Diversion, Restorative Justice and Mediation in PIF Crimes. National Resport, Spain

DRAMP Diversion, Restorative Justice and Mediation in PIF Crimes NATIONAL REPORT SPAIN by C. Guil Román 1 , N. Pérez Rivas 2 , M. Cugat Mauri 3 (editors) and written by M. Castro Corredoira 4 , M. Cugat Mauri 5 , C. de Frutos Gómez 6 , Mª. J Guardiola Lago 7 , C. Guil Román 8 , A. Nieto Martín 9 , N. Pérez Rivas 10 , I. Valeije Álvarez 11 , F. Vázquez-Portomeñe Seijas 12 1 Magistrada, Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona (Sección 3ª) y Vicepresidenta Internacional de GEMME (Grupo Europeo de Magistrados por la Mediación (on restorative measures) 2 Prof. Ayudante Doctor y Vicedecana de la Facultad de Derecho de la Universidad de Santiago de Compostela (on alternative dispute resolution, as well as sanctions and execution of restorative measures) 3 Profesora titular de Derecho penal, Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona (on plea agreement) 4 Profesora de Derecho penal en el Grado de Criminología, Universidad de Santiago de Compostela (on execution of restorative measures) 5 (on plea agreement) 6 Fiscal coordinadora de conformidades, Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona (on plea agreement) 7 Profesora agregada de Derecho penal, Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona (on restorative measures) 8 (on restorative measures) 9 Catedrático de Derecho penal de la Universidad de Castilla La Mancha y subdirector de su Instituto de Derecho penal europeo e internacional (on eurocrimes) 10 (on alternative dispute resolution, as well as sanctions and execution of restorative measures) 11 Profesora titular de Derecho penal, Universidad de Santiago de Compostela (on legal persons, and on execution of restorative measures) 12 Catedrático de Derecho penal, Universidad de Santiago de Compostela (on sanctions and execution of restorative measures) 1 Table of contents Abbreviations.................................................................................................................... 3 1. Measures adopted to implement the PIF Directive in the domestic legal system and other criminal rules on financial crimes adopted at the domestic level............................ 4 1.1. Description of the measures adopted to implement the PIF Directive at the national level .................................................................................................................................................... 4 1.2. Comment on domestic criminal rules on financial crimes relevant to EPPO ..................... 4 1.2.1. Fraud in respect of non-procurement-related expenditure (subsidies)......................... 4 1.2.2. Fraud with respect to procurement-related expenditure .............................................. 6 1.2.3. Fraud with respect to revenues other than VAT .......................................................... 7 1.2.4. VAT fraud .................................................................................................................... 8 1.2.5. Money laundering ........................................................................................................ 8 1.2.6. Corruption .................................................................................................................... 8 1.2.7. Embezzlement .............................................................................................................. 9 2. Relevant provisions on ADR-Alternative Dispute Resolution in Criminal Matters and on simplified procedures for the non-judicial settlement of disputes ............................... 9 2.1. Alternative dispute resolution ............................................................................................. 9 2.1.1. Regulatory principles of the criminal process.............................................................. 9 2.1.2. Objective scope .......................................................................................................... 10 2.1.3. Restorative process .................................................................................................... 12 2.1.4. Powers of the Authority that triggers the settlement procedure................................. 14 2.2. Simplified procedures ....................................................................................................... 15 2.2.1. Nature and regulation of the measure ........................................................................ 15 2.2.2. Requirements ............................................................................................................. 16 2.2.3. Plea agreement and mediation ................................................................................... 18 2.2.4. Procedure and competent judicial bodies for plea agreement.................................... 18 3. The accused and the damaged party in the ADR procedure....................................... 19 2 3.1. The accused and the damaged party in the restorative justice .......................................... 19 3.2. The defendant and the victim in the plea agreement proceedings .................................... 20 3.2.1. The defendant and the victim in the plea agreement proceedings ............................. 20 3.2.2. Plurality of defendants ............................................................................................... 21 3.3. The legal person ................................................................................................................ 22 3.3.1. Criminal liability of legal persons .............................................................................. 22 3.3.2. Legal person and restorative justice ........................................................................... 24 4. Observations on the functioning of the ne bis in idem principle ................................ 26 4.1. Adult criminal procedure .................................................................................................. 26 4.2. Juvenile justice system ...................................................................................................... 26 5. Evaluation of the concrete impact of the ADR procedures ........................................ 27 5.1. Restorative justice for adults ............................................................................................. 27 5.1.1. Effects on the form of termination of criminal proceedings ...................................... 27 5.1.2. Penological consequences .......................................................................................... 27 5.1.3. Execution of the restorative agreement ...................................................................... 28 5.2. Restorative justice for juveniles ........................................................................................ 30 5.2.1. Effects on the form of termination of criminal proceedings ...................................... 30 5.3. Plea agreement .................................................................................................................. 30 5.3.1. The impact on the reparation of damage .................................................................... 30 5.3.2. The impact of the plea agreement on suspended sentences ....................................... 31 5.3.3. The impact of the plea agreement on shortening the duration of the process ............ 31 5.3.4. The impact of the plea agreement on the achievement of the resocialization goal ... 33 6. Further observations and comments ........................................................................... 33 7. List of national cases (optional, if available) .............................................................. 34 8. Bibliographical references .......................................................................................... 34 9. Annex: text of the relevant laws/acts/ provisions ....................................................... 36 3 Abbreviations APLECrim: Anteproyecto de Ley de Enjuiciamiento Criminal / Preliminary Draft of the Criminal Procedure Law ATS: Auto del Tribunal Supremo / Supreme Court Order CP: Código penal / Criminal Code CGAE: Consejo General de la Abogacía Española / General Council of Spanish Lawyers CGPJ: Consejo General del Poder Judicial / General Council of the Judiciary EOMF: Estatuto Orgánico del Ministerio Fiscal / Organic Statute of the Public Prosecutor's Office FGE: Fiscalía General del Estado / State Prosecutor's Office IVA: Impuesto sobre el valor añadido / Value Added Tax LECrim.: Ley de Enjuiciamiento Criminal / Criminal Procedure Act LEVD: Ley Estatuto de la víctima del delito / Law on the standing of victims crime LO: Ley Orgánica / Organic Act LOPJ: Ley Orgánica del Poder Judicial / Organic Act on Jury Court LORPM: Ley Orgánica reguladora de la responsabilidad penal de los menores / Organic Law regulating the criminal responsibility of minors LOTJ: Ley Orgánica del Tribunal del Jurado / Organic Act of the Jury Court LORC: Ley Orgánica de Represión del Contrabando / Organic Act for the Repression of Smuggling MF: Ministerio Fiscal / Public Prosecutor OAVD: Oficina de asistencia a las víctimas de delitos / Crime Victims Assistance Office PA: procedimiento abreviado / Abbreviated procedure PIF: Protección de los intereses financieros / Protection of financial interests RPPJ: responsabilidad penal de las personas jurídicas / Criminal liability of legal persons STC: Sentencia del Tribunal Constitucional / Constitutional Court Judgement STS: Sentencia del Tribunal Supremo / Supreme Court Judgement UE: Unión Europea / European Union 4 1. Measures adopted to implement the PIF Directive in the domestic legal system and other criminal rules on financial crimes adopted at the domestic level 1.1. Description of the measures adopted to implement the PIF Directive at the national level Directive (EU) 2017/1371 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2017 on the fight against fraud to the Union's financial interests by means of criminal law. Organic Act 1/2019, of 20 February, which amends Organic Act 10/1995, of 23 November, on the Criminal Code, to transpose European Union Directives in the financial and terrorism fields, and to address international issues. Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 of 12 October 2017 implementing enhanced cooperation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (‘the EPPO’). Organic Act 9/2021, of 1 July, implementing Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 of 12 October 2017 establishing enhanced cooperation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor's Office. 1.2. Comment on domestic criminal rules on financial crimes relevant to EPPO Directive (EU) 2017/1371 has been transposed by Organic Act 1/2019, which has focused on the reform of offenses against public finances and, particularly, subsidy fraud. However, no specific attention has been paid to the provisions related to fraud in public procurement. 1.2.1. Fraud in respect of non-procurement-related expenditure (subsidies) 1.2.1.1. Art. 308 CP The most important precept is art. 308 CP, which, in accordance with the principle of assimilation, protects jointly the fraud of subsidies whose budgetary origin is Spanish (Inland Revenue, that of the Autonomous Communities, special provinces or local authorities) or European. In the case of co-financed subsidies, the total amount of the 5 subsidy is considered, regardless of the amounts specifically contributed by each administration. Art. 308 CP collects the conducts referred to in art. 3.2 a) of Directive (EU) 2017/1371. It is a special offense, so its perpetrators can only be the beneficiaries of the grant. The criminal liability of the legal person is provided for (art. 310 bis CP). The criminal type, for its consummation requires the final obtaining of the funds. It is possible to punish the attempt. Subsidy fraud is punished as a crime when the amount of the subsidy exceeds €10,000. The penalties are increased if the subsidy exceeds €100,000. This amount refers, according to the majority doctrine and jurisprudence, to the amount that has been improperly obtained and not to the total amount of the subsidy obtained. The reimbursement of the amounts defrauded before the initiation of an investigation into the fraud results in exemption of penalty. The initiation of criminal proceedings does not prevent the Administration from demanding repayment of the amounts through administrative channels. 1.2.1.2. Art. 306 CP Prior to the 2019 reform, EU subsidy fraud was punished by special criminal offenses. The main objective of the 2019 reform has been, in accordance with the principle of assimilation, to equate subsidy fraud regardless of its budgetary origin, hence the special precepts of European subsidy fraud have been repealed. Consequently, the subsistence of art. 306 CP, which refers exclusively to funds coming from the EU, is an oversight by the legislator. The doctrine, in accordance with the principle of preservation of rules, proposes to apply it to residual cases of subsidy fraud. In this way it could be applied to punish the concealment of relevant facts or the communication of false relevant facts that concern, not the phase of granting the subsidy, but the possibility of continuing to enjoy a subsidy to which one is no longer entitled or a periodic subsidy that is automatically renewed. 6 1.2.1.3. Crime of fraud (art. 248 CP). The case law maintained, in a first phase, that between the crime of subsidy fraud and fraud there was a concurrence of rules to be resolved in favour of subsidy fraud based on the criterion of specialty (art. 8.4 CP, STC no. 13/2003, of 28 January), in such a way that the non-existence of subsidy fraud prevented the application of the crime of fraud. However, the important STS no. 105/2013, of 28 November has corrected this criterion by stating that the crime of fraud should be applied as a priority, and only in the absence of its assumptions, subsidy fraud would enter the scene as a subsidiary precept. The doctrinal and jurisprudential discussion is not, however, closed. The criminal liability of the legal person is foreseen (art. 251 bis CP). 1.2.2. Fraud with respect to procurement-related expenditure The Spanish legal system does not contain any specific provision to punish fraud with respect to expenses related to public tenders and that includes the behaviours described in art. 3.2.b) Directive (EU) 2017/1371. The first two behaviours referred to in the Directive can be sanctioned through the offense of fraud. It is true that, with regard to the second of them (failure to comply with an express obligation to communicate) there may be doubts. Most of the doctrine and jurisprudence, however, consider that when there is an express obligation to communicate, silence is equivalent to an affirmation that could be considered as a conclusive action. Beyond this point, in Spain, the sanction of fraud by omission is still under discussion. It is widely held that the failure to mislead cannot amount to deception, nor is it a conduct that falls within the literal meaning of the offence of fraud. The conduct described in the last clause of art. 3.2 b) in relation to expenditure related to public tenders (the misuse of such funds or assets for purposes other than those for which they were originally granted, and which damages the financial interests of the Union) can be punished through the crime of misappropriation of public funds (art. 432 CP). Extensively reformed in 2015, this precept criminalizes behaviours constituting either unfair administration (art. 252 CP) or misappropriation (art. 253 CP), committed by public officials in charge of public funds. European public officials and of other EU states are considered active subjects of the crime of embezzlement (art. 435 bis CP in relation to arts. 24 and 427 CP). Private 7 individuals involved in the crime of embezzlement can be considered as instigators, accomplices, and necessary co-operators. In these cases, the penalties may be mitigated (art. 65.3 CP). The criminal liability of legal persons is established (art. 435.5º CP). 1.2.3. Fraud with respect to revenues other than VAT Fraud involving revenue other than VAT, and which basically corresponds to the common customs tariff is punishable through the smuggling offenses provided for in the LORC. The structure of these offenses bears no relation to the behaviours described in art. 3. 2 c) Directive (EU) 2017/1371. Art. 2.1 LORC contains the smuggling offenses in relation to lawfully traded goods that are applicable to Common Customs Tariff fraud. The typical conducts that are punished constitute tax evasion, although their description is adapted to the peculiar typology of customs tariff fraud. The most common fraudulent behaviour is clandestine import or export. Tax evasion occurs by physically evading customs control of the goods by not presenting them for clearance at the customs offices or at the places authorized by the customs administration [art. 2.1.a)]. On other occasions, although the goods have in principle been placed under customs control, the circumvention occurs through their "concealment or removal" within the premises or places authorized [art. 2.1.a), second paragraph]. As in the case of tax fraud, taxpayers liable for customs duties are obliged to inform the Tax Authorities truthfully and fully all the circumstances relevant to the determination of the customs debt. Customs duties depend on the quality or composition of the product (it is not the same to export first category meat as waste) and sometimes on its origin, since with certain countries there are preferential agreements that imply the reduction or even the elimination of the duty. Inaccurate declarations on these aspects constitute the conduct described in articles 2.1.e) and 2.2.d). The administrative act referred to in this provision - release - determines the tariff treatment of the goods (art. 123 of Regulation 450/2008, establishing the Community Customs Code). A singular form of tariff fraud, derived from the peculiarities of the internal market and the disappearance of fiscal customs between EU countries, is the one described in art. 2.1.c). To prevent non-EU goods entering through the customs office of one EU country, but destined for another country, from being subject to controls at all the customs offices through which they must pass, the EU has regulated the transit procedure (internal transit). This procedure also applies when the goods must pass through or are destined for a third country (external transit, regulated by the TIR Convention of 15 November 1975). Goods under this procedure pay customs duties in the country of destination and not in the first country through which they were introduced into the EU. The fraud in these cases is that the goods, introduced legally, are "lost" along the way, before the duty is paid at the customs office of destination, and are destined for consumption. 8 1.2.4. VAT fraud VAT fraud is punished through the tax offense provided for in art. 305.3 CP, which expressly assimilates taxes from the EU. The main purpose of art. 305.3 CP in relation to VAT fraud is that it punishes fraud when the amount exceeds €10,000. Fraud against national taxes, on the other hand, is only criminally relevant when the amount exceeds €120,000. These amounts refer to the total amount defrauded in a calendar year. Art. 305.2, a) CP expressly provides that when the fraud is carried out within a criminal organization or by means of front companies, it is not necessary to wait until the end of the calendar year to prosecute the fraud. The various conducts provided for by Art. 3.2.d) Directive (EU) 2017/1371 are typical. The criminal liability of legal persons is foreseen in art. 310 bis CP. Attempt and all forms of participation referred to in the Directive are punishable. 1.2.5. Money laundering Under Spanish law, money laundering (art. 301 CP) is a criminal offense regardless of the crime in which the assets originate. Therefore, there is no doubt that the commission of crimes is to the detriment of the financial interests of the EU. The crime of money laundering is also applicable, even if the assets come from crimes committed in other EU countries or third countries, provided that the principle of dual criminality is respected (art. 301.4 CP). Criminal liability of legal persons is foreseen (art. 302.2 CP). Attempt and all forms of participation referred to in Directive (EU) 2017/1371 are punishable. 1.2.6. Corruption The arts. 24, 427, 431 and 435 bis CP assimilate EU officials and from other EU countries to Spanish public officials for the purposes of all types of bribery offences (arts. 419 and following CP) and even influence peddling offences (art. 428 CP) and embezzlement (art. 435 bis CP). For this reason, in addition to sanctioning the behaviours described in art. 4.2 Directive, Spanish law also sanctions others, regardless of whether the purpose of the corruption or influence peddling is to harm the EU's financial interests. 15 In the APLECrim, restorative justice is configured as an alternative mechanism to the exercise of criminal action. In this regard, it is established that it will be the Public Prosecutor -depending on the circumstances of the act-, the offender and the victim, who may, ex officio or at the request of a party, refer the parties to a restorative procedure (art. 182.1 APLECrim). Once the process is concluded, the restorative justice service will issue a report on the positive or negative result of the activity carried out, accompanying, in the positive case, the reparation certificate with the agreements reached by the parties (art. 183.1 APLECrim). The Public Prosecutor, assessing the agreements reached by the parties, the circumstance, and the status of the procedure, may order the file by opportunity in accordance with the provisions of arts. 175 and 176 of this law, imposing as rules of conduct the agreements reached by the parties. 2.1.4.2. Restorative justice for juveniles The direction of the investigation in the juvenile criminal proceedings corresponds to the Public Prosecutor. For this reason, the Public Prosecutor is who may desist from the initiation of the file (art. 18 LORPM) or send the file to the judicial body with a proposal for dismissal for conciliation or reparation between the minor and the victim (art. 19 LORPM) if the legal requirements are appreciated in that case. 2.2. Simplified procedures 2.2.1. Nature and regulation of the measure In current Spanish legislation, plea agreement is regulated in the following articles of the LECrim: − Ordinary procedure for the prosecution of serious crimes 15 (arts. 655 and 688 LECrim), a priori, of no interest for the matter in question. − Abbreviated procedure 16 (arts. 779, 784, 787 LECrim), which is of greater interest for crimes under the jurisdiction of the EPPO. − Fast-track procedure 17 (arts. 800 and following LECrim), in principle not applicable to crimes under the jurisdiction of the EPPO, except the institution of 15 Imprisonment of more than 9 years of abstract punishment (art. 757 LECrim), except crimes under the jurisdiction of the Jury. 16 Applicable to offences punishable by imprisonment for up to 9 years, or other penalties (art. 757 LECrim). 16 the awarding of plea bargains, which may benefit less serious crimes (arts. 779.1, 5º, 800 and following LECrim). Thus, for example, fraud against the EU Treasury that do not exceed €100,000. − Proceedings before the Jury Court 18 (art. 50 LOTJ), applicable to some of the crimes under the jurisdiction of the EPPO (such as bribery, influence peddling or embezzlement). − Proceedings by acceptance of a decree 19 (arts. 803 bis and following LECrim), for which the condition of the minor nature of the criminal act should be added to the fact that no private or popular accusation has been filed in the case, which in principle will not happen in cases of tax fraud or against the Public Administration. − Procedure for minors 20 (arts. 32 and 36 LORPM), applicable in the few cases in which the minor is charged with any of these crimes, which, although not frequent, cannot be completely ruled out. To the above, arts 109.1.b) and 110 of Organic Act 9/2021 should be added, which expressly provide for plea agreements for cases within the jurisdiction of the EPPO. 2.2.2. Requirements For its viability it is necessary that the penalty requested by the prosecution does not exceed six years of imprisonment, which is the case for most economic crimes and in any case for those that are the object of the EPPO. It is also necessary that the defendant accepts the facts and the penalty. There is no limitation due to the nature of the crime, although this may determine the type of criminal procedure to be followed and the consequent particularities of the plea agreement foreseen for it. The fact that the accused is a repeat offender is not an obstacle either, if this does not result in the imposition of a sentence exceeding the maximum limit. For the purposes of the maximum penalty threshold, it should be borne in mind that: − the penalty of reference is not the one abstractly provided for in the law, but the one specifically requested by the prosecution. 17 Applicable to offences of lesser gravity (punishable by a custodial sentence not exceeding five years, or others not exceeding ten years) and complexity that meet the requirements of art. 795 LECrim. 18 Applicable to the list of offences in art. 1 LOTJ. On the rules of connection determining jurisdictional competence, see the ATS of 9 March 2017. 19 For cases in which: the offence is punishable by a fine or community service or a prison sentence not exceeding one year, which may be suspended in accordance with the provisions of art. 80 CP. 20 For any offence committed by minors (art. 2 LORPM). 17 − it will be the one resulting from the application of the rules for the determination of the penalty provided for in the Criminal Code, with the sole exception of the cases rewarded or benefited with a plea agreement for which the LECrim provides for the reduction of the penalty by one third. − in case of plurality of crimes, the maximum penalty limit refers to each one of them, except for the rewarded plea agreement cases that considers the total amount. − according to the criteria of the State Attorney General's Office, the subsidiary personal liability for non-payment of fines does not compute in the calculation of the maximum penalty (State Attorney General's Office Consultation 4/1999). Nothing is specified in the law about the maximum penalty limit when it is not a custodial sentence, which raises many interpretative problems, although it is generally understood that crimes punished with non-custodial sentences admit a plea agreement. This criterion is considered pro-defendant and seems to fit with the generic idea that non-custodial sentences are always minor. However, this is not always the case, because while absolute disqualification or penalties applicable to legal persons are serious penalties, prison sentences not exceeding five years are less serious. Therefore, in the absence of a legal table of equivalences, it would be desirable for the legislator to indicate which non-custodial sentences admit a plea agreement, which is currently only partially provided for in the case of a rewarded plea agreement, opening a major interpretative problem for the rest. However, if a future reform of the procedural law were to admit a plea agreement for any type of crime with no maximum penalty limit (as envisaged in the current Preliminary Draft), the problem would cease to be of interest. According to art. 110 LECrim, the only limit for a plea agreement in EPPO cases is imposed by the prison sentence, which cannot exceed six years. There is no limit for the other sentences, with respect to which the problem just described will arise. Thus, for example, in the case of bribery under art. 419 CP, for which four years of imprisonment and twelve years of disqualification could be requested. Formally, a plea agreement would be possible, although the seriousness of the penalty of disqualification might make it advisable to hold a trial. 18 2.2.3. Plea agreement and mediation In consideration of the need for the accused to accept the sentence requested by the prosecution, in the negotiation of the plea agreement is of special importance, the agreement on the application of mitigating factors that can considerably reduce the sentence, as well as on the suspension of the execution of the prison sentence. For both, the reparation of the damage caused by the crime will be relevant. On the one hand, because it will allow the application of the mitigating factor of reparation, which, if highly qualified, can reduce the sentence by up to two degrees, which could be added to other grounds for mitigation, such as undue delay; on the other hand, because it helps to support the suspension of the sentence. Consequently, the process of a plea agreement can be associated with an extra procedural mediation process that facilitates both recognition of the facts and reparation of the damage. This is neither necessary nor frequent. In this case, the follow-up of a mediation process could be translated into the presentation of a joint statement of qualification (art. 779.1.5ª LECrim, with reference to arts. 800 and 801 for the plea agreement awarded before the Examining Magistrate in the abbreviated procedure; 784.3, para. 1º LECrim for the plea agreement in the intermediate phase of the abbreviated procedure; art. 787 LECrim; art. 787.1, 2nd paragraph LECrim for the plea agreement in the oral hearing of the abbreviated procedure; art. 50 LOTJ for the plea agreement in the procedure before the Jury) that would seal the maximum limit of the sentence that could be imposed by the Judge. 2.2.4. Procedure and competent judicial bodies for plea agreement Since there is no specific procedure foreseen for the cases subject to the EPPO, the plea agreement must be processed in accordance with the general regulations that admit it in the following procedures: a) Ordinary procedure for the prosecution of serious crimes: i. sentencing court, in the intermediate phase (art. 655 LECrim). ii. sentencing court, at the beginning of the oral trial sessions (art. 688 LECrim). 19 b) Abbreviated procedure: i. Examinig Magistrate (art. 779.4 LECrim with reference to arts. 800 and following LECrim), in the case of awarding a plea agreement. ii. Sentencing body - Criminal Court Judge or Magistrate of the Provincial Court -, in the intermediate phase (art. 784.3 LECrim). iii. Sentencing body - Criminal Court Judge or Magistrate of the Provincial Court -, at the beginning of the oral trial sessions (art. 787 LECrim). c) Rapid procedure: arts. 800 and following LECrim. i. The Examining Magistrate on Duty, in the case of awarding a plea agreement (arts. 800 and following LECrim). ii. Sentencing body - Criminal Judge or Magistrate of the Provincial Court - , in the intermediate phase (art. 784.3 LECrim, of subsidiary application, by virtue of art. 795 LECrim). iii. Criminal Court Judge, at the beginning of the oral trial sessions (art. 802 LECrim, with reference to art. 787 LECrim). d) Procedure before the Jury Court: art. 50 LOTJ. i. Presiding Magistrate, in the plea agreement in the provisional qualification by supplementary application of the LECrim (art. 24 LOTJ). ii. Presiding Judge, at the beginning of the oral trial sessions (by supplementary application of the Criminal Procedure Act, according to art. 24 LOTJ). iii. Presiding Judge, at the time of the definitive conclusions (art. 50 LOTJ). e) Juvenile proceedings: arts. 32 and 36 LORPM. i. Juvenile Judge (art. 32 LORPM), after the opening of the hearing phase. ii. Judge for minors (art. 36 LORPM), at the beginning of the hearing sessions. 3. The accused and the damaged party in the ADR procedure 3.1. The accused and the damaged party in the restorative justice The victim and the offender may access restorative justice services, as determined by the regulations, to obtain adequate redress for the material and emotional harm arising from the offence, where the following requirements are met (art. 15 LEVD): a) the offender has acknowledged the relevant acts from which his or her liability arises; b) the 20 victim has given his or her consent, after receiving exhaustive and impartial information about their content, the possible outcomes and the procedures for enforcing them; c) the offender has given his or her consent; d) the mediation process does not pose a risk to the victim’s safety and there is no danger that it could cause new material or emotional harm to the victim; e) it is not prohibited by law for the offence committed. The victim and the offender may revoke their consent to participate in the mediation process at any time, without implying any negative consequence in the criminal process. The discussions which take place during the mediation process shall be confidential and must not be divulged without the consent of both parties. The parties can freely decide the content of the mediation agreement (Practical Guide for intra-judicial mediation of the CGPJ). In this sense, according to the principle of bilaterality that governs restorative justice processes, both parties will have the opportunity to express their claims without any other limitation other than that established by the mediator/facilitator for the proper development of the sessions. They must express their positions and willingness to repair, as well as their acceptance, before the judge in the act of the oral trial, or at any other time that ends the criminal procedure. The parties can seek advice from a lawyer when agreeing on what is most appropriate for their interests. In no case, they have the power to order or establish criminal sanctions that are not expressly contemplated for the crime that is the object of the restorative process. The Judge must ensure the adequacy of the legal assessment that both the Public Prosecutor and the criminal defense attorney grant to the restorative agreements reached by the parties. When it is appropriate, the judge will pronounce a sentence plea bargaining and will decide about the suspension of the execution of the sentence. 3.2. The defendant and the victim in the plea agreement proceedings 3.2.1. The defendant and the victim in the plea agreement proceedings In the case of a plea agreement, it is the defense counsel who must inform the defendant of the possibility of a plea agreement and the existence of the Protocol of Action. Given the very personal nature of the plea agreement, the defendant's participation is an essential requirement. Thus, although conviction in absentia is possible in cases 21 involving minor crimes, this is not the case with sentences of a plea agreement, which require the presence and approval of the defendant, with variations depending on the type of proceeding and the time at which it takes place. In general, the intervention of the victim is not required, which is only guaranteed when he/she becomes a party to the criminal proceedings, without prejudice, otherwise, to his/her right to be informed, as well as the possibility that the prosecutor may hear him/her. The victim has a central role within the restorative process, but not in the plea agreement. In any case, in tax fraud cases, the systematic participation of the State Attorney's Office in the process means that the victim is always present. From the above it can be deduced that there is a lack of symmetry in the conditions of representation of the victim and the accused in the negotiation of the agreement, because while the intervention of the latter is a conditio sine qua non, the participation and consent of the former is not a necessary condition when he is not a party to the process. Another thing is that the accused does not have a central role in the negotiation of the “pact” in which he or she may feel to remain silent. The leading role in the negotiation falls on the Public Prosecutor and the lawyers, as can be deduced from the Action protocol for conformity lawsuits signed between the State Attorney General’s Office and the General Council of Spanish Lawyers and the Plea Agreements Protocol Execution Agreement between the Barcelona Bar Association and the Provincial Prosecutor’s Office. The defendant's intervention is reduced to authorising the negotiation and approving its outcome. In this context, all the guaranteeing effort is concentrated on verifying the clarity of the terms of the agreement and the voluntary and express nature of the defendant's declaration of intent, in addition, of course, respect for the principle of legality, under the dual control of the defence counsel and the judge. 3.2.2. Plurality of defendants In the case of the plurality of defendants, as may happen in cases of corruption and tax fraud, if any of the defendants does not agree, there is no plea agreement with respect to any of them. This is established for the ordinary procedure, in art. 655, para. 4 LECrim 22 for the intermediate phase and art. 695 LECrim for the oral trial. There are no analogous provisions for the abbreviated procedure (arts. 784 and 787 LECrim), although the principle of subsidiarity of the ordinary procedure allows the previous provisions to be transferred to it. The possibility of autonomous plea agreement is only foreseen in the case of legal persons (infra), who can conform independently of the refusal of the others (art. 787.8 LECrim). If the discrepancies between the various participants only affect civil liability, the procedure could continue until the oral trial only for these purposes (art. 655, para. 5 LECrim for the intermediate phase of the ordinary procedure). 3.3. The legal person 3.3.1. Criminal liability of legal persons Since 2010, the Spanish Penal Code regulates the criminal liability of legal persons in the following articles: art. 31 bis (criteria for attributing the offence committed by the natural person to the legal person); art. 31 quáter (catalogue of mitigating circumstances); art. 33.7ª (catalogue of specific penalties to the legal person); arts. 50, 52.4, 53.5 and 66 bis (specific rules for the application and determination of penalties), art. 116.3 (joint and several civil liability with the natural person convicted for the same acts); art. 130.2 (grounds for extinction of the criminal liability of the legal person) and art. 136 (cancellation of criminal record). Subsequently, Organic Act 1/2015 introduced a detailed regulation of the organisation and management programmes for the prevention of corporate crime (arts. 31 bis 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 CP). The criminal liability of legal persons shall be applicable whenever there is a record of a criminal offence being committed by a person who holds office or carries out the duties referred to in art. 31 bis 1 CP, even if the specific natural person responsible has not been individually identified, or it has not been possible to prosecute that person. Concurrence, in the persons who have materially perpetrated the deeds or those who have made these possible due to not having exercised due control, of circumstances that affect the culpability of the accused or aggravate their responsibility, or the fact that those persons have died or have escaped the action of justice, shall not exclude, or 23 modify the criminal liability of legal persons (art. 31 ter CP). For the purposes we are interested in here, legal persons may be liable for private corruption in business and corruption of foreign public officials (art. 288.1 CP); money laundering (art. 302.2 CP); the crime of unlawful financing of political parties (art. 304 bis. 5 CP); offences against the Public Treasury (Inland Revenue, that of the Autonomous Communities, special provinces, local authorities, and European Union) and against the Social Security (art. 310 bis CP); active bribery (art. 427.2 CP); influence peddling (art. 430 CP); embezzlement of public funds (art. 435.5 CP). Also, for the crime of smuggling (art. 2.6 LORC). Exceptions to the direct criminal liability of legal persons: a) The provisions related to criminal liability of legal persons shall not be applicable to the State, to territorial and institutional Public Administrations, to Regulatory Bodies, to Public Agencies and Corporate Entities, to international organisations under Public Law, or to others that exercise public powers of sovereignty or administration. The exemption from direct criminal liability no longer applies to political parties and unions (since Organic Act 7/2012) and extends to foundations and entities with legal personality linked to them (art. 31 quinquies.1 CP). b) In the case of State Mercantile Companies that implement public policies or provide services of general economic interest, only the imposition of a fine and/or the judicial intervention of the company or any of its facilities, sections or business units is allowed (art. 31 quinquies. 2 CP). c) The criminal offences committed within, in collaboration with, or through or by means of companies, organisations, groups or any other kind of entities or groups of persons that, due to not having legal personality, are not included in the general regime of art. 31 bis CP (art. 129 CP). This is a characteristic feature of Spanish criminal law. The crimes for which the accessory consequences of art. 129 CP are all those for which legal persons respond by way of art. 31 bis CP and some more. For the purposes that interest us here, these other crimes are those of altering prices in tenders and public auctions (art. 262 CP), the crime of obstruction of the inspection and supervision activity (art. 294 CP), the crime of counterfeiting currency (art. 386 CP) and crimes committed within criminal organizations and groups (arts. 570 bis and ter CP). The material content of the accessory consequences of art. 129 CP is practically the same as the penalties envisaged in art. 33.7 CP for entities with legal personality. The hearing and ruling of the case against the legal person are determined by the severity of the penalty applied for the crime committed by the natural person (art. 14 bis 24 LECrim). 3.3.2. Legal person and restorative justice 3.3.2.1. The legal person as a victim Art. 2 LEVD refers only to natural persons, which seems to exclude legal persons from its subjective scope of application. However, it must be borne in mind that its purpose is to offer victims the widest possible protection, not only legal but also social, from public authorities. In this sense, protection goes beyond the framework of criminal proceedings to extend to other areas. And so, in the LEVD, the general catalogue of procedural and extra-procedural rights of all crime victims is established (and in this sense, the legal entity can be considered part of a criminal mediation procedure or restorative process, although the LEVD does not expressly refer to legal persons as victims). Also, art. 103 bis. 3 LECrim expressly indicates the possibility of criminal action being instituted by associations of victims or legal entities to defend their rights. The Practical Guide for Intra-judicial Mediation of the CGPJ recognizes the possibility of intervention of the legal person as a victim in criminal mediation processes. Specifically, it states that: “if the victim were a legal person, the interviews will be held with whomever they designate, previously ensuring his/her ability to make decisions and sign reconciliation agreements that give legal certainty to the process, ensuring that the representative does not coincide as a possible subject investigated under the provisions of art. 31 bis”. Despite the use of the term victim in the above-mentioned Guide, it would be more correct to refer to legal persons as injured parties since, according to the provisions of art. 2 LEVD, victims are only natural persons. 3.3.2.2. The legal person as an offender Art. 15 LEVD speaks of “offender” to participate in the restorative process, so it does not seem applicable to legal persons. However, we believe that there is no obstacle to mediation between the legal entity and the injured parties, given the type of crimes that can be committed by legal entities. Thus, for example, it would be possible in those semi-private crimes, where the forgiveness of the offended party extinguishes the criminal liability of the legal person 31 Nevertheless, in certain crimes such as, for example, tax fraud (art. 305 CP), the public and private prosecution impose this condition, although the law does not oblige them to do so. In such a case, in general terms, the reparation of the damage does not avoid the fulfilment of the penalty, although it can reduce it (arts. 21.5, 305.6 for tax fraud, 308.8 for subsidy fraud, 434 for embezzlement CP), and, being less than two years of imprisonment, it allows the suspension of the execution of the sentence (arts. 80 and following CP). Only exceptionally, the reparation of the damage determines the lifting of the penalty, as in the case of temporary tax regularization in the case of tax fraud (art. 305.4 PC) or subsidy fraud (art. 308.6 PC). However, the time limit to which it is subject impedes it from reaching the cases of and intra-procedural plea agreement. 5.3.2. The impact of the plea agreement on suspended sentences The main incentive for the accused to comply is to seek a suspension of the execution of the prison sentence, which is possible when the application of the rewarded plea agreement (art. 800 and following LECrim) or the crossover of attenuating circumstances (arts. 21 and 66 CP), a prison sentence of no more than two years is achieved, as required by art. 80 CP. This is, therefore, the main impact that agreement can have on the application of alternatives to prison aimed at benefiting re-socialisation. However, the agreement cannot ensure the suspension of the sentence, which is a discretionary competence of the judge. 5.3.3. The impact of the plea agreement on shortening the duration of the process At present, the main advantage of plea agreement is the shortening of court times and the eventual saving of the oral hearing and all the negative consequences it entails for the offender (penalty on the bench) and the victim (re-victimisation). In this sense, the State Prosecutor's Office Instruction 2/2009 expressly states: “Thus, from the point of view of efficiency in the form of a more agile Justice, a plea agreement makes real sense to the extent that it not only serves to avoid the unnecessary prosecution of the accused who confesses guilt, but also the cost, in terms of work and time for the different subjects involved in the process, which may involve the 32 completion of all the actions leading to the holding of the trial. Once time has been allocated in the agenda of the judicial body and the Prosecutor, witnesses and experts summoned, and they -as well as the Prosecutor and the Lawyersare present at the judicial headquarters, the plea agreement in the courtroom shows the absolute uselessness of all that effort, obviously to the detriment of other equally or more priority issues. At the same time, the efforts of other public officials (members of the State Security Forces and Corps, forensic experts, experts and technicians), who waste in vain their working day on journeys and waiting, and the witnesses are especially affected; victims and injured parties summoned to the hearing who, were forced to alter their normal daily activity, end up experiencing -with explicit manifestations of protest, in many casesa justified frustration upon learning that, the defendant having agreed at the last minute, his/her effort has also been wasted.” That is precisely the main objective of the Action protocol for plea agreements signed between the State Attorney General’s Office and the General Council of Spanish Lawyers of 2008, which states in point 1 of its preamble that “the purpose of this Protocol is to update the means of consensual solution of the criminal process that are oriented primarily to promote speed and simplify the necessary steps to reach the sentence". The case in which the agreement allows to shorten the process to the maximum and to obtain a special punitive benefit is that of the fast trial, in which the agreement can lead to conclude the process in Urgent Diligences before the same Duty Court, and to obtain the reduction of the penalty in a third. However, in view of the conditions for the application of art. 795 LECrim, it is not of interest to the European Public Prosecutor's Office, without prejudice to the possibility of applying the institution of the award of plea agreement regulated in art. 801 LECrim to cases initiated as Preliminary Proceedings of art.- 779.1.5º LECrim. In the rest of the cases, the plea agreement can be adopted at two moments: On the one hand, in the intermediate phase, which when it happens, shortens the procedure considerably. This is the reason why the Protocols of action promote its adoption at this procedural moment, as can be seen in the Protocol of action for plea agreement trials signed between the State Attorney General's Office and the General Council of Spanish Lawyers and Plea Agreement 33 Protocol Execution Agreement between the Barcelona Bar Association and the Provincial Prosecutor’s Office. However, it is not frequent that the plea agreement is adopted in this phase. On the other hand, in the oral trial phase, in the same act or at the doors of the same, which unfortunately, is the most frequent. In short, there are mechanisms for reducing procedural times, but of all the possible ways, the most used is the one that has the least practical impact. 5.3.4. The impact of the plea agreement on the achievement of the resocialization goal Insofar as plea agreements requires acknowledgement of the facts (plea agreement with a claim of innocence as in the American system is not possible), it can contribute to the realization of the positive special preventive function. However, the fact that a plea agreement is not necessarily - in fact, almost never - associated with restorative processes means that the acknowledgement of the facts can be a mere formality to achieve pragmatic ends that do not involve any reflection on the significance of the crime committed and the harm caused with an impact on future behaviour. 6. Further observations and comments Strictly speaking, the Spanish legal system does not regulate alternative restorative justice instruments to criminal proceedings. Art. 15 LEVD gives legal coverage to channels of dialogue and damage repair of an extra-procedural nature (such as mediation or other restorative justice instruments), the result of which can be incorporated into the criminal process. However, they do not allow criminal proceedings to be avoided or archived, except for those semi-public crimes in which the forgiveness of the offended party extinguishes the criminal action (such as the crimes of discovery and disclosure of secrets, art. 197 and subsequent CP). This possibility is only planned for juvenile justice, with minimal impact for crimes under the jurisdiction of the EPPO. 34 Plea agreements do not guarantee reparative dialogue either, since they do not even assure the presence of the victim, nor alternative ways of resolving conflicts. They are subject to the principle of legality that requires the application of the penalties provided for the crime in the criminal law. However, it is the only space that currently exists for the insertion of the result of the mediation or restorative agreements. It can serve to shorten procedural times. Its statistical impact is considerable and grows over time, although not so much in tax fraud crimes. So far, it has not yet been achieved that, instead of processing the consent at the gates of the oral hearing, it is done in the intermediate phase, which would allow the workload of the Administration of Justice to be reduced much more, contributing to carrying out one of its main goals. With all its limitations, the Spanish regulation of a plea agreement can be used to apply the provisions of art. 109 Organic Act 9/2021 creating the EPPO. The provision that a joint qualification brief must be presented to pronounce a sentence plea bargaining could be facilitated through the implementation of restorative justice procedure. In any case, it should be noted that the principle of legality greatly restricts the negotiation margin, which opens the danger that the prosecution aims higher than it otherwise would for the sole purpose of gaining negotiating space. For this reason, the proposal to expand the scope of application of the award-winning plea agreement makes sense, so that the negotiation serves to benefit those who freely want to negotiate and not to sanction those who reject it. 7. List of national cases (optional, if available) No data available 8. Bibliographical references S Barona Vilar, Mediación penal. Fundamento, fines y régimen jurídico (Tirant lo Blanch 2012). Centro de Estudios Jurídicos y Formación Especializada, http://cejfe.gencat.cat/es/recerca/cataleg/tema/mediacio-penal/index.html M Cugat Mauri, ‘La conformidad en los delitos socioeconómicos’ in M García Arán (dir), Justicia restaurativa y delincuencia socioeconómica (Tirant lo Blanch 2021) 313366. L F Gordillo Santana, La justicia restaurativa y la mediación penal (Iustel 2007) 35 Mª J Guardiola Lago, ‘Fundamentos de la justicia restaurativa en la delincuencia socioeconómica’ in M. García Arán (dir), Justicia restaurativa y delincuencia socioeconómica (Tirant lo Blanch 2021) 29-86. N Pérez Rivas, ‘El derecho de la víctima a olvidar’ (2016) La ley penal: revista de derecho penal, procesal y penitenciario 1-20 N Pérez Rivas, Los derechos de la víctima en el sistema penal español (Tirant lo Blanch 2017) N Pérez Rivas, ‘Justicia juvenil restaurativa: aplicación práctica’ in Mª F Vásquez Palma (dir), Mecanismos alternativos de solución de conflictos: estado actual, problemas existentes y propuestas de soluciones (Thomson Reuters 2018) 871-893 N Pérez Rivas, ‘El cumplimiento del acuerdo mediatorio como condición de la suspensión excepcional de la pena’ in C Alonso Salgado and R Castillejo Manzanares (dirs), El nuevo proceso penal sin Código Procesal Penal (Atelier 2019) 561-575 J. C. Ríos Martín, E Pascual Rodríguez, A Bibiano Guillén, La mediación penitenciaria. Reducir violencias en el sistema carcelario (Colex 2005) J Mª Tamarit Sumalla (coord), La justicia restaurativa: desarrollo y aplicaciones (Comares Granada 2012). I Valeije Álvarez, ‘La prohibición de contratar con el sector público y otras consideraciones accesorias’ (2018) Estudios Penales y Criminológicos 481-545 I Valeije Álvarez, De las penas accesorias a las penas complementaria: la descripción de un proceso legislativo inacabado (Tirant lo Blanch 2021) F Vázquez-Portomeñe Seijas, ‘Presunción de inocencia, mediación y conformidad algunas observaciones críticas sobre los programas españoles de mediación penal de adultos’, in JC Carbonell Mateu, JL González Cussac, E Orts Berenguer & MªL Cuerda Arnau (coords), Constitución, derechos fundamentales y sistema penal: (semblanzas y estudios con motivo del setenta aniversario del profesor Tomás Salvador Vives Antón) (Tirant lo Blanch 2009) 1951-1972 F Vázquez-Portomeñe Seijas, ‘La Mediación entre la víctima y el agresor como forma de resolución de conflictos en el derecho penal de adultos’ (2010) Boletin da Facultade de Dereito. Universidade de Coimbra 315-339 F Vázquez-Portomeñe Seijas, ‘Vorgehensweisen und Vermittlungsstandards zur Bearbeitung von TOA-Fällen bei häuslicher Gewalt in Deutschland un Österreich. Ein Modell für Europa? ’(2012) Monatsschrift für kriminologie und strafrecht. F Vázquez-Portomeñe Seijas, ‘A propósito de la suspensión ampliada de la pena: algunas notas sobre el acuerdo alcanzado en virtud de mediación’, in E Pillado González and T Farto Piay (dirs), Hacia un proceso penal más reparador y resocializador: avances desde la justicia terapéutica (Dykinson 2019) 36 9. Annex: text of the relevant laws/acts/ provisions National Laws implementing the PIF Directive (Directive EU 2017/1371) See national transposition measures communicated by the Member State in https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/NIM/?uri=CELEX: 32017L1371 National criminal rules on financial crimes relevant to EPPO Law in original language Selección de delitos competencia de la Fiscalía Europea 1) Ley Orgánica 9/2021, de 1 de julio, de aplicación del Reglamento (UE) 2017/1939 del Consejo, de 12 de octubre de 2017, por el que se establece una cooperación reforzada para la creación de la Fiscalía Europea, para los delitos del art. 4 (arts, 2 y 4) https://www.boe.es/buscar/ pdf/2021/BOE-A-202110957-consolidado.pdf Regulación sustantiva de las tipicidades objeto de competencia de la Fiscalía Europea 2) Ley Orgánica 10/1995, de 23 de noviembre, del Código Penal (arts. 24, 248, 252-253; 301s.; 305 ss.; 419 ss.; 428 ss.; 432 ss.). https://www.boe.es/buscar/ pdf/1995/BOE-A-199525444-consolidado.pdf English translation of the title or topic Selection of offences within the jurisdiction of the EPPO 1) Organic Act 9/2021, of 1 July, on the application of Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 of 12 October 2017 implementing enhanced cooperation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (‘the EPPO’) (arts. 2 and 4) Substantive regulation of the offences for which the EPPO has jurisdiction 2) Organic Act 10/1995, of 23 November, of the Criminal Code (arts. 24, 248, 252-253; 301s.; 305 ss.; 419 ss.; 428 ss.; 432 ss.). https://www.mjusticia.go b.es/es/AreaTematica/Doc umentacionPublicaciones/ Documents/Criminal_Cod e_2016.pdf 37 3) Ley Orgánica 12/1995, de 12 de diciembre, de Represión de Contrabando (art. 2) https://www.boe.es/buscar/ pdf/1995/BOE-A-199526836-consolidado.pdf. Regulación procesal básica 4) Real Decreto, de 14 de septiembre, de 1882 por el que se aprueba la Ley de Enjuiciamiento Criminal https://www.boe.es/buscar/ pdf/1882/BOE-A-18826036-consolidado.pdf 5) Ley Orgánica 6/1985, de 1 de julio, del Poder Judicial https://www.boe.es/buscar/a ct.php?id=BOE-A-198512666 3) Organic Act 12/1995, of 12 December, on the repression of smugglin g (art. 2). Main procedural laws 4) Royal Decree of 14 September 1882 approving the Criminal Procedure Act https://www.mjusticia.gob. es/es/AreaTematica/Docum entacionPublicaciones/Doc uments/Criminal%20Proce dure%20Act%202016.pdf 5) Organic Act 6/1985, 1st July, on the Judiciary https://www.legaltools.org/doc/881df4/pdf/ Other relevant national provisions on ADR (diversion, restorative and mediation procedures) Law in original language Regulación sustantiva 1) Ley Orgánica 10/1995, de 23 de noviembre, del Código Penal (arts. 21.4ª, 5ª y 7ª, 80-89, 109 ss., 305 ss., 426, 434). https://www.boe.es/buscar/ pdf/1995/BOE-A-199525444-consolidado.pdf English translation of the title or topic Substantive regulation 2) Organic Act 10/1995, of 23 November, of the Criminal Code (arts. 21.4ª, 5ª y 7ª, 80-89, 109 ss., 305 ss., 426, 434). https://www.mjusticia.go b.es/es/AreaTematica/Doc umentacionPublicaciones/ Documents/Criminal_Cod e_2016.pdf 38 Regulación procesal 1) Real Decreto de 14 de septiembre de 1882 por el que se aprueba la Ley de Enjuiciamiento Criminal, (arts. 655, 688, 779, 784, 787, 800 ss, 803 bis, 963.1.1ª). https://www.boe.es/buscar/p df/1882/BOE-A-1882-6036consolidado.pdf. 2) Ley Orgánica 5/1995, de 22 de mayo, del Tribunal del Jurado (arts. 13, 19, 40, 50 y 53) https://www.boe.es/buscar/ pdf/1995/BOE-A-199512095-consolidado.pdf. 3) Ley 4/2015 de 27 de abril del Estatuto de la víctima del delito (arts. 5.1.k y 15) https://www.boe.es/buscar/ pdf/2015/BOE-A-20154606-consolidado.pdf 4) Real Decreto 1109/2015, de 11 de diciembre, por el que se desarrolla la Ley 4/2015, de 27 de abril, del Estatuto de la víctima del delito, y se regulan las Oficinas de Asistencia a las Víctimas del Delito (art. 37) https://www.boe.es/buscar/p df/2015/BOE-A-201514263-consolidado.pdf Procedural laws 1) Royal Decree of 14 September 1882 approving the Criminal Procedure Act (arts. 655, 688, 779, 784, 787, 800 ss, 803 bis, 963.1.1ª). https://www.mjusticia.go b.es/es/AreaTematica/Doc umentacionPublicaciones/ Documents/Criminal%20 Procedure%20Act%2020 16.pdf 2) Organic Act 5/1995, dated May 22, On Jury Court (arts. 13, 19, 40, 50 and 53) https://www.mjusticia.gob .es/es/AreaTematica/Docu mentacionPublicaciones/D ocuments/ORGANIC%20 ACT%2051995%2C%20DATED%2 0MAY%2022.pdf 3) Law 4/2015, of 27 April, On the Standing of Victims of Crime (arts. 5.1.k and 15) https://rm.coe.int/168070a c7f 4) Royal Decree 1109/2015 of 11 December, implementing Law 4/2015 of 27 April on the standing of the Victim of a Crime and laying down provisions for the regulation of the Aid to Victims of Crime Offices (art. 37) 39 5) Ley Orgánica 5/2000, de 12 de enero, reguladora de la responsabilidad penal de los menores (arts. 18, 19, 27.4, 32, 36 y 40) https://www.boe.es/buscar/ pdf/2000/BOE-A-2000641-consolidado.pdf 6) Real Decreto 1774/2004, de 30 de julio, por el que se aprueba el Reglamento de la Ley Orgánica 5/2000, de 12 de enero, reguladora de la responsabilidad penal de los menores (art. 8.7) https://www.boe.es/buscar/ doc.php?id=BOE-A-200415601 7) Ley Orgánica 9/2021, de 1 de julio, de aplicación del Reglamento (UE) 2017/1939 del Consejo, de 12 de octubre de 2017, por el que se establece una cooperación reforzada para la creación de la Fiscalía Europea, para los delitos del art. 4 (arts. 109 y 110) https://www.boe.es/buscar/ pdf/2021/BOE-A-202110957-consolidado.pdf. 5) Organic Act 5/2000, of 12 January, regulating the criminal liability of minors (arts. 18, 19, 27.4, 32, 36 and 40) 6) Royal Decree 1774/2004, of 30 July, which approves the Regulation of Organic Act 5/2000, of January 12, regulating the criminal liability of minors (art. 8.7) 7) Organic Act 9/2021, of 1 July, on the application of Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 of 12 October 2017 implementing enhanced cooperation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (‘the EPPO’) (arts. 109 and 110) Other relevant rules and guidelines • Protocolo de actuación para juicios de conformidad suscrito entre la Fiscalía General del Estado y el Consejo General de la Abogacía española (Protocolo FGE-CGAE de 2009) https://www.poderjudicial.e s/cgpj/es/Temas/Relacionesinstitucionales/Convenios/P • Action protocol for conformity lawsuits signed between the State Attorney General’s Office and the General Council of Spanish Lawyers 40 rotocolo-de-actuacion-parajuicios-de-conformidadsuscrito-entre-la-FiscaliaGeneral-del-Estado-y-elConsejo-General-de-laAbogacia-espanola • Conveni Execució Protocol Conformitats de Barcelona, de 26/03/2010, entre el Colegio de Abogados de Barcelona y la Fiscalía Provincial de Barcelona https://www.icab.es/export/s ites/icab/.galleries/documen ts-contingutgeneric/conveni-execucioprotocols-conformitats-debarcelona.pdf • Circulares e Instrucciones de la Fiscalía https://www.fiscal.es/gl/doc umentaci%C3%B3n Circular FGE 1/1989, de 8 de marzo, sobre el procedimiento abreviado introducido por la Ley Orgánica 7/1988, de 28 de diciembre. Circular FGE 2/1996, de 22 de mayo, sobre el régimen transitorio del nuevo Código Penal: incidencia en el enjuiciamiento de hechos anteriores. Consulta FGE 4/1999, de 17 de septiembre, sobre • Execution Plea Agreements Protocol between the Barcelona Bar Association and the Provincial Prosecutor’s Office • Prosecutor's Office Circulars and Instructions State Attorney General's Office Circular 1/1989, of 8 March, on the abbreviated procedure introduced by Organic Act 7/1988, of 28 December. State Attorney General's Office Circular 2/1996, of 22 May, on the transitory regime of the new Penal Code: incidence in the prosecution of previous acts. State Attorney General's