Information regarding the regulatory resolution of the Constitutional Court
(№ 63 of January 29, 2025)
The Constitutional Court considered a citizen’s appeal concerning the constitutionality of of parts four, five and six of Article 645 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter – CPC).
According to the citizen, these norms contradict the Constitution, as they allow the presiding judge to replace the jury after the jury has been removed to the deliberation room and the verdict has been voted on.
The norms of the CPC mentioned by him do not establish clear limits for the final replacement of jurors in the deliberation room, and the decision to remove a juror is reflected only in the record of the court session, which is not subject to appeal to a higher court, unlike a court ruling.
According to the appellant, the judge was given broad discretionary powers that violated the equality of arms between the jury and the judge, and limited the appellant's right to judicial protection.
After examining all materials and legislation, the Constitutional Court concluded that the provisions of the CPC mentioned by the citizen were in accordance with the Constitution. The Constitutional Court explained that the Basic Law does not enshrine the procedure for the realization of the constitutional right to judicial protection of one's rights and freedoms, referring the regulation of this issue to the level of law.
In addition, the Constitutional Court noted that the replacement of a juror and the resulting dissolution of the jury panel after the verdict had been rendered infringed on the defendant's right to a fair trial. This is particularly important if the verdict is acquittal. If the jury has reached a verdict, any interference, including the replacement of jurors and the related dissolution of the panel, nullifies the legal meaning of the key guarantees of a fair trial, the principle of finality and legal certainty of the verdict and violates paragraph 2 of Article 77 of the Constitution.
According to Article 645 of the CPC, the dissolution of the jury panel is mandatory if the number of alternate jurors is insufficient to form a panel.
The Constitutional Court recommended that the law should stipulate the conditions under which the need to replace the main jury with alternates would not lead to the forced dissolution of the jury panel or would significantly minimize the occurrence of such risks.
In this regard, the Constitutional Court pointed out certain legal gaps at the level of the law and recommended the Government to resolve them within the framework of the work on improvement of the criminal procedural legislation in order to strengthen the mechanism of realization of the constitutional right to judicial defense with the participation of jurors.