EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62020CA0569
Case C-569/20: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 May 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against IR (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Directive (EU) 2016/343 — Article 8 — Right to be present at the trial — Information regarding the holding of the trial — Inability to locate the accused person notwithstanding the reasonable efforts of the competent authorities — Possibility of a trial and a conviction in absentia — Article 9 — Right to a new trial, or to another legal remedy, which allows a fresh determination of the merits of the case)
Case C-569/20: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 May 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against IR (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Directive (EU) 2016/343 — Article 8 — Right to be present at the trial — Information regarding the holding of the trial — Inability to locate the accused person notwithstanding the reasonable efforts of the competent authorities — Possibility of a trial and a conviction in absentia — Article 9 — Right to a new trial, or to another legal remedy, which allows a fresh determination of the merits of the case)
Case C-569/20: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 May 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against IR (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Directive (EU) 2016/343 — Article 8 — Right to be present at the trial — Information regarding the holding of the trial — Inability to locate the accused person notwithstanding the reasonable efforts of the competent authorities — Possibility of a trial and a conviction in absentia — Article 9 — Right to a new trial, or to another legal remedy, which allows a fresh determination of the merits of the case)
OJ C 266, 11.7.2022, p. 6–6
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, GA, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
- Date of document:
- 19/05/2022
- Date lodged:
- 30/10/2020
- Author:
- Court of Justice
- Form:
- Judicial information
- Authentic language:
- Bulgarian
- Type of procedure:
- Reference for a preliminary ruling
- Link
- Select all documents mentioning this document
- Case affecting:
-
- Related EU case-law document 62020CJ0569
- Instruments cited in case law:
- Link
|
11.7.2022 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 266/6 |
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 May 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against IR
(Case C-569/20) (1)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Directive (EU) 2016/343 - Article 8 - Right to be present at the trial - Information regarding the holding of the trial - Inability to locate the accused person notwithstanding the reasonable efforts of the competent authorities - Possibility of a trial and a conviction in absentia - Article 9 - Right to a new trial, or to another legal remedy, which allows a fresh determination of the merits of the case)
(2022/C 266/07)
Language of the case: Bulgarian
Referring court
Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad
Parties in the main proceedings
IR
Interested party: Spetsializirana prokuratura
Operative part of the judgment
Articles 8 and 9 of 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 must be interpreted as meaning that an accused person whom the competent national authorities, despite their reasonable efforts, do not succeed in locating and to whom they accordingly have not managed to give the information regarding his or her trial may be tried and, as the case may be, convicted in absentia, but must in that case, in principle, be able, after notification of the conviction, to rely directly on the right, conferred by that directive, to secure the reopening of the proceedings or access to an equivalent legal remedy resulting in a fresh examination, in his or her presence, of the merits of the case. That person may, however, be denied that right if it is apparent from precise and objective indicia that he or she received sufficient information to know that he or she was going to be brought to trial and, by deliberate acts and with the intention of evading justice, prevented the authorities from informing him or her officially of that trial.
