Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 26 October 2023 — Criminal proceedings against IR

(Case C-644/23, Stangalov (1))

(C/2024/534)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Sofiyski gradski sad

Defendant

IR

Questions referred

Is Article 9 of Directive 2016/343, (2) read in conjunction with Article 8(4) and (2) thereof, compatible with a provision of national law — the first alternative in the second sentence of Article 423(1) of the NPK — under which a defendant who has been convicted in absentia has no right to a new trial in his or her presence if he or she absconded after having been informed of the accusation in the most general terms during the pre-trial stage and it was that very absconding which prevented that defendant from being informed of the full charges, the trial initiated pursuant to those charges or the consequences of non-appearance at that trial — and that defendant also has no right to a new trial in his or her presence if he or she is defended by a lawyer appointed of the court’s own motion, regardless of the fact that the defendant has no contact with that lawyer?

If the first question is answered in the negative, do Article 8 of Directive 2016/343 and Article 47 of the Charter oblige or allow the referring court to refuse to examine the merits of the charges brought against such a defendant and refuse to deliver a judgment in absentia against him or her if that court is convinced, on the basis of reliable information, that the supreme national judicial authority, which has exclusive jurisdiction to decide on an application made by a defendant convicted in absentia for a new trial in his or her presence, will not grant such an application in the main proceedings and will not reopen the proceedings, in so far as it will not apply the rule set out in Article 9 of the directive, read in conjunction with Article 8(4) and (2) thereof, but will instead apply the national law and thereby deprive the defendant convicted in absentia of the right, guaranteed by EU law, to be present in the criminal proceedings?

(1)  The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.

(2)  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).