Minister Habijan: Amendments to the Criminal Procedure Act aim at speeding up and making court proceedings more efficient

Minister of Justice, Public Administration and Digital Transformation Damir Habijan presented the final proposal for amendments to the Criminal Procedure Act in the Croatian Parliament, pointing out that the aim of the reform is to speed up criminal proceedings and eliminate procedural solutions that in practice lead to unnecessary delays.

"What I said a few months ago, specifically a little over three months ago in the Croatian Parliament, is still valid today: this Final Proposal is aimed at speeding up criminal proceedings. We are aware that it is often pointed out in public that criminal proceedings, especially those under the scrutiny of the media and the public, take too long", Minister Habijan said at the beginning of the presentation.

Therefore, this Draft Final Proposal aims at addressing, at the normative level, the reasons that cause unjustified delays in judicial proceedings in complex criminal cases, in particular at the stage of the Indictment Panel. Such reasons, according to an independent analysis conducted by representatives of the Faculty of Law of the University of Zagreb, are caused by waiting for a decision of a higher court on an appeal against a decision on the (non-)exclusion of unlawful evidence, successive agreements as well as problems with service.

"The reasons for the changes are multiple and include external and internal factors. A prominent external reason is the process of joining the OECD. The internal reasons stem from the Ministry’s need to remove procedural elements which, according to the analyses carried out, unnecessarily prolong the proceedings, as well as from the need to implement the Hann-Invest judgment. This judgement has already been implemented in the umbrella law, the Courts Act, as well as in the Civil Procedure Act, and is now being implemented in the remaining procedural legislation, in the area of criminal law, namely the Criminal Procedure Act", said the Minister.

Under the current Criminal Procedure Act, the parties were summoned and participated in the work of the Indictment Panel, except in cases of criminal offences punishable by a term of imprisonment of up to five years. This will no longer be the rule, except in two exceptional cases. First, where the presence of the parties is required due to their request for a judgment based on a plea agreement between the parties, accompanied by a signed statement, and where it is necessary to rule on the legality of evidence.

"Furthermore, successive agreements before the Indictment Panel have been recognised as a significant factor slowing down the proceedings in practice. There have been situations, in the case of several defendants, in which some would express an intention to reach a plea agreement, as a result of which the proceedings would be separated, interrupted in relation to others and new hearings scheduled. According to the new solution, this will no longer happen in relation to those who have not submitted a statement on a plea agreement, the decision is going to be taken immediately at the same session of the Indictment Panel", the Minister added.

Finally, the Draft Final Proposal proposes that a special appeal against a decision on the (non-)exclusion of unlawful evidence not be allowed, unless the court decides otherwise, that is, as a rule, the special appeal will not be allowed, but if the court considers that the decision on the legality of evidence is of crucial importance for further proceedings, it will allow the special appeal.

"I would like to emphasize, as already pointed out in the Justice Committee and in the Plenary, that this does not undermine the rights of defence. The possibility of challenging the legality of evidence will continue to exist at other stages of the procedure, during the investigation, bench warrant hearing and, ultimately, at the main hearing.

It is expressly provided that the decision to replace a precautionary measure with pre-trial detention, in situations where the court is unable to issue that decision within the prescribed time limit due to due to the end of the working day, a public holiday or a non-working day, is taken by the investigating judge of the competent county court or or the county court having jurisdiction in the territory of the municipal court which imposed the precautionary measure on the accused, as well as a period of 24 hours from the arrest in which the police is obliged to bring the arrested person to the investigating judge to decide on the violation of precautionary measures, and that the competent judicial authority is going to decide without delay whether it is necessary to order pre-trial detention against the arrested person for violation of precautionary measures.  

"As regards the initial proposal of the Criminal Procedure Act and this Final Proposal, one of the amendments concerns clarification in relation to appeals that have already been lodged, as well as those for which the time limit is still running at the time of entry into force of the law. These cases will be treated according to current practice, i.e. according to the provisions of the current Criminal Procedure Act", concluded the Minister.

News