The provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act (Official Gazette Nos. 152/2008, 76/2009, 80/2011, 91/2012, 143/2012, 56/2013, 145/2013, 152/2014, 70/2017, 126/2019, 80/2022, 36/2024, 72/2025, and 13/2026) regulate plea bargaining between the State Attorney and the defendant as a legal institution through which the parties may reach an agreement concerning the defendant's guilt, the criminal sanction to be imposed, and other measures prescribed by law.

In practice, plea agreements are reached relatively frequently because they enable criminal proceedings to be concluded quickly and efficiently, which is generally in the interest of all participants in the criminal justice process.

A plea agreement concluded between the defendant and the State Attorney is subject to judicial review. The court confirms the agreement after determining whether all statutory requirements for its conclusion have been satisfied.

From a procedural perspective, the parties may reach a plea agreement after the indictment has been filed and before the court renders its decision confirming the indictment. In practice, however, negotiations concerning a possible agreement often begin during the investigative stage, before the indictment is filed. Formally, the parties may finalize the agreement only after the indictment has been submitted, by filing a motion with the court requesting the issuance of a judgment based on the parties' agreement pursuant to Article 361 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

The same provision further stipulates that, once the indictment panel receives the parties' agreement together with the motion for a judgment based on the agreement, it shall first decide to confirm the indictment and then rule on the motion. If the statutory conditions are met, the panel shall render a judgment imposing upon the defendant the agreed criminal sanction, sentence, or another measure provided for in Article 460(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

If the indictment panel determines that the agreement is not in compliance with the law, that its acceptance would be inconsistent with the statutory principles governing sentencing, or that the agreement is otherwise unlawful, it shall reject the motion for a judgment based on the parties' agreement. Such a decision is rendered by way of a ruling against which no appeal is permitted.

In that event, the criminal proceedings continue before the indictment panel in accordance with the ordinary procedural rules.

Before the commencement of the indictment panel's session, the State Attorney, the defendant, and defence counsel shall submit the signed statement requesting a judgment based on the parties' agreement.

The statement shall contain:

  • a description of the criminal offence forming the subject matter of the indictment;
  • the defendant's statement admitting guilt for the criminal offence;
  • the agreement regarding the type and extent of the sentence, judicial admonition, suspended sentence, partially suspended sentence, special obligations, protective supervision, confiscation of objects, and procedural costs;
  • the defendant's position concerning any civil claim for damages filed within the criminal proceedings;
  • the defendant's statement accepting the State Attorney's proposal for the imposition of security measures and the confiscation of the proceeds obtained through the commission of the criminal offence;
  • the signatures of the parties and defence counsel.

After the statement has been signed, the State Attorney shall notify the victim or injured party of the conclusion of the agreement.

Where the proceedings concern criminal offences against life and limb or against sexual freedom punishable by imprisonment exceeding five years, the State Attorney must obtain the victim's consent before entering into a plea agreement. If the victim has died or is incapable of giving consent, such consent shall be obtained from the persons referred to in Article 55(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

If all statutory requirements are fulfilled, the court shall render a judgment based on the parties' agreement and serve it on the parties within eight days, thereby bringing the criminal proceedings to an end.

Within the Croatian legal community, there are differing opinions regarding the institution of plea bargaining in criminal proceedings. Critics argue that the mechanism is particularly problematic in proceedings involving multiple defendants. In such cases, one defendant may choose to enter into a plea agreement in exchange for a more lenient sentence, while the resulting judgment may adversely affect the procedural position of the remaining co-defendants.

Numerous criticisms have been directed at this practice, particularly in high-profile criminal cases, where it has been argued that the State Attorney's Office has relied extensively on plea agreements in order to obtain cooperation or incriminating statements from certain defendants in exchange for more lenient criminal sanctions, thereby weakening the position of the remaining defendants.

Plea bargaining was introduced into Croatian criminal procedure by the 2008 Criminal Procedure Act (ZKP/08). There is little doubt that this legal institution has enabled the parties in many cases to conclude criminal proceedings swiftly and efficiently, thereby contributing significantly to reducing the workload of courts burdened with a large number of pending criminal cases.