The Right to Appeal and Consensual Forms in Criminal Procedure: Comparative Experiences and Analysis of Practice in the Republic of Croatia

Institutes of consensual justice involve waivers or restrictions concerning legal remedies. However, the academic community and non -governmental organizations caution against the dangers associated with such waivers or significant limitations on the right to appeal in terms of their regulation or usage. A comparative analysis focuses on consensual justice institutes and the right to appeal from both the European (civil law) and American (common law) perspectives, including standards that are developed within the Council of Europe and international criminal law. The paper aims to examine diverse approaches and legislative solutions concerning the restriction of the defendant's right to appeal in this specific domain. The paper provides an in-depth analysis of the Croatian legislative framework, with introductory remarks about the particularities of German, Swiss, French, and Italian solutions. The study explores how Croatia regulates the right to objection and appeal concerning the most used institute of consensual justice, the penal order. Additionally, the paper scrutinizes the legal constraints associated with the right to appeal for judgments based on the agreement of the parties by analyzing relevant case law that highlights these limitations. The qualitative analysis includes insights gathered from practitioners through a series of semi -structured interviews with judges, state prosecutors, and defene lawyers regarding the practical ramifications of consensual justice institutes. Furthermore, data obtained from Croatia's largest State Attorney's Office, the Municipal Criminal State Attorney's 's Office in Zagreb, is used to showcase the percentage of objections to judgments issued through penal orders, along with typical cases in which the state prosecutor appeals judgments issued through penal orders.