Source: "Politika"
The news of offence charges that the State Auditor Institution filed against a group of former and current ministers has been, during the past few days, with a good reason, attracting a lot of attention. However, for a larger share of the public, the ‘parallel’ news was disappointing – there is a possibility that a great number of reports, if not all, would have no effect, as they would become obsolete. Disappointing, more so because this possibility is very probable. Not even statements of certain ministers (e.g.: … there is no way that the charges filed by the State Auditor Institution would be dropped due to obsolescence. I insist on finding out the truth. Now it will appear as if someone is trying to hide something…) can change much. It is absolutely irrelevant whether these statements are an expression of a sincere belief in one’s own innocence or a routine political demagogy. Simply, obsolescence is a legal entity of a mandatory, imperative character, the state institutions are obliged to pay attention to obsolescence ex officio (according to their scope of work, officially). When a case becomes obsolete in terms of passage of time, the offender cannot be prosecuted, regardless of whether he might be ready to undergo the proceedings.
That is why it would be much better if the members of the Government confirmed their resolve “to see this through to the end”, not only through the media, but by actively supporting the recently submitted initiative by ‘Transparency Serbia’ which calls for moving of the obsolescence deadline for initiating and conducting offence proceedings. There are more than plenty of reasons. Even before the ‘State Auditor Institution case’, and despite the warnings by the Commissioner for Information and the Public Procurement Directorate, literally thousands of offences stemming from the Law on the Free Access to Information of Public Importance and the Law on Public Procurement had become obsolete. The situation is similar when it comes to the Law on Political Party Finances and some other ones as well. And, there is no doubt that one of the reasons why the ‘powerful’ are not being held responsible, besides the fact that the institutions in charge are overworked and that there is a lack of willingness to work on these ‘delicate’ cases, is also a short obsolescence deadline.
The Law on Offences envisions that the proceedings cannot be initiated if over a year had passed from the time the offence was committed, while the proceedings cannot be continued if more than double the length of obsolescence period had passed. However, when it comes to customs, foreign trade, foreign currency trade, trade in goods and services and public emoluments the deadline can be extended to up to five years. The ‘Transparency’ initiative would like to correct something which is not easily understood:the possibility that the deadline extension is only reserved for ‘ordinary’ citizens, while the deadline cannot be extended for cases related to the fight against corruption, the free access to information, public procurement, political party financing and similar, which involve people in positions of ‘power’! Of course, obsolescence as an institute of the infringement law based on which, due to the deadline, the state loses the possibility to initiate criminal proceedings or to carry out a penalty, is not specific to our legislature. Obsolescence is a legal institute present in legislatures of practically all modern countries. Despite what their individual theoretical justification for this institute ‘for cheating responsibility’ might be, all countries recognize it. Nonetheless, all, or at least a great number of countries, pay attention not to let obsolescence become an instrument of avoiding responsibility, taking into consideration, above all, their personnel, organizational and process resources of the state mechanism which is in charge of ensuring the initiation of the criminal proceedings and the punishment of the law offender. The Government would, by accepting the aforementioned initiative by ‘Transparency Serbia’ and extending the deadline in these areas, increase the chances to, in a great number of cases, “see things through to the end”, as well as to have the potential law breakers held responsible instead of avoiding punishment. This would also ensure the overcoming of one illogical and unjust thing. Since, if someone, due to obsolescence, has to avoid responsibility for violating the law, it would be more logical for it to be an ‘ordinary’ citizen, and not the ‘authorities’, people who were elected and are getting paid to ensure the laws are being respected.
