Case C‑760/22

FP
and
QV
and
IN
and
YL
and
VD
and
JF
and
OL

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad)

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 July 2024

(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Directive (EU) 2016/343 – Right to be present at the trial – Possibility for an accused person to participate in the hearings in his or her trial by videoconference)

Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings – Directive 2016/343 – Right to be present at the trial – Participation of the accused person, at his or her express request, in the hearings in his or her trial by videoconference – Whether permissible – Conditions – Observance of the right to a fair trial

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2016/343, Arts 1 and 8(1))

(see paragraphs 26-30, 32, operative part)

Résumé

Seised by a request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad (Sofia City Court, Bulgaria), the Court of Justice rules on the possibility, for an accused person, to participate in the hearings in his or her criminal trial by videoconference.

FP is accused by the Spetsializirana prokuratura (Specialist Public Prosecutor’s Office, Bulgaria) of having participated in a criminal organisation created for the purposes of enrichment and in order to commit tax fraud. On 12 October 2021, FP took part in the first public hearing in his case by means of a videoconference. He declared that he wished to participate in the trial online since he lived and worked in the United Kingdom. His lawyer, who was physically present in the courtroom, stated that his client was familiar with all the documents of the case. Furthermore, at the hearing, any new document could be emailed to FP for his timely inspection and consultations between himself and his lawyer could be organised confidentially by means of a separate connection.

The criminal court hearing that case at that point ( 1 ) authorised FP to participate in the trial by videoconference, on the basis of a provision of national law providing for the possibility of holding public hearings remotely during the state of emergency or the extraordinary situation of the epidemic and for two months after the lifting of that state of emergency or extraordinary situation. ( 2 ) That provision was applicable only up to and including 31 May 2022. Thus, whereas, before that date, FP had actually participated by videoconference in the majority of the hearings of his trial, at the hearing of 13 June 2022, that court was uncertain as to whether that possibility continued to exist under Bulgarian law.

In the absence of a legal basis in national law expressly allowing the use of videoconferencing, the referring court raises the issue of whether the possibility granted to an accused person to participate in the hearings in his or her trial using that technique is compatible with Directive 2016/343, ( 3 ) in particular with Article 8(1) thereof. ( 4 )

Findings of the Court

As a preliminary point, the Court recalls that it is apparent from its case-law that, under the right laid down in Article 8(1) of Directive 2016/343, an accused person must be able to appear in person at the hearings which are held in connection with his or her trial, without that directive imposing an obligation for any suspect or accused person to be present at his or her trial. ( 5 ) The Court also observes that it follows from Article 1 of that directive that its purpose is to lay down common minimum rules concerning certain aspects of the presumption of innocence in criminal proceedings and the right of suspects and accused persons to be present at the trial in those proceedings, and not to carry out exhaustive harmonisation of criminal procedure.

It follows from the foregoing that Article 8(1) of Directive 2016/343 does not govern the issue of whether the Member States may provide that the accused person may, at his or her express request, participate in the hearings in his or her criminal trial by videoconference, and such an issue falls within the scope of national law. Consequently, that provision does not preclude an accused person from being able, at his or her express request, to participate in the hearings in his or her trial by videoconference, provided that the right to a fair trial is guaranteed.

( 1 ) The court initially seised of the case was the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Specialised Criminal Court, Bulgaria). However, following a legislative amendment which entered into force on 27 July 2022, that court was dissolved and competence to hear and determine certain criminal cases brought before it, including the case in the main proceedings, was transferred to the Sofiyski gradski sad (Sofia City Court, Bulgaria).

( 2 ) Article 6a(2) of Zakon za merkite i deystviyata po vreme na izvanrednoto polozhenie, obyaveno s reshenie na Narodnoto sabranie 13.03.2020 g. i za preodolyavane na posleditsite (Law on the measures and actions taken during the state of emergency declared by decision of the National Assembly of 13 March 2020 and on the management of the effects).

( 3 ) Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings (OJ 2016 L 65, p. 1).

( 4 ) Article 8(1) of Directive 2016/343 provides: ‘Member States shall ensure that suspects and accused persons have the right to be present at their trial’.

( 5 ) See, to that effect, judgments of 15 September 2022, HN (Trial of an accused person removed from the territory) (C‑420/20, EU:C:2022:679, paragraph 40), and of 8 December 2022, HYA and Others (Impossibility of questioning prosecution witnesses) (C‑348/21, EU:C:2022:965, paragraphs 34 and 36).