Examples from the Statutes of Rab and Šibenik
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
SCIREA Journal of Sociology http://www.scirea.org/journal/Sociology December 27, 2020 Volume 4, Issue 6, December 2020 Good Old Laws. The Tradition of Combating Corruption in Croatia: Examples from the Statutes of Rab and Šibenik Tomislav Galović University of Zagreb, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Department of History and Institute of Croatian History, Zagreb, Croatia Email: [email protected] Abstract: The topicality of old medieval statutes and law codices in the Croatian historical territory is sufficiently reflected in the fact that if we did not know when select examples thereof had been written we would think that they were actually from our own time. This paper contains an analysis of select, but also the most intriguing, excerpts from Croatian laws and statutes over the period spanning the 13th to 16th centuries, with particular emphasis on the Statutum One part of this paper is based on the Proceedings (Croatian texts without footnotes and references): Dalibor Čepulo, Marta Dragičević Prtenjača, Tomislav Galović, Zdenka Janeković Römer, Ozren Kosanović, Renata Lukić Galović, Željko Radić, Suzbijanje korupcije u Hrvatskoj u srednjem vijeku, vol. II, edited by Zorislav Antun Petrović, Zagreb: Institut za kulturu i etiku & Fakultet političkih znanosti Sveučilišta u Zagrebu, 2016, chapter: Tomislav Galović, Šibenski statut: Volumen statutorum legum, et reformationum civitatis Sibenici, pp. 78-89; Tomislav Galović, Statutum communis Arbae – Statut rapske komune iz 14. stoljeća, pp. 40-50, co-author Renata Lukić Galović). The title of this paper inspired by international conference “Good Old Laws. The Tradition of Combating Corruption in Croatia”, organized by European Parliament, Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, Brussels, Belgium, October 14, 2015. 161 communis Arbae, the Statute of the Rab commune, and the Volumen statutorum legum, et reformationum civitatis Sibenici, the Statute of Šibenik. Keywords: Combating Corruption, Croatia, Middle Ages, Statute of Rab, Statute of Šibenik 1. Introduction: “Good old laws” Among Croatian law codices, first place is held by the Law Code, or Codex, of Vinodol of 1288 – the oldest and most significant Croatian medieval legal document, and also the oldest enumerative Croatian legal custom (Lat. consuetudo), written in the Croatian language and in the Glagolitic script. [1] Thus, in Article 20 it stipulates that no man can propose his wife to testify on his behalf in court, but according to Article 67, a father may testify for his son, a son and daughter may testify for their father, and by the same token, a brother and sister may testify on behalf of their sister, but only if they do so by standing independently and separate from one another, while the provision of Article 54 which prohibits lawyers from receiving recompense higher than that prescribed! [2] The Statute of the City of Rijeka (Statutum terrae Fluminis) of 1530 orders and specifies that: “whosoever owes taxes or a portion of municipal taxes or if he is at the time indebted to the city may not be elected to public service if he does not immediately, prior to his election, intend to settle his debt” (Chapter 1, Article 4). In modern countries governed by laws such provisions are customary and underscore a simple principle: one may not be expected to enforce a given regulation if that person is in violation of said regulation. A similar sentiment is expressed in the provision “that nobody – in any manner or for any reason whatsoever – shall dare to petition, bribe or persuade any councillor of the grand council for oneself or on behalf of others” (Chapter 1, Article 19), intended to prevent nepotism and corruption when seeking employment in the civil service. Meanwhile, in nearby Kastav, in its Law Code, which dates to roughly 1400, one provision defines the penalty for failure to comply with a judicial proceeding: “If anyone, after a court judgment, continues the lawsuit without lodging an appeal to a higher court, then such individual shall pay eight librae, of which a portion shall go to the captain, magistrate and satnik” (chap. 20). [3] 162 According to the Statute of Cres and Osor (Statuto di Cherso et Ossero, 1441), on the Cres- Lošinj archipelago, when a major infraction is perpetrated, the syndics (Venetian officials with duties in overseas communes, i.e., charged with the security of governance, reformation of administration and fostering trust in authority in Istria, Dalmatia and Albania) were obliged to launch and conduct investigations – using inquisition tactics (i.e., without a judicial procedure) as needed – against any local official who had been shown to improperly to have managed or taken the commune’s money and assets. With regard to the structure and jurisdiction of Osor’s Council, it is noteworthy that it was the representative body of the Osor commune “framed by the interests and protection of the rights that ensue from the Statute and privileges.” Only legal adults (18 years of age) born in legal wedlock who swore an oath of fealty and service to the honour and well-being of Venice to the benefit and betterment of their commune could be members of the Council. They were obliged to submit to the rector and perform their duties conscientiously, while they had to pay monetary compensation for their absences at the Council. They could not disclose any secret entrusted to them by the rector – while not aiding friends or impinging upon adversaries. During votes in the Council – which may be “for,” “against” or “for nobody” (prosperi – contra – extra) – those members who were kin could not vote for one another. [4] On the nearby island of Krk, in regulations on vice-rectors and magistrates of the island castles, the Krčki or Vrbanski/Vrbnički statut (Statute of Krk or Vrbnik) of 1388 provides an excellent example of abuse of office and authority: “We duly stipulate and order that (…) vice-rectors and magistrates shall not interfere in criminal matters which fall under the jurisdiction of the lord provveditore (governor), nor in civil lawsuits except those involving a sum less than 5 librae.” With reference to elected and confirmed sworn councillors in the Venetian era, it was stipulated that they had to swear their oath before the lord governor and that they would perform their duties properly and honestly and not take into account either kinship or friendship nor concern themselves with affection, animosity, requests for favours, fear or threats, and that they would notify his mercy (the governor) of what they know and see to the reputation and benefit of ‘our mighty and respected lords and their subjects’. [5] The meticulous definition of all income and privileges of magistrates diminished the risk of any possible attempts at bribery, which was stipulated in the Statute of Senj (Statutum Segniae) of 1388 such that judges had to have two librae worth of meat in the butcher shop every week on Sunday, or 4 librae annually (Article 74). [6] 163 The penalty for possible misappropriation of public revenues, customary in all modern legislation, was defined by the following provision in the Statute of the Pag Commune (Statuta Communitatis Pagi) from 1433: “Not one official nor clerk (...) may receive or have allocated to him any levy of the Commune of Pag (...), and the collector of said levy neither may nor is obliged to relinquish a portion to these officials, under penalty of a fine of fifty librae, of which half shall be granted to the individual who reported said infraction, and half to the Commune” (Chapter VI, Article 61). [7] The first example of filing a charge on an ex officio basis, similar to provisions also enforced in modern legislation (albeit without the right to half of the adjudicated penalty), can be found in the Statue of the City of Dubrovnik compiled in 1272 (Liber statutorum civitatis Ragusii compositus anno MCCLXXII): “Municipal prosecutors shall be obliged, by virtue of their sworn oath, to initiate proceedings against violators when they are notified thereof, and they must be entitled to half of the aforementioned penalty” (VI, 68). [8] In one of the oldest statutes, the Statue of the City and Island of Korčula (Statuta et leges civitatis et insulae Curzulae, 1265 version with initial version dating perhaps to 1214), the public accessibility of information is the fundamental prerequisite in the operation of all bodies of public authority: “Whenever any letters arrive for the Council and the administration of Korčula, and the Council is not in session at that time, the administration together with those councillors who are present in the city shall be authorized to allow such letters to be opened and read by the city chancellor” (Article CIX). This is indeed the case in many countries, including Croatia, and currently it is regulated by the Access to Information Act. The same statute also stipulates the standard obligation for transparency of operations which is incorporated into most legal instruments of all regulated countries: “Whenever anyone wishes to seek his document or notation in a communal register, the judge who holds the keys must seek the same together with the communal chancellor and may not seek any file without the chancellor” (Article CXI). On the other hand, the customary system of oversight of the operations of public authorities may be discerned in Article LXXI of the Statute of the City and Island of Korčula, which stipulates that “every six months three paper registers of the communal revenues and expenses shall be compiled, of which the first shall be held by the rector, the second by the senior judge and the third by the communal treasurer.” [9] At several points, the Zadar Statute with All Amendments, i.e., New Regulations Enacted by 1563 (Statuta Iadertina cum omnibus reformationibus usque ad annum MDLXIII factis) very precisely defines conflicts of interest, such as this provision: “Since experience (...) has quite 164 often shown that bonds of blood many times impede the mind of the one who judges (...) we hereby stipulate: let no father be the judge in the lawsuits of his sons (...), nor may a relative be a judge in any lawsuit of his relatives” (Chapter 2, title I., Article 1).