Abstract

The right to peaceful enjoyment of property is a first-generation human right, protected by the international and domestic law of the highest rank. This is not an absolute right - the European standards of protecting property rights allow possible interferences prescribed by law. The interferences can be made in the public interest but only under the assumption that the proportionality between the public interest and property rights of individuals at stake is established. Forfeiture of undeclared cash the individuals are transferring across state borders, together with imposing fines for a misdemeanor, represent an interference with individuals' property rights. The EU Member States do not share an identical system of sanctions for this petty offense, but there is a tendency of unification related to the monitoring, registering, and sanctioning of undeclared, cross-border, individual cash transfer. The case-law of the European Court of Human Rights has established rather precise criteria for distinguishing permitted from unpermitted interferences in cases of undeclared cross-border cash transfers. The Serbian Constitutional Court has been faced with several constitutional complaints regarding alleged unconstitutionally of the imposed security measure amounting to the forfeiture of undeclared cash physically transferred across the state borders. The Constitutional Court has ruled inconsistently on the matter. Although it has regularly referred to the European Court of Human Rights' relevant decisions, it fails to be consistent in following the Strasbourg Court's rulings. In this article, the author has suggested that the legal certainty principle requires the Constitutional Court to consistently interpret the constitutional rights and be systematic in following Strasbourg. Only in this way, the Constitutional Court can help regular courts effectively to harmonize the interpretation and application of laws with the constitutional and international human rights standards regarding property rights.

Highlights

  • The right to peaceful enjoyment of property is a first-generation human right, protected by the international and domestic law of the highest rank. This is not an absolute right – the European standards of protecting property rights allow possible interferences prescribed by law

  • The interferences can be made in the public interest but only under the assumption that the proportionality between the public interest and property rights of individuals at stake is established

  • Forfeiture of undeclared cash the individuals are transferring across state borders, together with imposing fines for a misdemeanor, represent an interference with individuals’ property rights

Read more

Summary

PREGLEDNI NAUČNI ČLANAK

PRAVO NA MIRNO UŽIVANJE IMOVINE I ZAŠTITNA MERA ODUZIMANJE GOTOVOG NOVCA U PRAKSI USTAVNOG SUDA SRBIJE: IZVESNA NEIZVESNOST. Manja novca bitno i to da li je promet gotovog novca preko granice dozvoljen i da li se prestup fizičkog lica sastoji isključivo od propusta da prijavi prenos gotovog novca ili je postupak pokrenut i zbog nekog težeg delikta (pranje novca, finansiranje krivičnih aktivnosti, utaja poreza itd.).[60] ESLJP posebno ukazuje i na značaj činjenice da li je država pretrpela neku konkretnu materijalnu štetu izvršenjem prestupa.[61] Od uvođenja ovih merila, Ustavni sud direktno insistira na razmatranju porekla oduzetog novca, ali uvodi i novi kriterijum, način prenošenja i skrivanja nađenog neprijavljenog novca, što za ESLJP, u citiranim presudama, ne predstavlja bitan faktor prilikom utvrđivanja ravnoteže, za razliku od iznosa oduzetog novca i pitanja dvostrukog sankcionisanja za isto delo (kazna i oduzimanje novca kao sankcije za isto delo). Ovakav jasan stav Ustavnog suda bi, s jedne strane, jasno ukazao prekršajnim sudovima da u slučaju postojanja ovih okolnosti, primena Zakona o deviznom poslovanju u skadu sa Ustavom RS zahteva od njih izricanje zaštitne mere delimičnog oduzimanja gotovog novca, dok, s druge strane, i dalje ostavlja prekršajnim sudovima prostor za slobodnu sudijsku ocenu u tome, da na osnovu konkretnih okolnosti slučaja, odrede konkretnu sumu gotovog novca koja će se vratiti izvršiocu prekršaja

OPASNOST ZA PRAVNU SIGURNOST
PRAKSA USTAVNOG SUDA REPUBLIKE SRBIJE
PRAKSA EVROPSKOG SUDA ZA LJUDSKA PRAVA I SUDA PRAVDE EVROPSKE UNIJE
Ostali izvori
SUMMARY
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call