Official Journal of the European Union

C series

—

C/2025/4027

28.7.2025

(Case C-135/25 PPU,

(1)

(2)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - 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 and the consequences of non-appearance - Inability to locate the accused person notwithstanding reasonable efforts made by the competent authorities - Possibility of a trial and a decision 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 - Judicial proceedings to determine whether a right to a new trial exists - Obligation to act with speed)

(C/2025/4027)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Interested party: Varhovna kasatsionna prokuratura na Republika Bulgaria

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 not precluding, pursuant to national legislation relating to accused persons who have absconded, the right to a new trial from being denied to a person convicted in absentia who has made a request to that effect where

firstly, the competent authorities made efforts to inform that person of the date and place of the trial but he or she had absconded, in infringement of a detention order which had been imposed on him or her, after receiving a preliminary indictment,

secondly, the indictment and a document indicating the date and place of that trial were sent to that person and actually delivered to the address which he or she had provided to those authorities after receiving the preliminary indictment, the content of which corresponds, as regards the alleged acts and their legal classification, to that of the indictment, and

thirdly, the person was represented by a court-appointed lawyer throughout the judicial proceedings conducted in his or her absence,

provided that, first, those authorities used all the means to which they could reasonably have recourse to locate the person convicted in absentia before his or her trial and, second, that person either was informed, in due time, of the consequences of non-appearance or he or she entrusted, unequivocally, to his or her court-appointed lawyer a mandate to represent him or her, in his or her absence, before the trial court.

—

(1) OJ C, C/2366/2025.

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

—

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/4027/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—