 2. . 194. . 36 . 07.07. 2006. ., . .867/05. 37 . 13.09.2003. . . .2002/94.. , .1818/2009

24.06.2009.. ,189.. (. 195 197 ) . . , .573/2007. 24. 03. 2009..

38 . , . 1.961/2010., 08.09..2010.. 39 . . . 1. 2. . 45 , in: Code des

Obligations, Cancelerie federale, 2001, . 220. 40 . . 1. . 46. . In: Code des Obliga-

tions, Cancelerie federale, 2001, . 220. 41 . . 2. . 46. . . in: Code des Obli-

gation, Cancelerie federale, 2001, . 220.

, ... (. 3957)

52

, . , , .42

, -, .43 - , , . , - -.44 . - .45 - . () - . .46

V

- (1988). - - , 26. 27. 1988. . , , - . , , - , , , - ,47

42 . Theo Guhl, Das schweizerische Obligationenrecht, 9. Auflage, Bearbeitet von Alfred Koller, Anton K. Schnyder, Jean Nicolas Druey, Schultess, Zrich, 2000, . 68. .66.

43 Bundesgerichtentscheid, Amtliche Sammlung der Entscheidungen des Schweizerischen Bundesgerichts, Lausanne, BGE 117 II 609.

44 . Bundesgericht, in: Aktuelle juristische Praxis, 1999, 1162. 45 BGE (Bundesgerichtliche Entscheidungen), 86 II 7, 104 II 309, 113 II 349. 46 Theo Guhl, Das schweizerische Obligationenrecht, 9. Auflage, Bearbeitet von Alfred

Koller, Anton K. Schnyder, Jean Nicolas Druey, Schultess, Zrich, 2000, . 68. . 67. 47 26.09.1996, . ./96.

, 2/2013

53

VI

12. clausuli rebus sic stantibus ( - ) ,48 - . - . , () - . 49 , re-bus sic stantibus, , , , , . , .50 - , .

, - , , , . , , , , . .51

48 . . 133-136. . 49 . . 196. .

, , - . : ..

50 , . , 14.06. 2003.., . . 1147/01. , -, , , , . 13.09.2003. . . . 1752/84.

51 ., Joef Salma, Obligaciono pravo, Pravni fakultet u Novom Sadu, Novi Sad, 2009, . 615; , , , , 1975., . 7; , , , .5-15; , .425/83 22, IX 1983, , .1/1986,.74.. . 188/4,5 , , - .

, ... (. 3957)

54

, - o .52

, - (. 2. . 195 . 196 ). -, - , .53

VII

,

54 - , - .55

VIII

() -

. , - . , , - , . , , , , . - , . -. : , - -

52 ., oef Salma, Obligaciono pravo, Novi Sad, 2009, . 616; , .425/83, 22, 09.1983, . 1/1884, .15. . .188/1.

53 , .2144/2011 01.09.2011.. 54 . . 197. . -

, , ( ). . 13.09. 2003, . . 5893/95.

55 . 25. 03.2003.., . . 11911/02.

, 2/2013

55

, . , , . , - , - , - , , . , , .

, ... (. 3957)

56

Jzsef Szalma, Academician, DSC, Dr.Hc., Full Professor University of Novi Sad Faculty of Law Novi Sad

Annuity as a Form of Compensation for Future Loss Caused by Torts

Abstract: This paper analyzes annuity, as a periodical obligation, which

can emanate either from a contract, as in the case of maintainance or life an-nuity contract, or from tort. In the latter case, it has the function to provide compensation for future loss, but not in a single payment, which is regularly the consequence of liability for torts. The justification for such successive means of compensation is that by certain types of torts, such as in the case of disability or decreased ability to work, damage does not appear in one given moment, but accrues periodically, as successive future loss. An employee, for example, suffe-ring personal injury, may become disabled to work or their ability to work may decrease, thereby they may earn less than previously. Damage in this case ac-crues each month in the amount of the difference between the wages earned be-fore and after the injury.

The author differentiates between successive annuity, as a rule, and cumu-lative annuity (lump sump), as an exception, justified by special considerations on the side of the injured, such as the need to bear the costs of professional re-training, for example. Regarding the determination of the amount of monthly annuity, the subject of analysis was the method of actuarial calculation, which takes into account both present damage and future loss. Due to the hypothetical nature of some elements of such determination, the law allows a subsequent re-vision of judgement on the amount of annuity, which has become conclusive, if the circumstances concerning the injured personss ability to work has changed substantially in the meantime. For instance, due to the subsequent deterioration of injured persons ability to work, they may earn less or may not earn at all. Such subsequent revision of the judgement does not break through the rules on legal finality of judgements, since the effect of legal finality does not comprise new circumstances of the case. The author supports the standpoint that annuity is an adequate form of compensation for disability or decreased ability to work, since in such case the future loss accrues successively, in monthly differences of wages before and after the injury. Contrarily, by the overall decrease of viabi-lity, causing mental suffering due to impossibility of accomplishing former ca-pabilities (such as the sense of sight, disability of movement), annuity is not a proper form of compensation, since immaterial damage does not emerge perio-dically, but in a single moment and lasts uninterruptedly.

, 2/2013

57

Key words: annuity as a form of compensation for disability to work, suc-cessive annuity, cummulative annuity, contractual annuity and annuity as da-mages, actuarial calculation as a means of determination of the amount of an-nuity, compensation by action for damages accrued in the past, compensation by instruments of social security insurance, right of the social insurance body to reimburse the amount of compensation from the tortfeasor

, ... (. 3957)

58

, 2/2013

59

339.543.6:061.1EU(497.11) doi:10.5937/zrpfns47-4467

,

1

: -

- - , , - , -. : 515/97, 2010/24 , -, . , - ( 2013) - 624/207. -: - .

: , -

, , , .

I

( : )2

1 ( ) .

2 , oj .

, ... (. 5978)

60

. , , - - , - . - , . , , , . - . , - .

- , - : , , , - .

, , . /- .3 , . , , , - : , . - . , .

- - . , - ( ), ,

3 .: Prats F. A. G., Mutal Assistance in Collection of Tax Debts. Intertax, vol. 30/1, 2002, . 60.

, 2/2013

61

, : 515/97 4 - - - 2010/24/ 5 , , , .

- : - , - - , ( : ).

-. : . , . 515/97, 2010/24 (- 2013). , - , 29 , - 2012. 29: .

II

, , - , - .6 . . , -

4 Official Journal of the European Union, L 82, Council Regulation (EC) No 515/97 of 13 March 1997 on mutual assistance between the administrative authorities of the Member States and cooperation between the latter and the Commission to ensure the correct application of the law on customs and agricultural matters, 22. 3. 1997.

5 Official Journal of the European Union, L 84/1, Council Directive 2010/24/EU of 16 March 2010 concerning mutual assistance for the recovery of claims relating to taxes, duties and other measures.

6 .: . 33 (Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union).

, ... (. 5978)

62

,7 28 . - .

() . 450/2008 23. 2008. ( - ) 8 2: , 1: ; ; ; ; ; .

() . 2913/92 12. 1992. - 9 .

- 1997. 10 , - - .

- . , acquis communautaire- . 310 - , - - , .

515/97 - ( : 515/97) - .

7 .: , - : , - , . 1/2012, . 105 106.

8 Regulation (EC) No 450/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 laying down the Community Customs Code (Modernised Customs Code), Official Journal, L 145, 4. 6. 2008. . 164.

9 Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, Official Journal L 302, 19. 10. 1992, . 150.

10 Official Journal of the European Communities, C 024, Convention drawn up the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, on mutual assistance and cooperation betwen cu-stoms administrations (Naples II Convention), 23. 01. 1998, . 222.

, 2/2013

63

2010/24/ - , ( : 2010/24) , , - .

624/2007 - ( 2013) .

515/97, 2010/24 , .11 - , - -, , - . , 515/97, , - , . :12 ; ; ; - ; ; / ; , , , -; ; .

- , , , ( ) 515/97, - .13 , . - .

11 Laurence W. Gormley, EU Law of Free Movement of Goods Customs Union, Oxford, 2009, . 561.

12 .: . 2 515/97. 13 .: . 3 515/97; .: Laurence W. Gormley, op. cit., . 562564.

, ... (. 5978)

64

515/97 - : 1) 2) .

14 -15 16 - , - - , , - - . , , -.17 515/97 , , ( ) - - .

: 1) -, , , - ;18 2) ; 3) - ; 4) - -; 5) .19

14 .: . 413 515/97. 15 -

, .: . 2 (1) 515/97.

16 , .: . 2 (1) 515/97.

17 .: . 4 515/97. 18 .: . 5 515/97. 19 .: . 7 515/97; .: Laurence W. Gormley, op.cit., . 565-566.

, 2/2013

65

- - .20 () . - () .21

, . , . , .22 - ( - ), - - - - .23 - , , , . , - , .

, - - .24 , , -, , , - .25

, - , , -

20 .: Laurence W. Germley, op.cit., . 566. 21 .: . 9, 1 515/97. 22 .: . 9, 2 515/97. 23 .: . 10 515/97. 24 .: . 5 515/97. 25 .: . 12 515/97.

, ... (. 5978)

66

, - , - ( - - ).26 - - , - .27 - - .28

, - - , : , , , , , , . , .29 , , .30

- , , , , - , , - , . - .31 -

26 .: . 14 515/97. 27 .: . 15 515/97. 28 .: . 16 515/97. 29 .: . 17, 1 515/97. 30 .: . 17, 2 515/97. 31 .: . 18, 1 515/97.

, 2/2013

67

, - - . , - .32

, , , - . , , .33

, . , , .34

, - - , 515/97. ( ). , , - , - . - . , - .35 515/97 , , .

32 .: Laurence W. Gormley, op.cit., . 569570. 33 .: . 18, 4 515/97. 34 .: Laurence W. Gormley, op.cit., . 570. 35 .: . 19 515/97.

, ... (. 5978)

68

, 515/97, - , , - . .36 - , , - 515/97 - .37

,38 - - , - , - . , . - , - -. , - , : , , -, , , . . - , - ( -) - .

- . - , , , , -

36 .: . 20 515/97. 37 .: . 21 515/97; .: Laurence W. Gormley, op.cit., . 572573. 38 .: . 2342 515/97.

, 2/2013

69

. - - . - . . , , , - , .

515/97 , -.39 , - , . - 515/97 , . : 1) , 515/97; 2) -; 3) , , - , ; 4) , : 5) , - ; 6) , , 515/97; 7) ; 8) - .

- .

39 .: . 43 515/97.

, ... (. 5978)

70

. -.40

, , 515/97 -, . .41 , , , - . - - .

, , - ( -) . - - . , . .

, , . , 515/97 . - , , - -. , - - . , , - , .

40 .: Laurence W. Gormley, op.cit., . 585, 587 588. 41 .: , 45 515/97.

, 2/2013

71

, - - , - . - , , . .

2010/24, - -. , - , , . - - - . , , - , . - . -. , - ( ), . - . . , - , , - .

: 1) ( ) - - , , ; 2) , - - (EFJP) (EPFRR) ; 3) .

, : 1) , -, - ,

, ... (. 5978)

72

- - ; 2) - ; - .

, , .42

. , 2008/55

, , .43

, : 1) - 44 2) .45

: 1) -,46 ; 47 2) -48 ; - ; ; - ; ; - ; ; ; , - ; , . ; 3) 49

42 .: . 2. 2010/24/. 43 Council Directive 2008/55/EC of 26 May 2008 on mutual assistance for the recovery of

claims relating to certain levies, duties, taxes and other measurs, OJ L 150 10. 2008. 44 .: . 5 2010/24. 45 .: . 6 2010/24. 46 .: . 8 2010/24. 47 .: . 9 2010/24. 48 .: . 1020 2010/24. 49 .: . 2123 2010/24.

, 2/2013

73

; ; , - ; 4) 50 - ; ; ; ; -; 2008/55/; - ( ).

(- 2013), ( 2013) - 624/200751 1. 2008. 31. 2013. (DG TAXUD Directorate General for Taxation and Customs Union). - . , . 28 - . , , , - , - . -: - , -, , , , .52

, ( 2013) - . : 1) - , 2) -

50 .: . 2431 2010/24. 51 .: Laurence W. Gormley, op. cit., . 561. 52 .: 2012, 29: -

, . 4, , http://www.seio.gov.rs ( 23. 2013. ).

, ... (. 5978)

74

, 3) - - . , - : - , , - , .

III

- . , - . - , - . . - - . - , . , , .53 - (-, ) . , , - , (, - - ).

53 , , , , , , , , , , , , , -, , , , , , -, , , .: , : http://www.carina.rs/lat/meunarodna saradnja/Stranice/ Bilateralni sporazumi/asph (- 25. 2013. ).

, 2/2013

75

: - ( ) , .54

- - , , - , - , .

- .55 , 1 . 4 , , - . 2 . 4 - , - , 7 , , - , , , , - , . 1 . 25 - , 2 - - , , .

- - , , ( , ) 1. 2013. . - -

54 , : http://www.carina.rs/lat/meunarodna saradnja/Stranice/ Bilateralni sporazumi/asph (- 25. 2013. ).

55 , . 18/10 111/12.

, ... (. 5978)

76

. - , . , . , . 99 - , - . . 3 - 6 - .56

6, 515/97.

29 57 2012. .58

27. 2009. 2013 2013. .

, - - , , , - , - .

56 .: . 89 .

57 , 29: , -: http/www.seio.gov.rs ( 18. 2013. ).

58 2012. , : http://www.seio.gov.rs ( 23. 2013. ).

, 2/2013

77

IV 515/97, 2010/24,

624/2007, - ( ) - : .

, - . . - , - . - , . , - , - . , , - , - , .

. 99 - -: , - , - - .

, ... (. 5978)

78

Mile Vranje, Ph.D., Full Professor University of Novi Sad Faculty of Law Novi Sad

On cooperation of Customs Administrations in the European Union and Serbia59

Abstract: Cooperation of customs administrations between Member States

of the European Union and cooperation of the Customs Administration of the Republic of Serbia with foreign customs administrations, regarding the efficient exchange of information is, most certainly, one of the important conventional measures for suppressing customs evasion and also a significant measure for increasing the efficiency of customs collection. Problems of information exchan-ge regarding customs in the European Union has been regulated with two main instruments: Council Regulation 515/97, on mutual assistance between the ad-ministrative authorities of the Member States and cooperation between the lat-ter and the Commission to ensure the correct application of the law on customs and agricultural matters and Council Directive 2010/24/EU concerning mutual assistance for the recovery of claims relating to taxes, duties and other measu-res. Additionally, the current multi-year program for customs in the European Union (Customs 2013) is contained in the Decision of the European Parliament and Council 624/207. Problems of information exchange regarding customs in the Republic of Serbia are regulated with one main instrument: Agreement on administrative assistance in customs matters of the Republic of Serbia and other countries.

Key words: cooperation of customs administrations, exchange of informa-tion, customs, European Union, Serbia.

59 This paperwork is a result of the research on the Project Theoretical and practical pro-

blems of creation and implementation of law (EU and Serbia), which is financed by Faculty of Law Novi Sad.

, 2/2013

79

342.7:502/504(094.2) doi:10.5937/zrpfns47-4437

Rodoljub Etinski, Ph.D., Full Professor University of Novi Sad Faculty of Law Novi Sad

SPECIFIC FEATURES OF HUMAN RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY THE AARHUS CONVENTION1

Abstract: The Aarhus Convention legally articulates basic human needs to

live in the environment adequate for human health and well-being and to engage in protection and improvement of the environment. It recognized and protected a general human right to adequate environment and three particular rights in envi-ronmental matters to information, to public participation in decision-making and to justice. The Aarhus Convention introduced innovative approach to human rights protection in relation to transboundary issues and legal standing.

Key words: Aarhus Convention - transboundary issues - legal standing.

1. Introduction The text explores specificities of human rights, guaranteed by the Conven-

tion on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matter, done in Aarhus on 25 June 19982

1 The article has been prepared in the framework of the research project Biomedicine, Pro-tection of Environment and Law No. 179079, finiaced by the Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Serbia. (Rad je pripremljen u okviru projekta Biomedicina, zatita ivotne sre-dine i pravo br. 179079 koji finansira Ministarstvo prosvete i nauke Republike Srbije.)

2 Entered into force on 30 October 2001. Open for signature by state members of the Eco-nomic Commission for Europe, as well as states having consultative status with the Economic Commission for Europe by regional economic integration organizations consisting of states mem-bers of the Economic Commission for Europe and with competence over matters governed by the Convention. There are 46 parties, including the EU. United Nations, Treaty Series , vol. 2161, p. 447. http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?mtdsg_no=XXVII-13&chapter=27&lang=en Text of the Convention is available at http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/pp/ docu-ments/cep43e.pdf

The second Meeting of the Parties, held in Almaty on 2527 May 2005, adopted the amen-dment to the Convention inserting Article 6 bis and Annex I bis on public participation in decisio-ns on deliberate release into the environment and placing on the market of genetically modified organisms. Text is available at http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/documents/2005/ pp/ece/ece.mp.pp.2005.2.add.2.e.pdf

, ... (. 7992)

80

(hereinafter: the Aarhus Convention or the Convention). The Aarhus Conven-tion recognized and protected the general right of every person to live in an en-vironment adequate to his or her health and well-being and three particular rights in environmental matters the right of access to information, the right of public participation in decision-making and the right of access to justice.

The right to an adequate environment has been recognized by constitutions of several countries, but it has not been recognized at international level. Inter-national human rights treaties, except the Aarhus Convention, do not protect the right of everyone to live in an adequate environment. The European Court of Human Rights has accepted that a Contracting State can violate some human rights, including the right to life or the right to privacy and home protection by its acts or failures in the field of environment.3 The Human Rights Committee also found violation of a human right, guaranteed by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by acts a State party taken in environmental field.4

On the other hand, the three particular human rights, protected by the Aar-hus Convention, have been already recognized and protected by international human rights provisions at international level as human rights generally applica-ble in various fields of social life. The right to information is recognized as an element of the freedom of expression, or as a separate human right. The right of public participation in decision-making is protected as an element of the right to participate in the conduct of public affairs. The right of access to justice is uni-versally and generally recognized at international level.

This article argues that the three human rights, as protected by the Aarhus Convention, are distinguished by some specific features related to protected ob-ject, territorial aspect and status of victim, i.e. locus standi.

2. Aarhus Convention

The Aarhus Convention joined human rights and protection of environ-ment. Parties to the Convention have legally recognized a human need for ade-quate environment in the form of human right. However, the purpose of the Convention is also to recognize and encourage a human need for engagement in protection of environment for the benefit of present and future generations. The

For the time being, the amendment has not entered into force. An extraordinary Meeting of the Parties, held in Kiev on 21 May 2003 accepted Protocol

on Pollutant Realise and Transfer Registers. Text is available at http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/ DAM/env/pp/prtr/Protocol%20texts/PRTR_Protocol_e.pdf

The Protocol entered into force on 8 October 2009. 3 See S. aji, Pravo na zdravu ivotnu sredinu i Evropski sud za ljudska prava, Pravni

ivot, br.12, IV/2012, 277-290. I. Krsti, Zatita ivotne sredine u jurisprudenciji Evropskog suda za ljudska prava, Pravni ivot, br. 9, I/ 2012, 645-661

4 Communication No. 167/1984, Lubicon Lake Band v. Canada, Views of 26 March 1990

, 2/2013

81

Aarhus Convention is not based in interdependence of mutual benefits of the parties, i.e. on the principle do ut des. It has been created on the idea of interna-tional solidarity for the advancement of common values, such as protection of environment, democracy and the rule of law. Progress of each party in achieve-ment of the goals of the Convention results in particular benefit for the party first and then in general benefit for present and future generations. In fact, the Aarhus Convention may be sorted to human rights field and to environmental field equally.

The Aarhus Convention has established minimal standards in respect of the three rights. Article 3(5) allows each party to ensure more.5 The Convention requires implementation in national law. Article 3(1) of the Convention obliges each party to take legislative, regulatory and other measures to implement the Convention.

Article 10 of the Convention provides that Meeting of the Parties has to be held regularly once in each two years and that it will review the implementation of the Convention on the basis of regular reporting by the Parties. The Meeting of the Parties is empowered by Article 15 of the Convention to establish optio-nal arrangements of a non-confrontational, non-judicial and consultative natu-re for reviewing compliance with the provisions of this Convention which will be accessible to the public, enable appropriate public involvement and may in-clude the option of considering communications from members of the public on matters related to the Convention. By Decision I/7 the first Meeting of Parties, held in Lucca, on 21-23 October 2002, established the Compliance Committee and empowered it to consider communications of parties, members of the public and the Secretariat concerning the partys compliance with the Convention and to express its findings and recommendations. A party may opt out of this conci-liatory procedure for a period of not more than four years. The Compliance Committee summarized its practice in Case Law of the Aarhus Convention.6

Disputes on interpretation or application of the Convention have to be re-solved by negotiations between parties or by other means acceptable for the par-ties. Judicial means the International Court of Justice and arbitration are op-tional and may be selected by signing, ratifying or acceding to the Convention.7

5 By Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and the Council of 6 Sep-tember 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Inform-ation, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies the EU provided, for example, a broader scope of the right of access to information than required by the Aarhus Convention.

6 Case Law of the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee (2004-2011) second ed. A. Andrusevych, T. Alge, C. Konrad (eds), RACSE, Lviv, 2011

7 See further on the Aarhus Convention in B. Tubi, Polje primene Arhuske konvencije, Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta u Novom Sadu, vol. 45, 2/2011, 383-393

, ... (. 7992)

82

The Convention has introduced genuinely new legal concepts and parties must have been worried about possible consequences for their internal econo-mies. They were very careful in shaping the rights and compliance controlling mechanism. The Compliance Committee is itself very careful in controlling compliance of parties with the Convention.

3. Human Rights Protected by the Aarhus Convention

The Aarhus Convention protects a general right to adequate environment and three particular rights to information, to participation in decision-making and to justice in environmental matters. Article 1 of the Convention states:

In order to contribute to the protection of the right of every person of pre-sent and future generations to live in an environment adequate to his or her health and well-being, each Party shall guarantee the rights of access to infor-mation, public participation in decision-making, and access to justice in envi-ronmental matters in accordance with the provisions of this Convention.

Articles 4 and 5 of the Convention relate to environmental information. Article 4 determines an obligation of a party to extend environmental informa-tion upon a request of the public. Article 5 establishes obligations of parties in respect to collection and dissemination of environmental information.

Articles 6, 7 and 8 are devoted to public participation in decision-making relevant for protection of environment. Article 6 defines the right of public par-ticipation in decision-making regarding permission for performing activities li-sted in Annex I. The Annex contains a long list of activities in various economic sectors, such as energy, production and processing of metals or metal industry. The energy sector includes, for example, mineral oil and gas refineries, thermal and nuclear power stations, etc. Article 7 regulates public participation concer-ning plan, programmes and policies relating to the environment. Article 8 is re-lated to public participation during the preparation of executive regulations and/or generally applicable legally binding normative instruments.

Article 9 of the Convention guarantees the right to justice in environmental matters. It secures an access to review procedures judicial or administrative. Article 9 actually covers three separate rights. Article 9(1) provides the public, who has requested environmental information, with an access to review proce-dure to control whether a party was complying with Article 4 of the Convention in its treatment of the request. Article 9(2) provides the concerned public with an access to review procedures to challenge the procedural and substantive lega-lity of any decision permitting or denying performance of activity listed in An-nex I. Article 9(3) provides the public with an access to administrative or judi-cial procedures to challenge acts or omissions of private persons and public aut-horities which contravene national law of a party relating to the environment.

, 2/2013

83

All three particular rights are complex and include several entitlements which differ according to their subject-matters and holders. Besides, some of them are overlapping, such as the right to information and the right of public participation in decision-making. The last includes a variant of the previous.

4. Protected Object and Content of the Right to Adequate Environment

in the Aarhus Convention The objects protected by human rights are certain values, such as human

dignity, life or privacy. The Aarhus Convention added to these values a new one an adequate environment for human health and well-being.

By recital 6 of the preamble of the Aarhus Convention the parties recogni-zed that adequate protection of the environment is essential to human well-being and the enjoyment of basic human rights... By the following recital 7 they recognized that every person has the right to live in an environment adequate to his or her health and well-being. However, the recital continues: and duty, both individually and in associations with others, to protect and improve of the envi-ronment for the benefit of present and future generations... In recital 9 the par-ties stated that the three particular rights contribute to public awareness of envi-ronmental issues, give the public the opportunity to express its concerns and enable public authorities to take due account of such concerns...

By formulation of a duty of a person that individually and in association with others protects and improves the environment not only for his or her perso-nal benefit but also for the benefit of present and future generations, definition of the human right to adequate environment differs from standard approach to human rights. A human right is generally determined as a personal entitlement of an individual and corresponding obligation of a State. A State is obliged to satisfy the entitlement or to create necessary legal framework that will enable its satisfaction. Fulfilling this obligation, a State can impose certain obligations to individuals to respect human rights. Unlike other human rights treaties, the Aar-hus Convention provides for a duty of an individual in respect of the environ-ment. In the context of the Convention, a person can perform the duty to protect and improve the environment by using the three rights to be informed on envi-ronmental issues, to participate in decision-making and to employ justice to pro-tect environment. Indeed, recital 9 of the preamble of the Convention states that the three rights are contributing to public awareness of environmental issues and give the public opportunity to express its concerns.

The protected object of the right to adequate environment, as formulated in the Aarhus Convention, is an adequate environment for human health and well-being. The content of the right is complex. It includes the entitlement of any person to enjoy environment adequate to his or her health and well-being.

, ... (. 7992)

84

It includes, also, the duty of any person to engage individually or in association with others in protection and improvements of the environment. On the other hand, a party to the Aarhus Convention is under obligation to provide a person with means to protect himself or herself from a change of environment detri-mental for health and well-being. Equally, a party is obliged to provide a person with means enabling him or her to protect and improve the environment for the benefit of present and future generations.

The three particular human rights, elaborated in the Aarhus Convention serve for realization of the general right to adequate environment.

5. Transboundary Element of the Human Rights as Protected

by the Aarhus Convention Human rights treaties construct a human right as a legal relationship bet-

ween a State and an individual under its territorial jurisdiction. Article 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights obliges Contracting Parties to secure to everyone under their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in the Euro-pean Convention. Similarly, Article 2(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights obliges each State Party to respect and to ensure to all indi-viduals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the Covenant. The European Court of Human Rights interpreted the phrase everyone under their jurisdiction to mean everyone on the territory of a Con-tracting Party.8 Consequently, an effect of an act of a State to an individual on the territory of another State is beyond human rights regulation.

The Aarhus Convention introduced a transboundary element in the protec-tion of human rights. The preamble of the Convention refers inter alia to rele-vant provisions of the Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context, done at Espoo on 25 February 1991 (hereinafter: the Espoo Convention). The Espoo Convention articulates a cooperation of Con-tracting Parties, i. e. a Party of origin and an affected Party in environmental im-pact assessment procedures. Party of origin" is a contracting party under whose jurisdiction a proposed activity is envisaged to take place. "Affected Party" is a contracting party likely to be affected by the transboundary impact of a propo-sed activity. Some elements of the right of public participation in decision-ma-king in a transboundary context are elaborated by the Espoo Convention.

According to Article 3(8) of the Espoo Convention, involved parties are obliged to ensure that the public of the affected Party in the areas likely to be affected be informed of, and be provided with possibilities for making comments

8 Bankovic v. Belgium (App. No. 52207/99) Decision of the Grand Chamber of 12 Decem-ber 2001

, 2/2013

85

or objections on, the proposed activity, and for the transmittal of these com-ments or objections to the competent authority of the Party of origin, either di-rectly to this authority or, where appropriate, through the Party of origin. They are obliged, in accordance to Article 4(2) of the Espoo Convention to arrange for distribution of the documentation to... the public of the affected Party in the areas likely to be affected and for the submission of comments to the competent authority of the Party of origin, either directly to this authority or, where appro-priate, through the Party of origin within a reasonable time before the final de-cision is taken on the proposed activity. Article 6(1) of the Espoo Convention obliges a Party of origin to take into account the comments and objection of the public of an affected Party, when making a final decision on the proposed acti-vity. Besides, Article 2 of the Espoo Convention envisages that a Party of origin has to provide an opportunity to the public in the areas likely to be affected to participate in relevant environmental impact assessment procedures regarding proposed activities and shall ensure that the opportunity provided to the public of the affected Party is equivalent to that provided to the public of the Party of origin.

The Aarhus Convention is applicable to transboundary relationships. NGO, based in Austria, the Global 2000/Friends of the Earth Austria submitted a communication to the Compliance Committee in 2009, alleging that Slovakia was in breach of Article 6 of the Aarhus Convention, since it had not provided for public participation in decision-making process for the construction permits related to some units of Mochovce nuclear plant.9 The Compliance Committee found in 2011 that by failing to provide for early and effective public participa-tion in the decision-making leading to the ... decisions...concerning Mochovce NPP, the Party concerned failed to comply with Article 6 paragraphs 4 and 10, of the Convention.10

By the same communication this Austrian NGO alleged that Slovakia had been in breach of Article 9 (2,3 and 4) of the Aarhus Convention since, due to restricting rules on standing in Slovakian law, it was not possible to appeal against different decisions. Since a relevant case was pending before national court, the Compliance Committee decided not to consider the claim related to Article 9, waiting for the outcome of the pending case.11 In 2012 Bratislava re-

9 Communication ACCC/C/2009/41, 28.07.2009. available at http://www.unece.org/env/pp/ compliance/Compliancecommittee/41TableSlovakia.html 26.08. 2013.

10 Findings and recommendations with regard to communication ACCC/C/2009/41concer-ning compliance by Slovakia, adopted by the Compliance Committee on 17 December 2010, p. 12, para 69, available at http://www.unece.org/env/pp/compliance/Compliancecommittee/4 1TableSlovakia.html 26.08. 2013.

11 Findings and recommendations with regard to communication ACCC/C/2009/41, p. 8, para 47

, ... (. 7992)

86

gional court dismissed a complaint concerning the review of disputed decisions. Together with two other Slovak NGOs, the Austrian NGO submitted a new communication to the Compliance Committee in 2012, alleging again that Slo-vakia had been in breach of Article 9(2,3 and4) of the Aarhus Convention.12 The Compliance Committee found in 2013 that the communication was admissi-ble.13 Obviously, the Compliance Committee considers that the Austrian NGO enjoys the rights protected by Aarhus Convention in respect to Slovakia.

A special feature of human rights, protected by the Aarhus Convention, is that they include transboundary element. They cannot be defined exclusively as a legal relationship between a State and an individual under its territorial juris-diction, since they cover legal relationships of a State and individuals beyond its territorial jurisdiction. The parties to the Aarhus Convention have recognized the fact that their acts or omissions in environmental matters can produce effects beyond the national borders and attributed to the fact proper legal consequences.

6. Status of Victims and Legal Standing in the Aarhus Convention

International procedures provide protection for victims of human rights violation. The status of victim is a prerequisite of legal standing in domestic proceedings. Article 34 of the European Convention on Human Rights states: The Court may receive applications from any person, non-governmental organi-sation or group of individuals claiming to be the victim of a violation by one of the High Contracting Parties of the rights set forth in the Convention or the pro-tocols thereto. Article 1 of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides: A State Party to the Covenant that becomes a Party to the present Protocol recognizes the competence of the Committee to re-ceive and consider communications from individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by that State Party of any of the rights set forth in the Covenant. Status of victim denotes that an individual was personally affected by violation of human right. The European Court of Human Rights in-terprets Article 34 of the European Convention broadly and flexibly. The Court has differentiated direct, indirect and potential victims. Direct victim is an indi-vidual affected directly by violation of human right. Indirect victim is an indivi-dual affected by injury inflected on other person, due to a personal and specific link between two persons. It may be a spouse, member of family or close relati-ve of an injured person, especially when the injured person is not able to institu-te or continue proceedings before the Court. Status of a potential victim presup-

12 Communication ACCC/C/20013/89, available at http://www.unece.org/env/pp/ compli-ance/compliancecommittee/89tableslovakia.html, 26.08. 2013.

13 Determination on admissibility, 28. 06. 2013. http://www.unece.org/env/pp/ compli-ance/compliancecommittee/89tableslovakia.html, 26.08. 2013.

, 2/2013

87

poses the existence of a high probability that an individual has been affected or could be affected by violation of human right. Serious environm