Кои са „всички страни“ при решаване на делото със споразумение в съдебното производство по смисъла на чл. 384, ал. 3 НПК?.
Which are „all parties“ when resolving a case through a settlement in judicial proceedings under Art. 384, para. 3 of the Criminal Procedure Code?

Summary/Abstract: The article examines some of the issues that participants in the preliminary hearing should take a stand on, specifically whether there are grounds for considering the case under the special rules. The article focuses on the willingness expressed by only a part of the defendants to enter into a settlement. The courts’ inconsistent practice accumulated over the years concerning the additional requirement for the approval of a settlement presented in the judicial phase, namely, the consent of all parties (Art. 384, para. 3 of the Criminal Procedure Code), brings about unequal treatment of defendants when their co-defendants and their defence counsels have not given their consent. The article highlights the doctrinal views on the application of the ambiguous provision, the attempts at legislative solutions, and the responses to prejudicial questions given by the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning this institute. An attempt is made to systematize in groups the inconsistent practice of the Supreme Court of Cassation regarding the relevance of the will of the other defendants and their defence counsels. The author’s opinion is also presented, namely why the consent of the latter is not necessary.

• Details
• Contents