State of emergency: truth and error -A short guide to citizens
General framework:
Yesterday (15.03.2020.) In our republic was proclaimed a state of emergency.
A state of emergency was declared in the republic, however the “extraordinary” way.
Article 200 of the Constitution stipulates that the decision to declare a state of emergency by the National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia. Such a procedure declaration of a state of emergency is a regular decision-making process. However, the Constitution provides, as an exceptional (special) the possibility that in a situation where the National Assembly is unable to convene, the decision to declare a state of emergency bring together the presidents of the Republic, the Government and the Assembly.
Were not disclosed to the public the reasons for which the National Assembly could not convene to decide. Only indirectly, citizens learn not only the Assembly has not met to decide, but that at least for the time being will not meet because it was announced that the government will issue a decree will prescribe measures derogating from human and minority rights. Like the state of emergency in the competence of the Assembly to prescribe measures derogating from human rights during a state of emergency. Only in exceptional cases, when the Assembly is unable to convene, the derogation from human rights by government decree, with the counter (confirm) the President of the Republic.
The announcement that the government will issue a decree does us the message that the Assembly will not meet on it to decide, although the constitution stipulates a rule that the Assembly without special call meeting immediately after the declaration of martial law (and no later than 48 hours after the declaration of emergency sheet).
The state of emergency is declared when a public emergency threatening the life of the country or its citizens. By nature the state of emergency also means taking specific emergency and intensive measures, which affects the way the daily functioning of the state as a whole, individual state authorities, we as citizens and individuals. Equally emergency involves taking specific emergency measures.
But except for the announcement that the army would keep the borders and certain facilities (hospitals that treat people with the virus Covide-19) state authorities have not so far taken the opportunity to prescribe other emergency measures. In fact, all the other measures that have been communicated last night, envisaged by the law, such measures are very prescribe without declaring a state of emergency.
It should take account of the two laws: the Law on the Protection of infectious diseases and the Act on disaster risk reduction and emergency management (some measures were adopted on the basis of other laws: the Law on Trade – freeze prices of certain products; Foreign Trade Law – ban on exports of certain products, the Law on border control – the closure of border crossings and the like.). By far the largest number of decisions and orders that are communicated yesterday were made on the basis of the Law on Protection from Infectious Diseases (prohibition of gatherings indoors for more than 50 people, etc.) That will be something more to say in this article.
What are the consequences of the current state of emergency for the citizens?
Bearing in mind that the government at this time has not yet passed a decree restricting certain human rights, and that all measures have been introduced on the basis of pre-existing laws that are intended it to establish a legal framework for action in this and similar situations of practical legal consequences for the citizens due to the state of emergency at the moment no.
The essence of the state of emergency is largely exhausted in just the ability to prescribe derogations from human rights during a state of emergency. In this regard us as citizens, who hold (or at least should hold) to their rights and freedoms in connection with the introduction of martial law administration, and most should be interested in how it will affect those rights and freedoms.
I should mention two more things:
“Measure” that people older than 65 years do not leave their homes has not been made and at the moment it is the only recommendation public. Therefore, citizens who do not comply can not be held liable for an offense or crime. It is the most common application. However, this does not mean that such a request should be taken lightly. Seen from a human rights perspective, it is desirable that national authorities do citizens first recommendation, and that mandatory measures shall be taken only when it is established that in a different way can not ensure protection of public health. It is therefore not necessary to compel the state to threaten coercion, but in fact the recommendation should be duly respected.
Another thing you should not forget, is that freedom of movement is not absolute freedom, and that the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights provide for the possibility of restricting the freedom of movement of citizens in accordance with the law, when it is necessary to preserve public health. So the competent authorities can (and can still remain) significantly limited it by applying measures from the law on protection against infectious diseases and without introducing an emergency.
What are possible consequences of declaring an emergency on citizens?
What are possible consequences of declaring a state of emergency by citizens is a question of all issues. However, it is the only question we have no answer. The answer will therefore have to wait for the Government Regulation or the decision of the National Assembly which possibly limit human rights.
With the restriction of human rights, the extraordinary situation opens the possibility of applying a number of provisions of the Defense Law (Article 50-57), which, among other things, provides for the possibility of determining the work and material obligation for citizens, as well as special obligations for legal entities.
If the state bodies of our Republic decide to limit one or more human rights, they are obliged to do so in a way that enables the greatest level of respect for the principles of proportionate in the limitation of these rights.
At the same time, international treaties that are guaranteed human rights, oblige our state to inform certain international organizations on possible restrictions on human rights, which then start monitoring the situation regarding the restriction of rights.
However, the smaller problem is the international community. The bigger problem is the unwillingness and lack of the will of citizens to act according to requests, instructions and these measures, and a particularly problem is the slowness, inefficiency and non-failing of judicial institutions in this case.
Namely, on March 13, 2014, the Serbian Bar Association addressed the Ministry of Justice and the Supreme Court of Justice to make a decision on minimizing court proceedings and everything to prevent the spread of infection.
To this end, the common session of these structures was held today, but the competent decision, prolonged their position for Tuesday 17.03.2020.
This procedure indicates the unwillingness of the highest instances to recognize the purpose and importance of introducing an emergency. It is the main goal of the measure to prevent infection transmission by limiting mutual contacts and thus slow down the transmission of infection.
Therefore, urgent measures must be delayed all scheduled hearings except for detention cases and procedures that do not suffer disposal due to the possibility of inflicting irreparable damage.
By maintaining hearing, ie the coming of court staff, parties and proxies with invited witnesses, the goal of emergencies not only will not be realized, but directly undermine the reasons for determining the emergency. The introduction of an emergency and the citizens and the state bodies create an increased dose of behavioral responsibility and undoubtedly affects the increase in caution in daily treatment, which unfortunately, when it comes to judiciary and citizens, older than 65 years are absolutely not achieved.
For these reasons, we are not able to inform clients that tomorrow will obstruct the work of judicial bodies, but we point out the fact that every 65-year-old client has the right to not appear in court and to seek Dumping of hearing.
Why was an emergency introduced?
If nothing was currently changed for citizens, that is, if a state of emergency in itself does not change anything that has already been changed using appropriate laws and without introducing an emergency condition for what a state of emergency?
It seems that the predominant reason for the introduction of an emergency state of psychological nature. The introduction of an emergency and citizens and in the state bodies create an increased dose of behavioral responsibility and undoubtedly affects the increase in caution in everyday treatment.
Other reasons may also be a technical nature.
Technically, a state of state organs in any further urgent action is declared, unimpeded by the state bodies if the need arises.
Finally, by introducing a state of emergency is created to elections scheduled for 26.04.2020 in the case of a negative epidemiological situation. be canceled if assessed to keep their maintenance to jeopardize public health. Namely, by introducing an emergency, an automatic activation of the extension of the Mandate of the Assembly as the most important body of the state until the end of the state of emergency, which may last ninety days, after which it may be extended for more ninety days.
How further?
The circumstance that the declaration of an extraordinary situation in our Republic is part of a political, partly psychological, and partly technical, does not mean that everything remains in the old one.
In addition to things, things can be seen very quickly, it should be noted independent of the introduction of an emergency, a large number of different measures that undoubtedly affect the daily life of Serbian citizens.
All mandatory measures and orders, citizens must respect under the threat of sanctions.
Sanctions that citizens threaten are misdemeanor and criminal.
The reminder works in the Republic of Serbia was declared an option to apply the provisions of Articles 248 and 249 of the Criminal Code to which the crimes of non-profitability are prescribed during the epidemic and criminal offense of the infectious disease penalty or sentence imprisonment for up to three years.
Also, non-compliance with the measures regarding the epidemic can withdraw and misdemeanor responsibility carried with it and a fine for natural persons in the amount of 30,000 to 150,000 dinars; And for legal entities in the amount of 50,000 to 500,000 dinars (examples here are given to ranges for misdemeanors from the Law on Protection against Infectious Diseases).
In the end, the news should always be forgotten to convey news that are checked and news that arise from the source of confidence, in order to avoid the transfer of false and sensationalist news, which could cause panic, especially when it comes to in mind that provoking panic is a special criminal offense (Article 343 of the Criminal Code).
Aleksandar Todorović, phd
Frequently Asked Questions related to extraordinary condition:
Here we will present the most often asked questions and we will give a couple of tips. We will update the list of advice and questions regularly.
1) Do caterers need to close catering facilities?
At the moment, there is no ban on the work of catering facilities, an individual decision of each caterer is whether it will work. It is in mind that the sets that counts 50 and more indoors are prohibited, it includes guests in a catering facility independently of whether they gathered there with a program or event or each came in their direction.
2) For which products are “frozen price”:
The product list is in the decision of the Government of Serbia from 15.03.2020. years, and it comes to products:
1) wheat flour;
2) bread;
3) edible oil sunflower;
4) white sugar;
5) salt;
6) water;
7) vegetables and fruits;
8) pasta;
9) fresh meat;
10) meat products;
11) fish;
12) thermally processed cow’s milk (pasteurized and sterilized);
13) milk powder;
14) yogurt;
15) egg chickens;
16) children’s food;
17) soap;
18) shampoo;
19) teeth paste;
20) detergents;
21) gloves (and clothing clothing and accessories) from plastics;
22) diapers for children and adults;
23) wipes;
24) napkins (in rolls and pieces);
25) toilet paper;
26) masks, plastic with textile filter;
27) cover, textile for surgical use;
28) paper surgical suit;
29) paper masks;
30) suit protective, rubber;
31) gloves, rubber, surgical and others;
32) Surge Surgical Textile;
33) bleach and other disinfectants;
34) asepsol;
35) alcohol;
36) glasses, protective
3) Are 50 and more people (weddings, birthdays, baptisms, must be canceled.
If celebrations are organized in a public place (cafe, restaurant, playroom, etc.) you must cancel them.
4) Does the patient have to say when and where he traveled and who was in touch with when he examined his doctor?
Yes. The law envisages a special offense if the patient refuses to give data or disappear or agrees on a fact that is important for diagnosis or preventing the spread of infection.
5) Do I have to appear at work after the introduction of an emergency?
Yes. If your employer does not report otherwise and if you have no other reason for absence from work, just the declaration of emergency does not mean that you can be absent from work.
6) Do the courts work?
At this point, there are not yet official information about the precise way of functioning courts during this situation, but many courts and judges began to cancel all cases, which do not require urgent treatment. Call your lawyer before you go to court. If you do not have a lawyer, call the Court’s Central and ask if you should appear at the scheduled trial.
If you have any questions and doubts write to us at:
However, the smaller problem is the international community. The bigger problem is the unwillingness and lack of the will of citizens to act according to requests, instructions and these measures, and a particularly problem is the slowness, inefficiency and non-failing of judicial institutions in this case.
Namely, on March 13, 2014, the Serbian Bar Association addressed the Ministry of Justice and the Supreme Court of Justice to make a decision on minimizing court proceedings and everything to prevent the spread of infection.
To this end, the common session of these structures was held today, but the competent decision, prolonged their position for Tuesday 17.03.2020.
This procedure indicates the unwillingness of the highest instances to recognize the purpose and importance of introducing an emergency. It is the main goal of the measure to prevent infection transmission by limiting mutual contacts and thus slow down the transmission of infection.
Therefore, urgent measures must be delayed all scheduled hearings except for detention cases and procedures that do not suffer disposal due to the possibility of inflicting irreparable damage.
By maintaining hearing, ie the coming of court staff, parties and proxies with invited witnesses, the goal of emergencies not only will not be realized, but directly undermine the reasons for determining the emergency. The introduction of an emergency and the citizens and the state bodies create an increased dose of behavioral responsibility and undoubtedly affects the increase in caution in daily treatment, which unfortunately, when it comes to judiciary and citizens, older than 65 years are absolutely not achieved.
For these reasons, we are not able to inform clients that tomorrow will obstruct the work of judicial bodies, but we point out the fact that every 65-year-old client has the right to not appear in court and to seek Dumping of hearing.