Na zamolbu Ministarstva pravosuđa i uprave autori su izradili analizu razloga koji uzrokuju neopravdane odgode u sudskim postupcima u složenim kaznenim predmetima s prijedlozima odgovarajućih mjera za popravljanje stanja. Svrha je prijedloga ispunjenje preporuke Odbora
stručnjaka Vijeća Europe MONEYVAL iz Izvješća 5. kruga evaluacije o mjerama protiv pranja novca i protiv financiranja terorista za Republiku Hrvatsku. Uzimajući u obzir postavljeni zadatak, istraživanje se usredotočilo na kaznene postupke za kaznena djela kod kojih postoji
visok rizik od pranja novca te za odabrana kaznena djela srednjeg rizika. Kako bi se utvrdilo u kojem stadiju ili u kojim stadijima postupka dolazi do odugovlačenja postupka, odvojeno su analizirani (pod)stadij optuživanja, stadij rasprave i stadij žalbenog postupka. Istraživanje se sastojalo od tri dijela. U prvom su dijelu prikupljeni statistički podaci o trajanju kaznenih postupaka za odabrana kaznena djela u navedena tri stadija postupka, kao i o prosječnom trajanju tih stadija postupka za sva kaznena djela. U drugom dijelu napravljena je kvalitativna analiza odabranih predmeta, a u trećem su dijelu provedeni fokus-grupa i intervjui s državnim odvjetnicima, sucima i odvjetnicima. Uz provedeno istraživanje razmotreni su i opći uvjeti u pravosuđu koji utječu na trajanje svih kaznenih postupaka te recentne izmjene Zakona o kaznenom postupku usmjerene na ubrzanje kaznenih postupaka. Nakon
provedene analize iznose se nalazi i normativne preporuke za ubrzanje kaznenih postupaka u složenim predmetima.At the request of the Croatian Ministry of Justice and Public Administration, the authors
made an analysis of the reasons leading to undue delays in court proceedings in complex criminal cases, containing suggestions for appropriate measures to remedy the situation, in order
to meet the recommendation of the Committee of Experts of the Council of Europe MONEYVAL from the Fifth Round Mutual Evaluation Report on Croatia as regards anti-money
laundering and counter-terrorist financing measures. Taking into account the task set, the research focused on criminal proceedings regarding criminal offences where there is a high risk
of money laundering and for selected criminal offences of medium risk. In order to determine
at which stage or stages of the proceedings a delay occurs, the indictment stage, the hearing
stage, and the stage of the appeal were analysed separately. The study consisted of three parts.
In the first part, statistical data were collected on the length of the criminal proceedings for
selected criminal offences in the above-mentioned three stages of the proceedings, as well as
the average length of these stages of the proceedings for all criminal offences. In the second
part, a qualitative analysis of selected cases was carried out, while in the third part a focus
group and interviews with prosecutors, judges and lawyers were conducted. In addition to the
research carried out, consideration was given to the general conditions in the judiciary that
affect the length of all criminal proceedings, as well as recent amendments to the Criminal
Procedure Code (hereinafter: CPC) aimed at speeding up criminal proceedings. Finally, the
report contains conclusions and normative recommendations for speeding up criminal proceedings in complex cases.
At the legislative level it is recommended to introduce into the system criteria for identifying complex cases and to properly evaluate the work of prosecutors and judges on these cases.
The proposed criteria are the type of criminal offence, the number of accused persons, and the
number of offences. On the one hand, this would have the effect on reducing the allocation of
new cases during the handling of such cases and, on the other hand, on their correct evaluation
when considering whether a judge has fulfilled his or her judicial duties for a certain year. Recognising the complexity of such cases at the hearing stage would allow the judges to conduct
the hearing in a concentrated way which would consequently significantly reduce the length
of such cases. Two additional measures aimed at speeding up complex cases would be worth
considering: a) to forbid the possibility to file again the motion for the exclusion of evidence
at the hearing stage if the appeal court has already rendered a decision on the appeal against a
decision not to exclude certain evidence at the indictment stage; b) to facilitate the possibility
of trial in absentia by requiring that there are “important”, instead of “particularly important”
reasons for such a trial. This would speed up rendering the decision on trial in absentia in
some cases
