Article
Jun 30
Back

WHETHER THE RIGHT OF PURSUIT IS CONSTITUTIONAL PROPERTY INTEREST PROTECTIBLE AGAINST THE STATE II PART

Nenad Tešić

10.51204/Anali_PFUB_18204A
ABSTRACT /

The author, in this paper, is looking for Ariadne’s thread, which would help us to find the way through the legal labyrinth composed of justified reaction of the state in the war against organized crime, from one side and what is considered an appropriate protection of secured creditor’s subjective rights, from the other side.

He points out that in resolving a dilemma, does the mortgagee have the right to enforce its debt against the Republic of Serbia (right of pursuit), in case if the extended confiscation of property (proceeds of crime) includes subject-matter of mortgage, the court should take into account does the mortgagee know or should know about criminal origins of encumbered assets.

The court should evaluate a good faith of the mortgagee, bearing in mind all the circumstances of the case, especially:

1)  The moment of a mortgage establishment, i.e. whether the registration of mortgage is prior in time to the initiation of a property freezing procedure;

2)  Overall business and other relations between mortgagee and mortgagor, i.e. are these parties associated in any other way?

3)  Objective changes in the economic position of mortgagee and mortgagor, i.e.is the security agreement true or simulated, in particular, whether the value of the secured claim actually enhanced the property of the mortgagor and at what consideration.

DOWNLOAD COMPLETE ARTICLE /
Serbian (cyr)  
REFERENCES /
  • Boucht, J., „Extended Confiscation and the Proposed Directive on Freezing and Confiscation of Criminal Proceeds in the EU: On Striking a Balance between Efficiency, Fairness and Legal Certainty“, European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice 21(2)/2013.
    https://doi.org/10.1163/15718174-21022024
  • Carss-Frisk, M., The right to property, A guide to the implementation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Europe-an Convention on Human Rights, Human rights handbooks, No. 4, Council of Europe, Strasbourg 2001.
  • Council of Europe, European Court of Human Rights, Practical Guide on Admissibility Criteria, Strasbourg 2014.
  • Fukumi, S., Cocaine Trafficking in Latin America: EU and US Policy Responses, Ashgate Publishing, Aldershot – Burlington 2008.
  • Gluščević, J., Oduzimanje imovine stečene krivičnim delom, doktorska disertacija, Pravni fakultet Univerziteta „Union“ u Beogradu, Beograd 2015.
  • Golay, Ch., Cismas, I., „Legal Opinion: The Right to Property from a Human Rights Perspective“, 2010, https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1635359, 28. jun 2017.
  • Govedarica, M., Vujić, D., „Uporednopravni sistemi oduzimanja nezakonite imovine sagledani kroz odluke Evropskog suda za ljudska prava“, Pravna riječ 33/2012.
  • Grgić, A. et al., The right to property under the European Convention on Human Rights, A guide to the implemen-tation of the European Convention on Human Rights and its protocols, Human rights handbooks, No. 10, Council of Europe, Strasbourg 2007.
  • Hiber, D., Živković, M., Obezbeđenje i učvršćenje potraživanja, Beograd 2015.
  • King, C., Walker, C. (eds.), Dirty Assets: Emerging Issues in the Regulation of Criminal and Terrorist Assets, Routledge, Abingdon – New York 2014.
  • Kommers, D., The Constitutional Jurisprudence of the Federal Republic of Germany, II edition, Duke University Press, London 1997.
  • Kommers, D. P., Miller, R. A., The Constitutional Jurisprudence of the Federal Republic of Germany, III edition, Revised and Expanded, Duke University Press, Durham – London 2012.
    https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822395386
  • Krane, J. A., Civil Forfeiture and the Canadian Constitution, University of Toronto, Toronto 2010.
  • Matthews, M., „Civil Asset Forfeiture and the Constitution“, Institute for Policy Innovation Ideas 70/2016, http://www.ipi.org/docLib/20160218_CivilAssetForfeitureFinal.pdf, 28. jun 2017.
  • Levy, L. W., A License to Steal: The Forfeiture of Property, The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill 1996.
  • Nelson, S., „The Constitutionality of Civil Forfeiture“, Yale Law Journal 125(8)/2016.
  • Nikšić, S., „Imovina u građanskom pravu“, Zbornik Pravnog fakulteta u Zagrebu 62(5–6)/2012.
  • Panov, S., „O zajedničkoj svojini u braku“, Anali Pravnog fakul­teta u Beogradu 1–3/98.
  • Pavlović, Đ., Hipotekarno pravo u Kneževini Srbiji, Beograd 1868.
  • Povlakić, M., „Stvarnopravno osiguranje kredita u Bosni i Hercegovini“, Stvarnopravno uređenje u tranzicijskim zemljama, Stanje i perspektive (red. T. Josipović), Zagreb 2009.
  • Pradel, Ž., Komparativno krivično pravo, Sankcije, Pravni fakul­tet Univerziteta u Beogradu, Beograd 2009.
  • Radić, D., Imovinski odnosi u braku, Banja Luka 2016. (Radić, D., Imovinski odnosi u braku, Banja Luka 2016)
  • Savona, E. (ed.), Responding to Money Laundering: International Perspectives, Amsterdam 1997.
  • Stojanović, Z., Kolarić, D., Krivičnopravno suzbijanje organizovanog kriminaliteta, terorizma i korupcije, Beo-grad 2014.
  • Stone, J. R., The Routledge Dictionary of Latin Quotations: The Illiterati’s Guide to Latin Maxims, Mottoes, Prov-erbs, and Sayings, Routledge, New York – London 2005.
  • Tešić, N., „O zajedničkoj imovini supružnika“, Pravni život 10/2006.
  • Van Der Walt, A. J., „Civil forfeiture of instrumentalities and proceeds of crime and the constitutional property clause“, South African Journal on Human Rights 16(1)/2000.
    https://doi.org/10.1080/02587203.2000.11827587
  • Vettori, B., Tough on Criminal Wealth – Exploring the Practice of Proceeds from Crime Confiscation in the EU, Dordrecht 2006.
  • Young, S. N. M. (ed.), Civil Forfeiture of Criminal Property: Legal Measures for Targeting the Proceeds of Crime, Cheltenham – Northampton 2009.