CC BY
2JURIDICAL SCIENCES
EUROPEAN STANDARDS OF RULE OF LAW AND DOCTRINAL PROBLEMS OF PRODUCTION ON THE BASIS OF AGREEMENTS IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS
Sachko O.V.
Oles Honchar Dnipro National University Candidate of Law, associate professor of department of administrative and criminal law
Abstract
An integrative analysis of the Institute of production on the basis of agreements and ensuring the rule of law was presented in the article, a comparison of the norms of criminal procedural legislation, forming the institution of agreements in criminal proceedings of Ukraine and other countries was done, highlights the common features, similarities and differences of agreements about the recognition of guilt and the agreement about reconciliation of the parties presents the current legal position of the European court of human rights of these problems were analyzed, ways for improve legislation and practice of its application were described.
Keywords: rule of law, mediation, criminal proceedings, institution of agreements, plea agreement.
The simplified procedure of criminal proceedings in most European countries and the United States is provided by the institution of transactions. It simultaneously contributes to the implementation of the principle of procedural economy and it ensures the right of the victim to fast and full compensation of the harm, which was caused to him.
Restorative justice is a new doctrinal model about how society and the state, represented by law enforcement and judicial bodies need to react quickly and effectively at the fact of committing a criminal offense. The essence of this doctrinal model means that any crime or other criminal offense should have the offender's obligations to eliminate the harm and other negative consequences, which were caused to the victim, and the state, with legislative procedures, motivates voluntary compensation for material and moral harm, which were caused by a criminal offense to the victim; promotes appropriate socially active behavior of the perpetrator; gives the necessary preferences to the perpetrator and creates the necessary conditions for ensuring a fair resolution of the criminal conflict, introducing the latest procedural form of simplified criminal proceedings.
Restorative justice is considered as a direction for justice. It complements the official doctrine and form of justice; involves the parties and the public in dealing of the consequences of the crime, contributing to the social reintegration of the criminal offender and reducing the number of criminal penalties and it should not to abolish official justice, but to give an effective restorative character to it with using the certain method of resolving criminal situations. The Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine (art. 468) establishes a special procedure for criminal proceedings on the basis of two types of agreements: an agreement about reconciliation between the victim and the suspect or accused; an agreement between the Prosecutor and the suspect or accused on conviction.
These two forms of transactions in criminal proceedings have essential differences and receive different assessment of scientists, despite certain similarity and their associations on this basis in one Chapter of
the code of criminal procedure of Ukraine, and also regulation of the bases and the order of their application in separate uniform articles of the law.
I. The agreement about reconciliation between the victim and the suspect or accused, which sometimes is named as the institution of conciliation of the parties, is certainly a positive asset of procedural science. The principle of the priority of the interests of the victim, which is being revived in national legislation now, is consistent with the ideas of humanism. Criminal proceedings on the basis of agreements-the institution of criminal procedure, which provides for the simplification of criminal proceedings on the basis of a compromise between representatives of different parties, if guilt of the accused is proved and if there are mutual concessions and ensure of the restoration of violated criminal rights [24, p. 279].
Intermediaries in the negotiations on the agreement about reconciliation must be professional experts (mediators) who will take advice both parts to reach agreement and draft the required documents. The Council Framework Decision of 15 March 2001 "On the standing of victims in criminal proceedings" describes meditation in criminal cases as a search of a mutually acceptable solution between the victim and the offender through a competent mediator before or during the criminal process. Mediation is a program of reconciliation of victims and offenders, it is defined as a structured direct meeting of the parties of the conflict, during which with the help of a neutral third party (mediator) the victim and the offender have the opportunity to take an active part in solving problems, which were caused with the crime. Mediation in criminal cases allows to solve the conflict with the active involvement of both parties, it provides a more rapid real compensation of harm for the victim, it transforms the struggle between the parties in public activities to solve their problems, it helps the offender to realize his responsibility for the crime, it reduces the number of repeat offenses.
Although there are no special legal acts, which would create conditions for mediation in Ukraine to-
day, the current criminal and criminal procedure legislation of Ukraine contains of rules, which allow the judge to consider the consequences of results of mediation. The court considers the results of mediation and releases the defendant from criminal liability, applying article 45 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (effective repentance), article 46 of the Criminal Code (reconciliation with the victim). The judge can also take into account the reconciliation of the parties as a circumstance, which mitigates punishment during sentencing (paragraph 2 of part 1 and part 2 of article 66 of the Criminal Code); appoint a milder punishment than is provided by law for the commission of a serious and particularly serious crime (article 69 of the Criminal Code); release from serving a sentence with the appointment of probation on the basis of article 75, 104 of the Criminal Code, as well as to release a minor from criminal liability and punishment on the basis of article 97, 105 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
In conditions of insufficient funding and excessive workload of the judicial system, the introduction of mediation procedures at the legislative level, including in criminal proceedings, will contribute to the improvement of mechanisms for the protection of human and civil rights [25]. Mediation, in its present form, as a structured process, begins its history in the US from the 1940-th, when the Federal mediation and conciliation service was established to settle labor disputes. The following decades were famous by the rapid development of various schemes and procedures for the out-of-court settlement of disputes and their testing. And only in 2003 the Model law of the USA "On mediation" was developed and adopted. The Model law fixed everything, which was worked out and decided in practice. Thus, it is fixed that meditation is a process in which the mediator directs communication and negotiations between the parties to help them in reaching a voluntary agreement on their dispute. There is a point of view that The Model law "On mediation" in the United States had a main goal - the same protection of the confidentiality of mediation in different States to meet the expectations of the parties and the mediator regarding the confidentiality of mediation in order to promote the sincerity of participants in the mediation process, regardless of the venue.
The way of mediation in Ukraine is fundamentally different. About 20 years ago, mediation came to Ukraine and to a greater extent, oddly enough, developed in criminal cases, because the relevant articles of the Criminal Code and Criminal Procedure Code allowed the use of mediation, although it is not directly mentioned in the Codes. Ukraine, within the framework of its international obligations to harmonize legislation with the EU legislation, should take some steps to create conditions for the use of mediation, in particular in family, criminal, administrative and civil cases (according to the Recommendation of the Council of Europe Rec (98) 1; Rec (99) 19; Rec (2001) 9; Rec (2002) 10). Attempts of legislative settlement of mediation as a mechanism of out-of-court settlement of disputes began with the draft of Law "On mediation" from the Ministry of justice, which was submitted for public discussion in 2008 (and was not registered in the Verkhovna Rada of
Ukraine). Attempts to pass a Law "On mediation" have not had results yet. The last draft of Law "On mediation" was included in the agenda of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine:739-VII from 06.02.2014, but then 27.11.2014 the draft was withdrawn [11].
There is a successful experience of other countries in the use of compulsory pre-trial mediation, for example, some States in the United States, Italy, where a law was adopted with the corresponding requirement of compulsory pre-trial mediation. Some European countries have decided to use a softer model, which was recommended by the mediation court with a clear time limit for mediation (Slovenia's experience-it was recommended to participate in two mediation sessions for 4 hours). One of the main advantages of the introduction of compulsory judicial mediation is guaranteed popularization of mediation and unloading of courts.
II. The plea agreement is an absolute novelty of the criminal process, which was hastily introduced in the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine in 2012, has many doctrinal vices and legislative opuses. The term "the plea agreement" early the most theorists associated with a negative image of the prosecutor and the defense, who despite the official barriers and ethical principles, unselfishly "traded" about the favorable outcome of the case and then impose their decision to the defendant and the judge, that's why the criminal proceeding ends. Thus, opponents of the plea agreements, denying the possibility of the inclusion of this legal institution into the new criminal procedural legislation of post-Soviet countries argue that the institution contradicts to the principles of the criminal process, in particular, of the principle of objective truth, increases the risk of a miscarriage of justice [7].
The conclusion of such "machination" in the practice of European countries, as a rule, leads to a simplification of the procedure of further proceedings so the case is not transferred to the jury and the evidence, which were collected during the pre-trial investigation in court is practically not investigated. Indeed, the institution of exemption from criminal liability, for example, under the Federal criminal law of the United States, in comparison with the criminal law of Ukraine, has its own specifics. A characteristic feature of the pre-trial proceedings in the United States is "short distance'' from the time of the crime till making the final procedural decision in the case and the conclusion of the plea agreement in this country ends, according to various estimates, from 80 to 90 percent of all pre-trial investigations [9; 18].
The plea agreements in practice are known not only in the countries of the Anglo-American type of criminal procedure. Such procedures are enshrined in the CPC of Italy, Spain, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands and other countries. For example, a similar plea agreement in Ukraine is the so-called procedure "pat-teggiamento", which is enshrined in the Criminal Procedure Code of Italy. According to this norm at any time before the trial the prosecutor and the accused (his / her counsel) can agree about the qualification of the crime and the possible punishment with submitting an application to the court.
According to the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine (article 469) the plea agreement between the prosecutor and the suspect or the accused can be concluded on the initiative of any part. The conclusion of a plea agreement is not allowed in criminal proceedings in which the victim (person or legal person) takes part and in particularly serious crimes, regardless of the circle of subjects whom harm has suffered. The procedural order of the plea agreement is similar to the reconciliation of the parties, although it has a number of features. First of all, such an agreement can be concluded both in the framework of proceedings for criminal offenses, crimes of small or medium gravity and for serious crimes, as a result of which harm is caused only to the state or public interests (part 3 of article 469 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine). A plea agreement can be entered with the initiative of the prosecutor or the suspect or accused. For example, if the accused agrees with the prosecutor or the victim before his/her last word, he or she can before the last word or even during his or her speech declare that he or she wants to discuss one of the possible agreements. At the same time, the court allows the accused to finish his/her speech, according to part 3 of article 474 of the Criminal Procedure Code, so the court immediately stops the proceedings and proceeds to the consideration of the agreement on the merits. The conclusion of an agreement with the prosecutor as a result provides for a reduction of punishment or a complete exemption from criminal liability. Therefore, the proposed punishment in the agreement is agreed in advance by the parties, taking into account the nature of the charge and the circumstances, which should be taken into account by the prosecutor (article 470 of the CPC). A consequence of the conclusion of the plea agreement is a restriction of the rights of the prosecutor and the accused (the defendant) to appeal the decision of the court in appeal or cassation procedure (according to the provisions of articles 394 and 424 of the Criminal Procedure Code).
For this reason Tertyshnyk V. M. correctly notes: "According to paragraph 5 of article 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine "in the court debate the parties of the proceedings can use only evidence which was examined in court session". According to the requirements of part 4 of Art. 95 "the court can justify its findings only on the evidence which were said during the hearing". In part 3 art. 370 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine it is defined that "the decision, which is made by court on the basis of objectively clarified circumstances which are confirmed by the investigated proofs during trial and estimated by court according to article 94 of this Code". So, paragraph 2 of part 1 of article 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, article 472 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine and part 2 of article 473 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine (regarding the agreement between the prosecutor and the suspect or accused on the recognition of culpability) must not apply and must be canceled as norms which cancel existing substantive guarantee of finding the objective truth and ensure the rights and freedoms of the individual, to narrow existing rights and freedoms of a person and contradict the existing Constitution of Ukraine, international legal acts and the principles and individual provisions of the norms of the Criminal Procedure Code [23, p. 643].
Today a lot of scientists processualists support this position [6, 8, 28]. We take attention to an interesting decision of the European Court of human rights (ECHR), in the case "Mirovni Institut v. Slovenia" from 13.03.2018, in which the ECHR established that the trial must guarantee the right to a public hearing within the meaning of article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention, because such principle is a certain means of public control, one of the ways of asserting confidence in the court. Thus, the consideration of cases in simplified proceedings without calling the parties is contrary to the practice of the ECHR. According to the sentences handed down without a comprehensive examination of the evidence in court, it is possible, without a guaranteed right of the defendant to ask questions to witnesses who testify against him and without the participation of the defense in the study of other evidence, to be considered illegal. We can say also that according to article 17 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine: "Nobody is obliged to prove his innocence of committing a criminal offence and must be acquitted, if the prosecution does not prove the guilt of the person beyond a reasonable doubt".
There are certain objections to limiting the right to appeal a court verdict in the case of a plea agreement. Article 14 of the International Covenant "On civil and political rights" notes that "everyone, who is convicted of any crime has the right to hear his conviction and verdict by a higher court in accordance with the law" [2].
In the case "Rostovtsev against Ukraine" (verdict from 25.07.2017), the court determines that "any restriction of the right of viewing contained in national legislation has to pursue a legitimate aim and not to violate the essence of this right by analogy with the right of access to court, which is enshrined in article 6, paragraph 1 of the Convention".
Conclusion. Wider implementation of the institutions of production on the basis of agreements into the investigative and judicial practice needs strengthening of safeguards to protect the rights and freedoms of the participants of the process; development and implementation better procedure of investigation and court consideration of the relevant cases taking into account the rule of law. The Institute of "effective repentance" and procedural forms of production on the basis of agreements need coordination. The plea agreement cannot be applied in criminal proceedings of Ukraine because of its contradiction to the norms of the Constitution of Ukraine. However, the procedural form of application of the Institute of effective repentance should be required. The agreement about the reconciliation of the suspect with the victim should be more widely applied. Taking into account the formation of the institution of criminal offenses, such agreements should become an unquestionable basis for the closing of the proceedings by the bodies of inquiry at the pre-trial stages of the process and by the court at any stage of the trial. Prospects for further study of the problem mean the development of a conceptual model of the Institute of active repentance and a separate Chapter of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine which will be devoted to special forms of criminal proceedings.
References
1. Конституция Укра!ни: Прийнята Верховною Радою Украши 28 червня 1996 р. // Ввдомосп Верховно! Ради Украши. - 1996. - № 30. - Ст. 141{1з змшами, внесеними зпдно i3 Законами № 2222-IV вад 08.12.2004, ВВР, 2005, № 2, ст.44; № 2952-VI вад 01.02.2011, ВВР, 2011, № 10, ст.68; № 586-VII вад 19.09.2013, ВВР, 2014, № 11, ст.142 ; № 742-VII вад 21.02.2014, ВВР, 2014, № 11, ст.143; № 1401-VIII вад 02.06.2016, ВВР, 2016, № 28, ст.532}
2. £вропейська конвенщя про захист прав i основних свобод людини в1д 04.11.96 // Офщшний в1сник Укра!ни. - 1998. - №13.
3. Кримшально-процесуальний кодекс Украши // В1домост1 Верховно! Ради Укра!ни. - 2013. -№ 9-13. - Ст. 88, i3 змшами, внесеними зпдно i3 Законами Укра!ни / Верховна Рада [Електронний ресурс]. - Режим доступу: www.rada.gov.ua
4. Рамкове ршення Ради £вропейського Союзу «Про положения жертв у кримшальному судо-чинствЬ> в1д 15 березня 2001 року// Офщшний журнал. - 2001. - № L082. - С. 18-42.
5. Бщай А. В. Участь адвоката в мед1ацп: мо-нограф1я /за заг. ред. д. ю.н., проф. О. Г. Яновсько!. К.: Алерта, 2017. 260 с.
6. Добровольська О. Г. Проблеми шституту кримшального провадження на шдстав1 угод. Право i сусшльство Укра!ни. 2013. №5. С. 150-154.
7. 1ваненко П.С. Примирення винного з поте-рпшим. Часопис Академп адвокатури Укра!ни. 2010. №8.(с.16-19)
8. Карпов Н. С. Проведення скороченого судового розгляду у кримшальному процеа. Науко-вий вюник М1жнародного гуманитарного ушверси-тету. Сер1я Юриспруденщя. 2014. № 10-2. С. 104106.
9. Козочкин И.Д. Преступление и наказание в Англии, США, Франции, ФРГ, Японии: [учебное пособие]. М: Омега, 1992.
10. Комарова Т. В. Суд Свропейського Союзу: розвиток судово! системи та практики тлумачення права £С: монограф1я. Харшв: Право, 2018. 528 с.
11. Лившов В. I., Сачко О. В. Угоди в кримь нальному судочинствг Право i сусшльство. 2016. №6. С. 184-190.
12. Мороз В. Угода про визнання винуватосп як тдстава для визнання правочину фжгивним. Юридична газета. 07 червня 2018. http://yur-gazeta.com/dumka-eksperta/ugoda-pro-viznannya-vinuvatosti-yak-pidstava-dlya-viznannya-pravochinu-fiktivnim.html
13. Новосельцев А. Новые кодексы: кто дал вам право, или Пара слов о процессуальных закладках. Ракурс. 13 июля 2017. URL: https://racurs.ua/1606-kto-dal-vam-pravo-ili-para-slov-o-processualnyh-zakladkah.html
14. Нор В., Бобечко Н. Кримшально-процесуа-льне право Укра!ни: надбання, загрози, оч1кування. Law of Ukraine . 2017, Issue 5, p112-121. 10p.
15. Постанова Пленуму Вищого спещал1зова-ного Суду Укра!ни з розгляду цившьних i кримша-льних справ в1д 11 грудня 2015 року № 13 «Про практику здшснення судами кримшального прова-дження на шдстав1 угод».
16. Права i свободи людини i громадянина в УкраМ (доктрина £вропейського суду з прав людини i Конституцшного Суду Украши) : навчаль-ний посiбник / звернення до читачiв Голови Конституцшного Суду Украши (VII. 2010-VII. 2013 роки) Головша А. С. ; вст. слов о i заг. ред. проф. Мартиненка П. Ф., Кампа В. М. К., 2013. 376 с.
17. Правовi позицп £вропейського суду з прав людини: аналггичний огляд / О. М. Дроздов, О. В. Дроздова; за заг. ред. О. М. Дроздова, М. С. Ковтун, В. I. Ковтуна. Харшв: Видавничий будинок «Фактор», 2018. 624 с.
18. Прилуцький С. 1нститут допустимосп до-казiв у кримiнальному судочинствi США та Англй: порiвняльно-правовий аспект. Право Украши. 2006. №10. С.132-134.
19. Рибалко В. О. Примирення як одна з шдс-тав для укладення угод у кримшальному судочинс-твi / В. О. Рибалко // Актуальш проблеми юридич-но! науки на шляху сучасно! розбудови держави i суспiльства: матерiали Мiжнародно! науково-прак-тично! конференцп, м. Суми, 5-7 червня 2014 р. / Ред.кол.: В.С. Венеджтов, А.М. Кулш, М.М. Бур-бика; За ред.: В.С. Венеджтова, А.М. Кулша. -Суми : СумДУ, 2014. - С. 361-364.
20. Стандарты справедливого правосудия: международные и национальные практики / [Воско-битова М. Р., Диков Г. В., Насонов С. А. и др.] ; под ред. Т. Г. Морщаковой. - Москва: Мысль, 2012. -583 с.
21. Тертишник В. Без суду i слвдства: roa^i кути реформування кримшально-процесуального законодавства. Юридичний журнал. 2004. №11. С. 116-118.
22. Тертишник В. М. Верховенство права та за-безпечення встановлення ютини в кримiнальному процеа Укра!ни: монографiя. Днiпропетровськ: Днiпроп. держ. ун-т внутр. справ; Лiра ЛТД, 2009. 404 с.
23. Тертишник В. М. Науково-практичний ко-ментар Кримiнального процесуального кодексу Украши. Вид. 15-те, доповн. i перероб. К.: Правова едшсть, 2018. 854 с.
24. Тертишник В.М. Кримшальний кодекс Украши. Особлива частина: шдручник. Академiчне видання. К.:Алерта, 2014.- 420с.
25. ^мохов О. Медiацiя у кримшальних справах. Юридична газета №27(317) С.6-7.
26. Чумак К. Зв№нення вiд кримшально! вщ-поввдальносл у зв'язку iз примиренням винного з потершлим vs. угода про примирення: проблеми розмежування. Науковий часопис Нацюнально! академп прокуратури Укра!ни. 2016. № 2. Ч. 2. С. 135-141.
27. Щерба С. П., Савкин А. В. Деятельное раскаяние в совершенном преступлении. М., 1997. 48 с.
28. Ямпольський В. "Не винуватий я!", або дещо про угоди про визнання винуватосп [Електронний ресурс]. - Режим доступу:
http ://blog. liga. net/user/vyampolskyy/article/12156.as px
