- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-688/18: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 February 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against TX, UW (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Directive (EU) 2016/343 — Presumption of innocence and right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings — Article 8(1) and (2) — Conditions laid down by national law in order to hold a trial in absentia — Non-appearance of accused persons at certain hearings for reasons either within or beyond their control — Right to fair legal process)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62018CA0688
62018CA0688
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
30.3.2020
Official Journal of the European Union
C 103/3
(Case C-688/18)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Directive (EU) 2016/343 - Presumption of innocence and right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings - Article 8(1) and (2) - Conditions laid down by national law in order to hold a trial in absentia - Non-appearance of accused persons at certain hearings for reasons either within or beyond their control - Right to fair legal process)
(2020/C 103/03)
Language of the case: Bulgarian
Referring court
Parties in the main proceedings
Operative part of the judgment
Article 8(1) and (2) 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 national legislation which provides, in a situation where the accused person has been informed, in due time, of his trial and of the consequences of not appearing at that trial, and where that person was represented by a mandated lawyer appointed by him, that his right to be present at his trial is not infringed where:
he decided unequivocally not to appear at one of the hearings held in connection with his trial; or
he did not appear at one of those hearings for a reason beyond his control if, following that hearing, he was informed of the steps taken in his absence and, with full knowledge of the situation, decided and stated either that he would not call the lawfulness of those steps into question in reliance on his non-appearance, or that he wished to participate in those steps, leading the national court hearing the case to repeat those steps, in particular by conducting a further examination of a witness, in which the accused person was given the opportunity to participate fully.
OJ C 25, 21.1.2019.