# C_2020399EN.01002401.xml

| 23.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/24

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 9 September 2020 — criminal proceedings against HN

(Case C-420/20)

(2020/C 399/34)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Sofiyski rayonen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

HN

Questions referred

| 1. | Is it permissible for the right of the accused person to be present in person at the trial concerning him, as provided for in Article 8(1) of Directive (EU) 2016/343 (1) 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, pp 1–11), to be restricted by national legislation under which a ban under administrative law on entering and residing in the country in which the criminal proceedings are being conducted may be imposed on foreign nationals who have been formally charged? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is it permissible for the right of the accused person to be present in person at the trial concerning him, as provided for in Article 8(1) of Directive (EU) 2016/343 (1) 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, pp 1–11), to be restricted by national legislation under which a ban under administrative law on entering and residing in the country in which the criminal proceedings are being conducted may be imposed on foreign nationals who have been formally charged?

| 2. | If the first question were to be answered in the affirmative, would the conditions laid down in Article 8(2)(a) and/or (b) 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 (OJ 2016 L 65, pp 1–11), with respect to the holding of a trial in the absence of a foreign accused person, be fulfilled in the case where the foreign national was duly informed of the criminal case and of the consequences of non-appearance and is represented by a mandated lawyer appointed either by the accused person or by the State, but the appearance in person of the accused person is precluded by a ban, adopted in the administrative proceedings, on entering and residing in the country in which the criminal proceedings are being conducted? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the first question were to be answered in the affirmative, would the conditions laid down in Article 8(2)(a) and/or (b) 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 (OJ 2016 L 65, pp 1–11), with respect to the holding of a trial in the absence of a foreign accused person, be fulfilled in the case where the foreign national was duly informed of the criminal case and of the consequences of non-appearance and is represented by a mandated lawyer appointed either by the accused person or by the State, but the appearance in person of the accused person is precluded by a ban, adopted in the administrative proceedings, on entering and residing in the country in which the criminal proceedings are being conducted?

| 3. | Is it permissible for the right of the accused person to be present at the trial concerning him, as provided for in Article 8(1) 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 (OJ 2016 L 65, pp 1–11), to be converted by national legislation into an obligation incumbent on that person under procedural law? In particular, do the Member States thereby ensure a higher level of protection within the meaning of recital 48 [of the Directive] or is such a course of action, on the contrary, incompatible with recital 35 of the Directive, which states that the aforementioned right of the accused person is not absolute and can be waived? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is it permissible for the right of the accused person to be present at the trial concerning him, as provided for in Article 8(1) 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 (OJ 2016 L 65, pp 1–11), to be converted by national legislation into an obligation incumbent on that person under procedural law? In particular, do the Member States thereby ensure a higher level of protection within the meaning of recital 48 [of the Directive] or is such a course of action, on the contrary, incompatible with recital 35 of the Directive, which states that the aforementioned right of the accused person is not absolute and can be waived?

| 4. | Is an advance waiver by the accused person of the right to be present in person at the trial concerning him, as provided for in Article 8(1) 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 (OJ 2016 L 65, pp 1–11), which was clearly expressed during the pre-trial investigation, permissible, provided that the accused person was informed of the consequences of non-appearance? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is an advance waiver by the accused person of the right to be present in person at the trial concerning him, as provided for in Article 8(1) 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 (OJ 2016 L 65, pp 1–11), which was clearly expressed during the pre-trial investigation, permissible, provided that the accused person was informed of the consequences of non-appearance?

---

(1)  OJ 2016 L 65, p. 1.

---