Abstract:
Проаналізовано статистичні дані щодо укладення угод у кримінальному провадженні і
затвердження їх вироком суду. Детально розглянуто судові рішення національних судів і рішення
ЄСПЛ щодо затвердження судами угоди про визнання винуватості з однією особою і її вплив на
дію презумпції невинуватості стосовно інших співучасників. Було проаналізовано такі рішення
ЄСПЛ, як «Navalnyy and Ofitserov v. Russia» і «Mucha v. Slovakia». Надано науково обґрунтовані
рекомендації щодо удосконалення національної правозастосовної практики з метою захисту прав
та законних інтересів учасників кримінального провадження, які укладають угоди. 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.
