CONCLUDING OF AGREEMENTS IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS: PRACTICE OF THE ECHR AND NATIONAL COURTS

Abstract

The article analyzed statistical data on the conclusion of agreements in criminal proceedings and their approval by a court verdict. The article examined in detail the judicial decisions of national courts and the decisions of the ECHR regarding the approval by the courts of a plea agreement with one person and its effect on the effect of the presumption of innocence in relation to other co-conspirators. Thus, the ECHR case «Navalnyy and Ofitserov v. Russia», in which the court formulated the guarantees that must be provided to the participants of such proceedings: 1) in cases where the accused in the same case appear before the court as part of separate proceedings, judges are obliged to refrain from any statements that may have prejudicial value for subsequent proceedings, even if such statements are not binding on other courts; 2) the circumstances established in a separate case, in which other defendants do not participate, should not have prejudicial significance for their case. The status of evidence used in one case should remain purely relative, and their validity should be limited to a given specific court proceeding. This evidence may not be used in other legal proceedings without a thorough examination and confirmation of its admissibility and authenticity within the framework of such legal proceedings, in accordance with the principle of adversariality, like all other evidence. In another case, «Mucha v. Slovakia» we emphasize the following: one of the components of the violation of the presumption of innocence was the level of detail contained in the references in the decisions regarding the accomplices of the applicant to another criminal, their accomplice, who has a special status in the group and a role in specific prosecuted actions or omissions. It is clear that the nature of crimes related to organized crime indicates that the crime could only be committed jointly with others. But the reference to third parties is necessary only for a general understanding of the person’s actions, and not for specifying the actions of other accomplices.