Part I
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Chapter II
THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS
1.Subject matter jurisdiction and composition of the courts
Subject matter jurisdiction of the criminal court
Article 23
The courts shall adjudicate all cases within the limits of their subject matter jurisdiction prescribed by the law.
The composition of the Chambers of Judges and the functional
Jurisdiction of the court
Article 24
(1) First instance courts sit in chambers of two judges and three lay judges when adjudicating criminal offences punishable by imprisonment for a term of thirty years or more severe punishment, and in chambers of one judge and two lay judges when considering criminal offences punishable by a lenient punishment. A Single Judge shall adjudicate in the first instance when special provisions on summary proceedings are applicable, as well as for criminal offenses punishable with up to eight years of imprisonment.
(2) Second and third instance courts sit in chambers of five judges when considering criminal offences punishable by imprisonment for a term of thirty years or more severe punishment and in chambers of three judges when considering criminal offences punishable by a lenient punishment.
(3) At a trial at second instance the court shall sit in a chamber of two judges and three lay judges, i.e. three judges if judgment is being rendered in accordance with Article 412 paragraph 5 of the present Code.
(4) In preliminary investigation and investigation, the Investigative Judge of the first instance court shall participate in accordance with the present Code.
(5) The President of the Court and the President of the Chamber shall decide in cases envisaged by the present Code.
(6) First instance courts sit in a chamber of three judges when deciding on appeals against rulings of the Investigative Judge and other rulings when prescribed by the present Code, render decisions in the first instance outside the trial, conduct the proceedings and render a judgment in accordance with the provisions of Article 511 paragraphs 2 to 6 of the present Code and make motions in cases as provided by the present Code or other law.
(7) The chamber composed of three judges shall adjudicate in first instance in the proceedings for criminal offenses of organized crime and criminal offenses against humanity and other rights protected by international law, while in the second instance a chamber shall consist of five judges.
(8) The provisions of the present Code referring to the rights and obligations of the President of the Chamber and the trial chamber shall consequently be applied to a Single Judge when he, in compliance with the provisions of the present Code, conducts the criminal proceeding.
(9) The court shall decide on requests for the protection of legality in a chamber consisting of three judges, and in a chamber consisting of five judges when deciding on requests for the protection of legality against the decision of the chamber of that court due to violation of the law.
(10) Unless otherwise provided by the present Code, the higher instance courts shall also decide in a chamber consisting of three judges in cases not envisaged in previous paragraphs of the present Article.
2. Territorial jurisdiction
General rules on determining territorial jurisdiction
Article 25
(1) As a rule, the court within whose territory the criminal offense is committed shall have jurisdiction. It shall be considered that the criminal offense is committed both in the place where the perpetrator acted or was obligated to act, as well as the place where the consequence, entirely or partly, occurred. In cases of attempted criminal offense, the jurisdiction belongs to the court of the territory on which the last act was committed or omitted, and if the last act was committed or omitted outside the territory of the Republic of Serbia, it falls under the jurisdiction of the
court of the territory on which the consequence of a criminal offense should have occurred.
(2) If the criminal offence is committed within the territory of several courts or on their border, or if it is uncertain within which territory the offence has been committed, the court which on the request of authorized prosecutor has first instituted proceedings shall have jurisdiction, and if proceedings have not yet been instituted - the court to which the request for commencement of proceedings was first submitted shall have jurisdiction.
Territorial jurisdiction for criminal offenses committed on domestic ships
or airc rafts
Article 26
If a criminal offense has been committed on a domestic ship or domestic aircraft while in domestic harbor, it shall fall under the jurisdiction of the court of the territory of the harbor. In other cases when the criminal offense is committed on a domestic ship or domestic aircraft, it shall fall under the jurisdiction of the court of the territory of the home port of the ship, i.e. aircraft or domestic port where the ship or aircraft stops first.
Territorial jurisdiction for criminal offenses committed in the media or
via the global information network
Article 27
(1) If the criminal offense has been committed through the press, it shall fall under the jurisdiction of the court of the territory on which the text was published. If the place is unknown or if the text was printed abroad, it shall fall under the jurisdiction of the court of the territory on which the printed text is being distributed.
(2) If, according to law, the responsible person is the author of the text, the court of the territory on which the author has domicile shall have jurisdiction, or the court of the territory on which the event that the text refers to occurred.
(3) If the text or statement has been broadcasted via the radio, television, internet or other media, the court of the territory on which it has been published shall have jurisdiction and provision of paragraph 2 of the present Article shall consequently be applied to these cases as well.
Determination of territorial jurisdiction according to domicile or residence
of the defendant
Article 28
(1) If the place where the criminal offense has been committed is not known or if it is beyond the territory of the Republic of Serbia, it falls under the jurisdiction of the court of the territory of domicile or residence of the defendant.
(2) If the court on whose territory the defendant has domicile or residence has already instigated a proceeding, the jurisdiction remains with that court even if the place where the criminal offense was committed is subsequently disclosed.
Determination of territorial jurisdiction according to the place where the defendant
has been apprehended or where he turned himself in
Article 29
If the place where the criminal offense was committed is unknown, as well as the domicile or residence of the defendant, or both are beyond the territory of Serbia, the jurisdiction lies with the court of the territory on which the defendant has been apprehended or approached the authorities by himself.
Determination of territorial jurisdiction in cases where the criminal offense was
committed in the Republic of Serbia and beyond its territory
Article 30
If a person commits a criminal offense in the Republic of Serbia and in the Republic of Montenegro, i.e., abroad, the jurisdiction lies with the court competent for the criminal act committed in the Republic of Serbia.
Determination of territorial jurisdiction by the decision of the
Supreme Court of Serbia
Article 31
If according to the provisions of the present Code it is not possible to determine which court has territorial jurisdiction, the Supreme Court of Serbia shall designate one of the courts that has subject matter jurisdiction as the court before which the proceeding shall be conducted.
3. Joinder and severance of proceedings
Joinder of criminal proceedings
Article 32
(1) If the same person is defendant for several criminal offenses, and for some of the offenses the lower courts are the ones having jurisdiction, and for the other jurisdiction lies with the higher instance courts, then the higher court shall be deemed to have jurisdiction, and if the courts are of the same level, than the court which first instigated the proceeding upon the request of the authorized prosecutor is deemed to have jurisdiction of the case. If the proceeding has not yet been instigated - then the court that first received the request for instigating the proceeding.
(2) In cases when at the same time the injured party committed a criminal offense against the defendant, jurisdiction shall be determined also pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 1 of the present Article.
(3) The court that that shall have jurisdiction over the accomplices, as a rule shall be any court that had jurisdiction over one of them and first instigated the proceeding.
(4) The court that shall have jurisdiction over the perpetrator of a criminal offense shall also by rule, have jurisdiction over accomplices, accessories after the fact, aiders and abettors, as well as over the persons who failed to report the preparation of a criminal offense, execution of a criminal offense or the perpetrator.
(5) In all cases the previous paragraphs pertain to, by rule one joint proceeding shall be conducted and a joint judgment rendered.
(6) The court may decide to conduct one joint proceeding and to pass a joint judgment also in cases when several persons are charged for several criminal offenses, but only provided that a mutual link between the committed criminal offenses exist as well as the same evidence. If lower courts have jurisdiction over some of these criminal offenses, and higher court over others, then only the higher instance court shall be deemed to have jurisdiction for conducting a joint proceeding.
(7) If before the same court separate proceedings are conducted against the same person for several criminal offenses, or against several persons for the same criminal offense, that court may decide to conduct a joint proceeding and render a joint judgment.
(8) The court that has jurisdiction to conduct joint proceeding shall rule on the joinder of the proceedings. There is no appeal permitted against the ruling joining the proceedings, nor against the ruling on denying the joinder motion.
(9) Provisions on joinder of proceedings (paragraphs 1 to 8 of the present Article) are consequently also applied when in the preliminary investigation or investigation the proceeding is being conducted by the Public Prosecutor, who’s decision it is whether to carry out a joint investigation proceeding.
Severance of the criminal proceeding
Article 33
(1) The court that has jurisdiction pursuant to Article 32 of the present Code, may upon the proposal of the parties, i.e., the defense counsel or ex officio, for important reasons or reasons of expediency and until the end of the trial decide to sever the proceeding for certain criminal offenses or against certain defendants and separately end the proceedings, or to confer it to another court having jurisdiction.
(2) There is no appeal against the ruling on severing the proceedings or ruling on the denial of the severance motion.
4. Transfer of territorial jurisdiction
Transfer of territorial jurisdiction by decision of the directly
higher instance court
Article 34
(1) When the court that has jurisdiction is prevented from conducting criminal proceeding, due to legal or factual reasons, it is obliged to inform about it the first directly higher instance court, which in turn shall designate another court that has subject matter jurisdiction on its territory.
(2) No appeal may be taken from said ruling.
The transfer of territorial jurisdiction by decision of the Supreme Court of Serbia
Article 35
The Supreme Court of Serbia may, upon the proposal of the Investigative Judge, Single Judge or President of the Chamber or upon the proposal of the competent Public Prosecutor, i.e., upon proposal of the defendant or his counsel, determine another actually competent court on the territory of the Republic of Serbia to
conduct criminal proceeding if it is obvious that it would facilitate the implementation of the proceeding or due to other existing important reasons.
5. Assessment and conflict of jurisdiction
The duty of the court to examine its subject matter and territorial jurisdiction and
obligations of the court lacking jurisdiction
Article 36
(1) The court is bound do examine its subject matter and territorial jurisdiction, and as soon as it determines a lack thereof, shall declare it’s lack of jurisdiction and, after the ruling becomes final, shall refer the case to the court having jurisdiction.
(2) If pending trial, the court determines that a lower court has jurisdiction to conduct the proceedings, it shall not refer the case to the lower court, but shall carry out the proceedings and render a decision.
(3) After the indictment becomes final, the court may not decline exercising its territorial jurisdiction nor can the parties raise the objection of want of territorial jurisdiction.
(4) The court lacking jurisdiction shall undertake such procedural actions with respect to which there is a danger in delay.
Instigation of proceeding for resolving jurisdictional disputes
Article 37
(1) If the court to which the case has been referred as the court having jurisdiction considers that the court that referred the case or another other court has jurisdiction, it shall initiate the proceedings for resolving the conflict of jurisdictions.
(2) When a second instance court rendered a decision upon an appeal taken from the ruling of the first instance court which declined exercising jurisdiction, this decision shall also be binding with respect to jurisdiction, for the court to which the case has been referred, if the second instance court has jurisdiction for resolving jurisdictional disputes between the courts involved.
Settlement of the dispute
Article 38
(1) A jurisdictional dispute between courts shall be decided by the court immediately superior to the courts involved.
(2) Before rendering a ruling on a jurisdictional dispute, the court shall ask the opinion of the Public Prosecutor representing the prosecution before that court in cases when criminal proceedings are conducted upon his request.
(3) The ruling on a jurisdictional dispute is not subject to appellate review.
(4) If the conditions referred to in Article 34 of this Act are met, the court may concurrently with the decision on jurisdictional dispute also render ex officio a decision on the transfer of territorial jurisdiction.
(5) Until the jurisdictional dispute between the courts is resolved, each of the courts involved shall be bound to undertake procedural actions with respect to which there is a danger in delay.
EDIT.