Vreme i kauzalnost bitnog saizvršilačkog doprinosa

Abstract

Prema srpskom Krivičnom zakoniku (čl. 33), saizvršilac nije samo onaj ko zajednički sa drugima izvrši krivično delo učestvovanjem u radnji izvršenja, već i onaj ko ostvarujući zajedničku odluku drugom radnjom sa umišljajem bitno doprinese izvršenju dela. Najveći problemi primene ove odredbe tiču se upravo mogućnosti da se saizvršilački doprinos ostvari i nekom drugom radnjom koja ne predstavlja radnju izvršenja. S tim u vezi, postavlja se i pitanje da li ovaj bitan doprinos mora biti pružen u vreme izvršenja dela, ili može nastupiti i u stadijumu njegovog pripremanja. Takođe, nejasno je ida li svaki saizvršilac mora kauzalno sadoprineti nastupanju posledice dela, ili je moguće da takav kauzalni doprinos i izostane. Autor analizira pitanja vremena saizvršilaštva i problematiku kumulativnog i alternativnog saizvršilaštva, naročito uzimajući u obzir prodor teorije vlasti nad delom u našoj teoriji i praksi.

According to the Serbian Criminal Code (Article 33), a co-perpetrator is not only a person who takes part in committing a criminal offense with others by participating in its execution, but also a person who with intent, and carrying out a jointly made decision, significantly contributes to the commission of the offense. Some of the problems concerning the application of this provision refer to the element of significance of the contribution. In this respect, the question arises whether the significant contribution must be provided at the time when the offense is being committed or it may occur in the stage of its preparation. Although the advocates of the theory of control over the act (Tatherrschaft) mostly believe that co-perpetration is possible only at the time of the commission of a crime, our jurisprudence does not share this view. Also, it is unclear whether each co-perpetrator must cause the consequence of the offense, or if it is possible that such a causal contribution fails to occur. Even here we cannot claim that the provision of Article 33 of the Criminal Code can be interpreted exclusively in the direction which requires that significant contribution represents a condicio sine qua non of the offense. The author analyzes the timing issues of co-perpetration and issues of cumulative and alternative co-perpetration, especially taking into account the theory of control over the act in Serbian doctrine and practice.