LEGAL PROTECTION OF ENVIRONMENTS IN THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA

Forms of environmental protection in the Republic of Serbia, as a rule, include administrative, misdemeanor and criminal law protection. This paper deals with general considerations of criminal law protection of the environment, its significance and position in the criminal legislation of the Republic of Serbia, and the effects of the competent judicial and other bodies on its suppression. The research includes basic national legal standards in the field of criminal law protection of the environment and their chronological correlation. The paper contains an empirical research of statistical indicators within which the correlation of reported, accused and convicted persons (outcome of criminal proceedings) for crimes against the environment during the time period from 2006 to 2017 in the Republic of Serbia was investigated. © 2021 EA. All rights reserved.


Introduction
The genesis development of environmental protection can be observed from two aspects. The first refers to the theoretical aspect, which includes theoretical research and contemplation of the environment, and the second includes legal protection, ie normative regulation of this area. If we look globally at therepresentation of enviromental problems (ecology) in theory (International Webster New EncyclopedicDictionary of English The subject of research in this paper includes the protection of basic natural values, ie protection of air, water (Petrović, Jović, Manojlović, 2015), land (Petrović, Jović, Manojlović, 2014) as well as flora and fauna. The main goal is to make a finding within the scientific description of legal provisions and empirical research of statistical indicators on the degree and scope of criminal law regulation of environmental protection and the efficiency of judicial and other bodies in the field of environmental protection. The research was conducted on the basis of available theoretical material, adopted legal regulations and published statistical bulletins.

Methodology and material
The methodological-theoretical framework in this paper is based on the application of scientific methods of historical, statistical, quantitative, qualitative, scientific description, correlation and methods of content analysis, which explore available sources in existing theory and empiricism on criminal environmental protection and what are the scope of that protection in the Republic of Serbia. Beside to the scientific goal the scope of legal protection which has to be explore, there is a social one, which could be called a strategic or broader reform goal, because it indicates the need for changes in scientific and professional understanding as well necessary changes in preinvestigation and criminal proceedings in Serbia, from this areas. Indicators from the . From the structure of work, sources and indicators, subjects and goals of the research, a theoretical-hypothetical framework is imposed, that the professional practice of criminal protection with its products of investigation procedure-criminal reports and criminal procedure-indictments and verdicts does not provide adequate environmental protection in the Republic of Serbia.

Chronology of normative regulation of environmental protection
The criminal legislation of medieval Serbia did not issued legal protection of the environment, while the provisions of Dušan's Legal Code (Radojčić, 1960), as a rule, represented a private reaction to a crime, and the framework of legal protection of the so-called "common good" was quite restrictive. Until the codification of national criminal legislation and the enactment of the "Criminal Penal Code" of 1860, and the enactment of the first modern Criminal Code from year 1947 ("Official Gazette of the FPRY", No. 106/1947), the field of environmental protection remained outside the scope criminal law regulations. By the provisions of the Criminal Code from year 1951 ("Official Gazette of the FPRY", No. 13/1951) refers to nine criminal offenses by which environment was protected (criminal offenses against the national economy), according to the object of protection known to today's criminal legislation These criminal offenses were issued according to the following legal qualification: neglect of land cultivation and raising cattle; pests in agriculture; production of harmful means for the treatment of livestock; negligent provision of veterinary assistance; transmission of infectious diseases in animals, plants and trees; contamination of animal feed or water; devastation of forests; illegal hunting and illegal fishing. Furthermore, the provisions of the Law on Amendments to the Criminal Code from year 1959 ("Official Gazette of the FPRY", No. 30/1959) introduce certain changes for existing criminal offenses and the framework of environmental protection is expanded with new incriminations, issueded within two criminal offenses (criminal offense of destruction of orchards using harmful substances and criminal offense of forest theft). According to further chronology, we find out that until 1977, this area remained unchanged.
In the Criminal Code of 1977 ("Official Gazette of the SRS", No. 26/1977), criminal offenses against the environment were issued within two legal chapters, ie two groups of criminal offenses, as follows: 1) within framework of criminal offenses against human health and the human environment and 2) in the framework of crimes against the economy. In comparison with the Criminal Code from 1951 and 1959, we notice that the number of criminal offenses in this area has increased by one criminal offense, and that the names and legal characteristics of certain offenses have been changed. As for the penal policy, in the law from 1977, it was mitigated for some criminal acts and aggravated for some. Crimes against the environment belong to the group of crimes that occupy the sixth place (out of a total of 23 groups) according to the number of issued acts in the Criminal Code, so they are characterized by their number and diversity, and criminal law theory classifies this type of crime into four categories (Čejović, 2006). The first category includes seven criminal offenses (general criminal offenses against the environment), which, as a rule, endanger the environment to the greatest extent. The following criminal offenses are classified in this category: environmental pollution; failure to take measures for eniveronmetal protection; illegal construction and commissioning of facilities and plants that pollute the environment; damage to facilities and devices for environmental protection; environmental damage; destruction, damage, taking abroad and bringing into Serbia a protected natural good and the criminal offense of violation of the right to information about the state of the environment. The second category (criminal offenses related to hazardous substances) includes two criminal offenses, namely: introduction of hazardous substances into Serbia and illicit processing, disposal and storage of hazardous substances and the criminal offense of illicit construction of nuclear facilities, while the third category (criminal offenses against flora and fauna), also includes the following seven criminal offenses: killing and abusing animals; transmission of infectious diseases in animals and plants; negligent provision of veterinary assistance; production of harmful agents for the treatment of animals; contamination of food and water for feeding, ie feeding animals; devastation of forests and the crime of forest ingest of dangerous substances into Serbia and illicit processing, disposal and storage of dangerous substances, killing and abuse of animals, and the crime of contamination of food and water for food, ie watering animals, penal policy has been tightened. As for the amendments to the Criminal Code that followed in 2019, it referred only to the crime of killing and abusing animals, in terms of tightening the penal policy, within which the basic form of the crime was the previous prison sentence of up to one year, increased to imprisonment for up to two years, and for the second more serious form of crime the previous lower limit of imprisonment of three months was increased to imprisonment of six months, while the upper limit of up to three years for this form remained unchanged Crimes against the environment are among the offenses for which, for all acts, prosecution is undertaken ex officio, and imprisonment is determined in the range of up to one to ten years. It is also significant the legal provision according to which the court may, in cases where pronounces a suspended sentence, impose an obligation on the convicted person to take the determined measures for the protection and preservation of the environment, ie measures to eliminate harmful consequences for the environment, which have occurred by committing a crime (Stojanović, Perić, 2002).

Findings of empirical research and discussion
Empirical research includes scientific statistical, quantitative, qualitative analysis and scientific correlation of findings from available databases / indicators expressed in the number of reported, accused and convicted adults for the period from 2006 to 2017, in the area of the Republic of Serbia.
In (Table 1.) shows the result of the findings from the correlation of the total number of reported, accused and convicted adults for all crimes, in relation to the total number of reported, accused and convicted persons for crimes against the environment. From this research, we find that the number of reported persons for crimes against the environment has a share in the total number of reported persons for all crimes, of only 1.90%, with the number of accused having a share of 2.58% and the number of convicted 2.44%. Investigating criminal offenses against the environment, we find that of the total number of reported persons, 71.18% were indicted and 50.22% convicted, while 70.56% of the total number of accused persons were convicted. The ( Table 2.) shows the statistical indicators of the total number of reported, accused and convicted adults for crimes against the environment, expressed cumulatively, according to the structure of all crimes. This research shows that the largest number of persons were reported, accused and convicted for criminal offenses from the group of offenses against flora and fauna, namely: forest theft, with a share of 74.39%; killing and abuse of animals, with a share of 7.43%; illegal hunting, with a share of 6.48%, devastation of forests, with a share of 5.71% and illegal fishing, with a share of 3.10%. The share of the number of persons reported for these criminal offenses comparing to all other criminal offenses against the environment is 97.11%, while the share of the accused is 43.51%, ie the share of convicted 28.56%. Furthermore, the research shows that the highest percentage of lost crimes in the correlation of reported, accused and convicted persons, refers to the crime of killing and abusing animals, which indicates that animal's welfare is greatly endangered (Petrović, Jović, Manojlović, 2018). Namely, out of the total number of reported persons for this crime, only 19.46% were charged and 13.76% were convicted. The share of convicts in relation to the accused for this crime is 70.69%, which indicates that the crime is mostly lost in the phase of pre-investigation procedure (rejected criminal report), ie investigation procedure (suspended investigation) and accusation (indictment not filed).  According to the findings from the research in (Table 3.), which refer to the type of decision in the pre-investigation (Jović, 2014) procedure and the investigation procedure for reported persons, according to the structure of all criminal offenses against the environment, we find that in many cases application is rejected. As a percentage, the number of reported persons against whom criminal charges for all crimes against the environment were rejected is 36.01%, while the investigation was terminated in only four cases, and the suspension of the investigation followed in slightly less than 1%. Dismissal in the criminal offenses for which the largest number of persons is reported varies, and those for the offense of forest theft are in amount of 34.48%, for the offense of illegal hunting 45.93%, then for the offense of killing and abusing animals is 35.63%, and for the offense illegal fishing is 30.97%. The findings from the research indicate that the number of rejected criminal charges for criminal offenses belonging to the group of general criminal offenses against the environment is the largest, and it is in amounts of 61.06%. These findings, on the one hand, confirm the complexity of proving criminal offenses from this group (Busarčević, et. al., 2001), and on the other hand indicate the need to increase the efficiency of the evidentiary procedure (Lazarević, 2006).  Contamination of food and water for food, ie feeding animals 17 0 0 Quantitative qualitative analysis of the findings from ( Table 4.), which refers to the type of decision for the accused, finding is that in most of the cases, the accused were found guilty, which makes a total of 69. 07%. The number of accused persons against whom the proceedings were suspended is the lowest and it amounts to 8.13%, with the number of accused persons acquitted of the charge being 10.21%, and the number of accused against whom the charge was rejected being 13.68%. Observed by the structure of Economics of Agriculture, Year 68, No. 2, 2021, (pp. 517-530), Belgrade criminal offenses, the number of accused found guilty of the most numerous criminal offenses also varies, and its share for the criminal offense of forest theft is 68.37%, then for the criminal offense of forest devastation 73.59%, for the criminal offense of killing and abusing animals 70.69% , then the crime of illegal hunting 59.25%, or for the crime of illegal fishing 88.73%. Regarding the investigation by groups of criminal offenses, as was the case with the reported persons, the smallest number of accused found guilty relates to general criminal offenses against the environment, and it is 63.69%, which also indicates the need to increase the efficiency of the judiciary procedure and procedure for legal remedies. Examining the data from ( Table 5.), which refer to the imposed criminal sanctions, we find that in most cases, a suspended sentence was imposed against convicted persons, which makes a total of 57.21%. The court reprimand was issued in the smallest number of cases, with a share of 1.45%, while the fine is the second in the number of imposed criminal sanctions and it is 26.35%. Imprisonment was imposed in a small number of cases and it is only 12.83%. From the research related to the structure of imprisonment, we find that in most cases this sentence was imposed for a period of 3 to 6 months, a total of 27.75%, and imprisonment for a term of 2 to 3 months, which is 25.75%. The most severe imprisonment sentence for crimes against the environment is 2 to 3 years, this sentence was imposed in only eleven cases during the investigation period, in seven cases for the crime of forest theft, and in one case for crimes of forest devastation, environmental damage and illegal.

Conclusion
The level of criminal protection of the environment during the past years, as the findings from the research indicate, as very low level. Despite the fact that Serbia has adopted a wide range of legal regulations in the field of environmental protection in a relatively short period, it can be noticed that the prosecution has problems with filed criminal charges, which are especially negatively correlated between reported and accused, ie convicted persons.
The findings from the research indicate that judicial and other state bodies are reluctant to engage in proving those criminal offenses thus procedure of proving is complex in nature and requires a higher level of expertise and persistence. The fact that general crimes that endanger the environment the most and whose proof is the most complex, represented only 1.99% in the total number of crimes in this area, indicates disrespect for the basic constitutional principle relating to the right of everyone to a healthy environment and to timely and complete be informed of her condition.
The competent state authorities obviously deal only with criminal offenses for which they can easily collect material evidence (forest theft, forest devastation, killing and abuse of animals, illegal hunting, illegal fishing), hence these offenses are the most numerous (but with a very mild criminal record policy), while for general criminal offenses against the environment, the proof of which is based on expert findings or other documents, and for which a higher level of expertise and knowledge is necessary, in addition to being insignificant in terms of the number of detected, criminal proceedings are generally not ending with a conviction.
In order to improve the situation in the field of detection and proof of criminal offenses against the environment, it is necessary to apply adequate criminal and penal policy, primarily in the field of recognizing and timely responding to incriminations that endanger the environment, professional training and technical training of bodies and institutions which are involved in the procedure of proving these criminal offenses, especially if we keep in mind the fact that the greatest loss of crime occurs in the phase of pre-investigation procedure, ie the procedure of investigation and accusation.

Conflict of interests
The authors declare no conflict of interest.