Martina Grahek Ravančić, PRAVOSUDNE INSTITUCIJE I ORGANI JAVNOGA TUŽITELJSTVA U HRVATSKOJ NAKON DRUGOGA SVJETSKOG RATA

DOI: 10.29362/2022.2664.gra.111-122

Nova vlast nakon Drugoga svjetskog rata na području Hrvatske bila je svjesna važnosti ustrojavanja odgovarajućega pravnog okvira i pravosudnih institucija. U radu se analiziraju zadaci stavljeni pred poslijeratno sudstvo te okolnosti koje nisu uvijek išle u prilog tadašnjim interesima. Za potpuniju sliku prikazana je organizacija i rad javnoga tužiteljstva, koje je imalo nadređeni položaj nad pravosudnim sustavom. Kroz ulogu javnoga tužitelja jasno su vidljivi svi politički zadaci koje je ova vlast smatrala ključnima za svoju stabilizaciju.

Martina Grahek Ravančić, JUDICIAL INSTITUTIONS AND PUBLIC PROSECUTION BODIES IN CROATIA AFTER THE SECOND WORLD WAR

The organization and development of judicial bodies and the corresponding legal framework in Croatia after the Second World War were indispensable components in the establishment of a new government in these areas. Legal (dis)continuity was supposed to ensure legality, but also legitimacy and stabilization of the new government. The absence of defined legal provisions was not the only problem, but it opened up space for political manipulations. In such circumstances, it is interesting to look at the development of the court system (district and district courts and ’special courts’) and the tasks set before the post-war judiciary. Faced with emerging legislation, a lack of qualified staff and often insufficient communication with other institutions, the courts often found themselves in an unenviable situation. The work of the public prosecutor’s office, which had a superior position over the judicial system, did not support them either. It was a centralized and monocratic body with very broad powers and a high degree of independence in its work. His task was to supervise the work of all state bodies except representative bodies. The actions of the public prosecutor’s office did not necessarily have to be based on professional legal knowledge, but the aim was to abolish ’bureaucratic management. It is precisely in the role of the public prosecutor that the key political tasks for the new government are clearly visible – to the detriment of the degradation of the principle of legal certainty. From these elements, it is clear that the organization of the legal framework, judicial bodies and the institution of public prosecution was based on the experiences of the Soviet legal system.