CYIL vol. 15 (2024)

JIŘÍ MULÁK of negotiating a plea bargain. Together, they argued unfair treatment and violation of procedural principles, alleging a violation of Article 6(1) ECHR and Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 to the ECHR. The first applicant, the general manager of an automobile factory, was accused of illegally reducing the capital of the factory. He objected, in the context of Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 to the ECHR, to the fact that it was not possible to appeal against a plea agreement which he considered to be disproportionate. The Georgian Government submitted in relation to his complaint that, with regard to the reasonableness of judicial review, the agreement had been reached following a judicial hearing in which the judge had ensured that the agreement had been reached on the basis of the applicant’s free will and informed consent. The Government further added that by accepting the plea agreement the applicant had voluntarily waived his right to appeal. The plea-bargaining process which led to the first applicant’s conviction by summary trial did not violate either Article 6(1) ECHR or Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 to the ECHR. As regards the Government’s argument, the applicant argued that the termination of the prosecution against him on the basis of a plea bargain constituted a violation of Article 6(1) ECHR and Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 to the ECHR. The applicant insisted that the charges against him had been brought without a fair trial and without the possibility of appeal. He stressed that, although acceptance of the plea agreement constituted a waiver of certain procedural rights, that waiver was not accompanied by effective safeguards against abuse of due process. On the first applicant’s complaint and his objection under Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 to the ECHR, the ECtHR stated that in the case of a plea agreement, the scope of the right to review is clearly more limited. At the same time, a conviction based on a plea agreement also constitutes a waiver of the right to a trial on the merits of the criminal case against the accused. The ECtHR has emphasised the difference in procedural safeguards in the case of a person convicted on the basis of a regular criminal trial. The ECtHR considers that, by accepting the plea agreement, the first applicant waived his right to due process and waived his right to a proper appeal. He submitted that this particular legal consequence of the plea agreement, which was the result of a clearly worded provision of national law, had been or should have been explained to him by his legal representatives and he must therefore have been aware of the consequences of the plea agreement. The ECtHR therefore concludes that the first applicant’s acceptance of the plea agreement, which had the effect of waiving his rights to a proper trial on the merits and to a proper appellate review, was undoubtedly a conscious and voluntary decision. In the ECtHR’s view, given the circumstances of the case, this decision cannot be said to have been the result of any coercion or false promises on the part of the prosecution, but was, on the contrary, accompanied by sufficient safeguards against possible abuse of process. The ECtHR considered that it could not be shown, even on the basis of the materials available in the case, that this waiver was contrary to any important public interest. Therefore, the ECtHR found that there had been no violation of Article 6(1) ECHR or Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 to the ECHR. 46 4.6 Case-law ECtHR against other states In case of Firat v. Greece , 47 the ECtHR dealt with a complaint by a Turkish citizen against Greece alleging a violation of Article 6(1) ECHR, namely a failure to respect the principle of 46 ECtHR decision in Natsvlishvili and Togonidze v. Georgia , of 29 April 2018, application no. 9043/05, §§ 90–98. 47 ECtHR decision in Firat v. Greece , of 9 November 2018, application no. 46005/11.

222