en pl
en pl

Krytyka Prawa. Niezależne Studia nad Prawem

Show issue
Year 2022 
Volume 14 
Issue 3

Public Prosecution Service in Slovakia and in the Czech Republic: Common Roots, Different Paths (A Comparative Legal Analysis)

Bystrík Šramel

2022 14 (3) Krytyka Prawa. Niezależne Studia nad Prawem

DOI 10.7206/kp.2080-1084.546

Article contents

Abstract

Public prosecution service has an irreplaceable place in the system of state authorities. However, the years of authoritarian regimes transformed independent public prosecution authorities existing on the territory of Slovakia and the Czech Republic into authorities protecting primarily the regime and persecuting all persons who were non-compliant with this regime. It was not until the fall of Communism in 1989 that a change came – a return to the original mission of public prosecution service (the independent protection of law). However, after the division of the Czechoslovakia in 1993 opinion plurality and the lack of a clear opinion on the nature of the public prosecution service resulted in the creation of two relatively different models – the model of prokuratúra in Slovakia and the model of státní zastupitelství in the Czech Republic. This is the reason why the author of this paper deals with the constitutional status of public prosecution service in the Czech Republic and Slovakia. He analyses public prosecution service as a constitutional institution in general and then by comparison he focuses on constitutional regulation of the Slovak and Czech public prosecution service. The final parts contain brief evaluation of the current legal status and some possible considerations de constitutione ferenda.

References

  1. Alman T., Possibilities of the Public to Influence Decision-Making of Local Self-Government Bodies, “Political Science Forum” 2020, 9(2). [Google Scholar]
  2. Belov S., Partlett W., Troitskaya A., Socialist Constitutional Legacies, “Russian Law Journal” 2021, 2. [Google Scholar]
  3. Beneč Š., Ústavné postavenie prokuratúry, “Právny obzor” 1995, 5. [Google Scholar]
  4. Bröstl A. et al., Ústavné právo SR, Plzeň 2010. [Google Scholar]
  5. Čentéš J., Prokuratúra v Slovenskej republike – ústavné limity a pôsobnosť v trestnej oblasti, “Státní zastupitelství” 2008, 11–12. [Google Scholar]
  6. Čentéš J., Beleš A., Regulation of Agent as a Tool for Combating Organized Crime, “Journal of Security and Sustainability Issues” 2018, 2. [Google Scholar]
  7. Čentéš J., Krajčovič M., Consideration of the Effectiveness of Flat-Rate Compensation for Damage in Insolvency Proceedings, “Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues” 2019, 2. [Google Scholar]
  8. Čič M., Komentár k Ústave Slovenskej republiky, Bratislava 2013. [Google Scholar]
  9. Deset M., Klimek L., What Do We Need to Resolve After Establishing the European Public Prosecutor’s Office in the Slovak Republic?, “Slovak Journal of Political Sciences” 2021, 1. [Google Scholar]
  10. Drgonec J., Ústava Slovenskej republiky – Komentár, Šamorín 2012. [Google Scholar]
  11. Fenyk J., Veřejná žaloba. Díl první: Historie, současnost a možný vývoj veřejné žaloby, Praha [Google Scholar]
  12. Fenyk J., Nezávislý státní zástupce?, “Trestní právo” 1996, 9. [Google Scholar]
  13. Funta R., Základné práva v EÚ. Európa a Európske Právo, Bratislava 2016. [Google Scholar]
  14. Gábriš T., The Legacy of Socialist Constitutionalism in Slovakia: The Right of the Slovak Nation [Google Scholar]
  15. to Self-Determination, “Russian Law Journal” 2021, 2. [Google Scholar]
  16. Henderson J., Socialist Constitutional Legacies in Regional Constitutions and Charters in Russia, “Russian Law Journal” 2021, 2. [Google Scholar]
  17. Ikrényi P., Jakubcová L., Ústavný zákon č. 357/2004 Z. z. o ochrane verejného záujmu pri výkone funkcií verejných funkcionárov – Komentár, Bratislava 2020. [Google Scholar]
  18. Ivor J. et al., Trestné právo procesné, Bratislava 2010. [Google Scholar]
  19. Kantorová M., Vývoj právnej úpravy trestných činov korupcie v Slovenskej republike. Metamorfózy práva ve střední Evropě, Plzeň 2018. [Google Scholar]
  20. Klíma K. et al., Komentář k Ústavě a Listině, Plzeň 2005. [Google Scholar]
  21. Mihálik J., Šramel B., Constitutional and Legal Foundations for Local Self-Government Law-Making: Does the Slovak Republic Need More Precise Legal Regulation?, “Lex Localis” 2019, 3. [Google Scholar]
  22. Mihálik J., Šramel B., Supervision of Public Prosecution Service Over Public Administration: The Case Study of Slovakia, “Public Policy and Administration” 2018, 2. [Google Scholar]
  23. Prusák J., Teória práva, Bratislava 1999. [Google Scholar]
  24. Šabata K., Prokuratura nebo státní zastupitelství? (stručné srovnání státního zastupitelství v České republice a prokuratury ve Slovenské republice), “Státní zastupitelství” 2008, 11–12. [Google Scholar]
  25. Schelle K. et al., Státní zastupitelství, Praha 2002. [Google Scholar]
  26. Šramel B., Moderné trendy v oblasti organizácie verejnej žaloby: Nezávislosť, “Justičná revue” 2012, 11. [Google Scholar]
  27. Šramel B., Netrestná pôsobnosť prokuratúry SR – nutnosť alebo prežitok?, “Justičná revue” 2012, 9. [Google Scholar]
  28. Šramel B., Horváth P., Machyniak J., Peculiarities of Prosecution and Indictment of the President of the Slovak Republic: Is Current Legal regulation Really Sufficient?, “Social Sciences: Open Access Journal” 2019, 3. [Google Scholar]
  29. Šramel B., Machyniak J., Guťan D., Slovak Criminal Justice and the Philosophy of Its Privatization: An Appropriate Solution of Problems of Slovak Justice in the 21st Century?, “Social Sciences: Open Access Journal” 2020, 2. [Google Scholar]
  30. Stolitnii A., The Adversarial System in the Criminal Process of Ukraine: Technical and Legal Aspects, “Russian Law Journal” 2019, 1. [Google Scholar]
  31. Svák J., Organizácia a činnosť orgánov ochrany práva, Bratislava 1995. [Google Scholar]
  32. Svák J., Cibulka Ľ., Ústavné právo Slovenskej republiky. Osobitná časť, Bratislava 2009. [Google Scholar]
  33. Tomeš M., Ústavní postavení státního zastupitelství – zamyšlení nad základními principy jeho činnosti, “Státní zastupitelství” 2008, 11–12. [Google Scholar]
  34. Zoulík F., Poznámky k postavení prokuratury, “Právní praxe” 1993, 3. [Google Scholar]

Full metadata record

Cite this record

APA style

Šramel, Bystrík (2022). Public Prosecution Service in Slovakia and in the Czech Republic: Common Roots, Different Paths (A Comparative Legal Analysis). (2022). Public Prosecution Service in Slovakia and in the Czech Republic: Common Roots, Different Paths (A Comparative Legal Analysis). Krytyka Prawa. Niezależne Studia Nad Prawem, 14(3), 149–167. https://doi.org/10.7206/kp.2080-1084.546 (Original work published 2022)

MLA style

Šramel, Bystrík. “Public Prosecution Service In Slovakia And In The Czech Republic: Common Roots, Different Paths (A Comparative Legal Analysis)”. 2022. Krytyka Prawa. Niezależne Studia Nad Prawem, vol. 14, no. 3, 2022, pp. 149–167.

Chicago style

Šramel, Bystrík. “Public Prosecution Service In Slovakia And In The Czech Republic: Common Roots, Different Paths (A Comparative Legal Analysis)”. Krytyka Prawa. Niezależne Studia Nad Prawem, Krytyka Prawa. Niezależne Studia nad Prawem, 14, no. 3 (2022): 149–167. doi:10.7206/kp.2080-1084.546.

Copyright info

copyright info

CC-BY

People also read: