Official Journal of the European Union

C series

—

C/2025/3401

(Case C-230/25, Stakov)

(C/2025/3401)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Appellant and defendant

Questions referred

2.Is it compatible with the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union and with the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and would it infringe the right to a fair trial in its aspect that the case must be heard by an impartial and independent tribunal, if the court which has ruled or is to rule in a criminal case is at the same time the defendant in a civil action which the defendant in the criminal case has brought in respect of an infringement committed in the same criminal case by a court of which the court making the ruling is the legal successor and where the court making the ruling will be liable to pay compensation if the civil action is upheld?

3.Does it follow from Article 8(1) and (2) and recitals 34 and 35 of Directive (EU) 2016/343 (2) 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 that a defendant’s written statements to the effect that he or she wishes to take part in the trial in person but will not appear and will abscond in order to avoid being detained in respect of other proceedings constitute an express and unequivocal waiver by the defendant of his or her right to be present at the trial, or must they be seen as a reason beyond the defendant’s control, on account of which he or she is unable to be present at the trial?

4.If the answer to the second question is that the situation described constitutes a reason beyond the defendant’s control, on account of which he or she was unable to be present at the trial, must that person’s request for repetition with his or her participation of the questioning of all witnesses and experts in the judicial proceedings initiated by virtue of his or her appeal against the judgment be granted, where, prior to the proceedings conducted in absentia, in which the judgment under appeal was delivered, the same charges were already examined in court twice, the defendant took part in the trials in person and put his or her questions to the witnesses and experts, and there is no difference between the statements and conclusions of the expert reports in the two previous sets of proceedings examining the charges and those in the proceedings conducted in absentia?

5.Must Article 2(1)(a) and (b) and Article 4(1) and (4) of Directive (EU) 2016/1919 (3) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2016 on legal aid for suspects and accused persons in criminal proceedings and for requested persons in European arrest warrant proceedings, read in conjunction with recitals 8 and 17 of that directive, be interpreted as meaning that accused persons and defendants who are deprived of liberty, irrespective of whether they have sufficient resources to pay for the assistance of a lawyer, are to be treated in the same way as suspects and accused persons who lack such resources and to whom legal aid is granted because the interests of justice so require?

6.If the fourth question is answered in the affirmative, is national legislation pursuant to which, where legal aid is granted on the basis of a law which provides for mandatory representation by a lawyer, as is the case where the accused person or defendant is deprived of liberty, that person must repay the costs of the legal aid granted, without a test being applied as to whether he or she had sufficient means to pay for the assistance of a lawyer, compatible with recital 8 of Directive (EU) 2016/1919 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2016 on legal aid for suspects and accused persons in criminal proceedings and for requested persons in European arrest warrant proceedings?

Must Article 7(1)(b) and Article 7(4) of Directive (EU) 2016/1919 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2016 on legal aid for suspects and accused persons in criminal proceedings and for requested persons in European arrest warrant proceedings, read in conjunction with recital 25 of that directive, be interpreted as allowing the court to refuse the accused person’s or defendant’s request for the lawyer providing legal aid services assigned to him or her to be replaced where it finds that the defendant is deliberately avoiding contact with the lawyer representing him or her, in order to allege that he or she is not being provided with legal aid that would guarantee him or her a fair trial, and the request for a replacement is intended to delay the proceedings?

—

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) OJ 2016 L 65, p. 1.

(3) OJ 2016 L 297, p. 1.

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/3401/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—