Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2023:458
Date: 2023-06-08
Language of the case: Bulgarian
Court formation: Sixth Chamber
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in criminal matters;Area of freedom, security and justice
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Bulgaria

Translation C-430/22 – 1 
Case C-430/22 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
28 June 2022  
Referring court: 
Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
28 June 2022  
Accused person: 
VB 
  
ORDER 
Date: 28 June 2022     Sofia 
The Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Specialised Criminal Court, Bulgaria) […] 
after having examined […] 
concerning a criminal case subject to public prosecution […] 
The proceedings are governed by Article 485 et seq. of the Nakazatelno 
protsesualen kodeks (Code of Criminal Procedure; the ‘NPK’) and the second 
paragraph of Article 267 TFEU. 
1. The referring court has difficulties in assessing whether, when conducting 
criminal proceedings in the absence of the accused person, it is obliged, in 
accordance with Articles 8 and 9 of Directive 2016/343, to determine in advance, 
and subsequently to declare clearly and officially, that the accused person has a 
right to have [the proceedings] reopened on the ground that the case was heard 
and ruled on in his or her absence. 
2. As a result, it is necessary to refer the following questions to the Court of 
Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling: 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 28. 6. 2022 – CASE C-430/22 
 
2  
Must the second sentence of Article 8(4) of Directive 2016/343 be interpreted 
as obliging a national court which convicts an accused person in absentia, 
without the conditions of Article 8(2) being met, to make express reference to 
the accused person’s right to have the proceedings reopened, to which he or 
she is entitled under Article 9 of that directive, in order that he or she can be 
informed of that right at a later stage, in particular when he or she is 
detained for the purpose of executing the sentence? The question arises in the 
light of the fact that national law provides neither for the person convicted in 
absentia to be informed of his or her right to have the proceedings reopened 
when he or she is detained for the purpose of executing the sentence, nor for 
the involvement of a court in the issuing of a European arrest warrant for the 
purpose of executing the sentence. 
Must the second sentence of Article 8(4) of Directive 2016/343, and in 
particular the phrase ‘also informed of the possibility to challenge the 
decision and of the right to a new trial or to another legal remedy, in 
accordance with Article 9’, be interpreted as meaning that such information 
concerns a formally recognised right to have the proceedings reopened, or 
does it concern the right to request such reopening, whereby the substance of 
the request must then be examined? 
FACTS IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS 
3. VB was charged with having participated, together with a certain number of 
other persons, in a criminal organisation which sought to enrich itself through the 
cultivation and distribution of drugs; with having possessed weapons, an offence 
punishable under Article 321(3)(2) of the Nakazatelen kodeks (Criminal Code; 
‘the NK’), in conjunction with Article 321(2) thereof; with having possessed – in 
complicity with other persons – drugs and drug precursors in three cases, an 
offence punishable under Article 354a(2) and (1) of the NK, in connection with 
Article 20(2) thereof; and with having possessed firearms and ammunition without 
the requisite permit, an offence punishable under Article 339(1) of the NK, in 
conjunction with Article 20(2) thereof. Custodial sentences are provided for in 
respect of each of those offences, from 3 to 10 years for the first, from 3 to 
10 years and from 5 to 15 years for the second, and from 2 to 8 years for the third. 
4. The criminal proceedings have been conducted in the absence of VB from 
the outset. To date, he has not been formally informed of the charges against him. 
In addition, he has not been informed that the charges have been brought before 
the court, or informed of the date and place of the trial and the consequences of 
non-appearance. 
5. The reason for this is that it has not been possible to locate him. In the 
course of the preliminary investigation, he had fled immediately before the police 
operation to arrest the suspects. He was also the subject of a European arrest 
warrant, but could not be located. He was therefore not informed of the charges 
VB 
 
3 
against him. In the trial phase, he was again placed on the wanted list, but was not 
located. 
6. During the pre-trial and trial phases, he was represented by three court-
appointed lawyers. None of them has ever seen him or been in contact with him or 
his relatives. 
7. The case is still pending. It is now in its second year. Most of the evidence 
has already been collected. There is a certain likelihood that VB will be convicted, 
and, in particular, that he will be given a custodial sentence which he would 
actually have to serve. 
PROVISIONS OF EUROPEAN UNION LAW 
8. 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 L 
65, 11.3.2016; ‘Directive 2016/343’ or ‘the Directive’. 
CASE-LAW OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION 
9. Judgment of 19 May 2022, [IR] […], С-569/20, EU:C:2022:401, ‘the 
judgment in IR, Case С-569/20’ 
PROVISIONS OF NATIONAL LAW 
10. Laws: 
Nakazatelen kodeks (Criminal Code, Bulgaria), published in Darzhaven vestnik 
(State Gazette; ‘DV’) No 26 of 2 April 1968, most recently amended: DV No 84 
of 8 October 2021; ‘the NK’; 
Nakazatelno-protsesualen kodeks (Code of Criminal Procedure, Bulgaria), 
published in DV No 86 of 28 October 2005, most recently amended: DV No 32 of 
26 April 2022; ‘the NPK’; 
Zakon za izpalnenie na nakazaniata [i zadarzhaneto pod strazha] (Law on the 
application of punishments and provisional detention, Bulgaria), published in DV 
No 25 of 3 April 2009, most recently amended: DV No 24 of 25 March 2022; ‘the 
ZINZS’; 
Pravilnik za prilagane na zakona za izpalnenie na nakazaniata (Provisions 
implementing the ZINZS), published in DV No 9 of 2 February 2010, most 
recently amended: DV No 35 of 27 April 2021; ‘the PPZINZS’; 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 28. 6. 2022 – CASE C-430/22 
 
4  
Zakon za ekstraditsiata i evropeyskata zapoved za arest (Law on extradition and 
the European arrest warrant, Bulgaria), published in DV No 46 of 3 June 2005, 
most recently amended with effect from 1 January 2020: DV No 45 of 7 June 
2019; ‘the ZEEZA’. 
11. Informing the accused person of the possibility to challenge the judgment 
before it becomes final 
National law requires that, when giving a verdict (taking a decision on the merits), 
the possibility to appeal against the judgment and the conditions for doing so must 
be stated – second sentence of Article 305(4) of the NPK. This means that the 
possibilities to appeal against the judgment are stated in the content of the 
judgment itself. 
In this way, when a person is informed of the judgment (usually at the time of 
delivery of the judgment), the person is also informed of the possibility to appeal 
against it. 
12. Informing the person convicted in absentia of the judgment – delivered in 
his or her absence – after it has become final 
National law does not provide for the informing of a person convicted in absentia 
of the conviction if the latter has already become final. The information referred to 
in paragraph 11 above relates to information concerning the possibility to appeal 
within the appeal period, that is to say before the judgment becomes final. 
In accordance with Article 416(2) of the NPK, a copy of the final judgment is to 
be sent to the Public Prosecutor’s Office for the purpose of executing the sentence. 
The person convicted in absentia is to be sought and arrested for the purpose of 
executing the sentence. After that, he or she is to be committed to prison in order 
to serve his or her sentence. 
In accordance with Article 54(1) of the ZINZS and Article 31 of the PPZINZS, a 
personal file containing an extract from the judgment is to be opened in respect of 
each person committed to prison. 
In accordance with Article 76(1) of the ZINZS, the convicted person has a right to 
information concerning the execution of his or her sentence. 
It is not clear from those provisions whether a copy of the full sentence or only an 
extract from the sentence is kept in the prison file; it is also not clear whether a 
person required to serve a custodial sentence on the basis of the judgment has a 
right of access thereto. In accordance with Article 76(1) of the ZINZS, [the 
person] has a right to information concerning the execution of his or her sentence, 
which is not to be equated with the right to information for the purpose of 
assessing a request for the reopening of the proceedings on the ground of his or 
her conviction in absentia. 
VB 
 
5 
13. Informing the person convicted in absentia of the right to request the 
reopening of the proceedings 
National law grants an accused person who has been convicted in absentia the 
right to request the reopening of the proceedings – Article 423(1) of the NPK. 
However, it does not provide for a requirement to inform him or her of that right 
in advance. 
In particular, there is no statutory requirement that the possibility to request the 
reopening of the proceedings be stated in the judgment delivered in the absence of 
the accused person. Nor does such a requirement exist in respect of other 
decisions of the court that are intended to inform the person convicted in absentia 
of his or her right to request the reopening of the proceedings. 
The case-law and practice of the authorities responsible for arresting convicted 
persons and committing them to prison in order to serve their sentence have not 
established rules for informing a person convicted in absentia of his or her right to 
request the reopening of the proceedings. 
For those reasons, no such information is provided. 
14. Procedure for reopening criminal proceedings which were conducted in the 
absence of the accused person – Article 423 of the NPK 
14.1. The judicial procedure for reopening proceedings [in the case of] a 
conviction in absentia is initiated at the request of the person convicted in 
absentia [in accordance with] the first sentence of Article 423(1) of the NPK. That 
sentence provides as follows: 
‘Within six months of becoming aware of the final judgment in criminal 
proceedings … the person convicted in absentia may request the reopening of the 
criminal case, relying on the fact that he or she was not present during the criminal 
proceedings’. 
According to the case-law, a person necessarily becomes aware of the final 
conviction when he or she is arrested for the purposes of executing that 
conviction. 
14.2. The Varhoven kasatsionen sad (Supreme Court of Cassation) is competent 
for such requests [pursuant to] Article 424(2) of the NPK, in conjunction with 
Article 424(1) thereof. That [paragraph] reads as follows: 
‘… requests for the reopening of a criminal case shall be considered by the 
Supreme Court of Cassation.’ 
14.3. That court is to conduct a public trial, take cognisance of all the documents 
in the criminal proceedings conducted in absentia which resulted in the conviction 
of the applicant in absentia, and determine whether the conditions for reopening 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 28. 6. 2022 – CASE C-430/22 
 
6  
the proceedings are met. Where it answers that question in the affirmative, it is to 
overturn the judgment delivered in absentia and order a retrial on the merits. 
Where it finds that those conditions are met, the court is to grant the request for 
the reopening of the proceedings – [in accordance with] Article 425(1)(1) and 
Article 425(2) of the NPK. Those [provisions] read as follows: 
‘(1) Where the court finds the request to reopen the proceedings is well founded, 
it may: 
‘overturn the conviction, decision, order or injunction and refer the case for a new 
trial and shall indicate the stage from which the new examination of the case shall 
begin; 
(2) In the cases referred to in Article 423(1), the proceedings shall be reopened 
and the case returned to the stage at which the proceedings began in absentia.’ 
15. Conclusions regarding the national regime for the reopening of proceedings 
due to the fact that the accused person was convicted in absentia 
15.1. First, the national regime for the reopening of proceedings following a 
conviction of the accused person in absentia does not inherently provide for prior 
determination of the right to have the proceedings reopened. In particular, the 
court hearing the case and ruling on the merits in the absence of the accused 
person does not have the legal authority to decide whether the absent accused 
person has the right to have the proceedings reopened by virtue of his or her 
absence. 
This is because the law has left the legal authority for that decision to the Supreme 
Court of Cassation, which can be seised, where appropriate, of requests to reopen 
proceedings in accordance with Article 423(1) of the NPK. 
15.2. On the other hand, provision is made for a right of a person convicted in 
absentia to request the reopening of the proceedings by relying on the fact that he 
or she was not present during the proceedings. The possibility for a person 
convicted in absentia to make such a request is set out in Article 423(1) of the 
NPK. 
In the event of such a request, separate proceedings are conducted before the 
Supreme Court of Cassation, which determines whether the conditions for 
reopening proceedings due to the absence of the accused person are met. 
Consequently, that decision is taken for the first time in the proceedings under 
Article 423 of the NPK, that is to say, after the person convicted in absentia has 
requested such a reopening. 
15.3. Second, the person convicted in absentia does not have any information 
regarding his or her right to request the reopening of the proceedings and only 
VB 
 
7 
partial information regarding the court decision given in his or her absence and 
convicting him or her in absentia. 
16. Conclusions regarding the rights of a person convicted in absentia to have 
proceedings reopened 
16.1. Such a person does not, at the time of his or her conviction in absentia, have 
a recognised right to have the proceedings reopened. In fact, that right is 
established or denied only in the proceedings under Article 423 of the NPK. 
16.2. That person is not formally informed at any time, and in particular not at the 
time of his or her arrest for the purpose of executing the sentence, of the right 
under Article 423(1) of the NPK to request the reopening of the proceedings due 
to his or her absence from the trial, or of the time limit within which he or she 
may do so. 
16.3. That person does not have access to either the full text of the judgment or all 
the documents from the proceedings in which he or she was convicted in absentia 
in order to assess whether he or she should make such a request (in the case where 
he or she becomes aware of that right despite having not been formally informed). 
16.4. If that person requests the reopening of the proceedings despite the lack of 
information, separate proceedings are conducted in accordance with Article 423 of 
the NPK, in which only then is it determined whether he or she has a right to have 
the proceedings reopened. 
17. Issuance of a European arrest warrant for the purpose of executing a 
custodial sentence 
In accordance with Article 56(1)(1), second alternative, of the ZEEZA, European 
arrest warrants are to be issued by a public prosecutor. The court has no 
involvement. This means that the public prosecutor decides what information to 
provide in points 3.1 to 3.4 of box (d) concerning the nature of the proceedings in 
absentia and the existence or non-existence of a possibility to have proceedings 
reopened. 
REASONING ON WHICH THE FIRST QUESTION REFERRED IS BASED 
18. The second sentence of Article 8(4) of Directive 2016/343 obliges Member 
States to organise their procedures in such a way as to ensure a certain result, 
namely the provision of information. More specifically, where an accused person 
is convicted in absentia without the conditions laid down in Article 8(2) of the 
Directive being met, he or she must be informed of that judicial decision and also 
of the possibility to have the proceedings reopened. That information must be 
provided, in particular, at the time when the person convicted in absentia is 
detained for the purpose of executing the sentence. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 28. 6. 2022 – CASE C-430/22 
 
8  
19. This means that the information concerning the right to have the proceedings 
reopened, as provided for in the second sentence of Article 8(4) of the Directive, 
must be provided to the person convicted in absentia at the latest at the time of his 
or her detention. 
20. National law does not provide for the provision of such information. It 
provides for the following order in which a case concluded in absentia is to be 
reopened: first, the convicted person makes a request to reopen the proceedings; 
after that, the court determines whether that request is well founded; finally, the 
court informs him or her whether he or she has a right to have the proceedings 
reopened – this takes place by means of the decision granting or refusing the 
request. 
21. By contrast, the second sentence of Article 8(4) of Directive 2016/343 
provides for the provision of such information at an earlier point in time, namely 
at the time when the person convicted in absentia is informed of the judicial 
decision or at the time of his or her detention for the purpose of executing the 
sentence. This is confirmed in the second sentence of paragraph 27 of the 
judgment in IR, Case С-569/20. 
22. The following question arises in that connection: is the court hearing the 
case in the absence of the accused person, in circumstances from which it is clear 
that the conditions laid down in Article 8(2) of the Directive are not met, obliged 
to take measures to ensure that the information required under the Directive, 
referred to in the second sentence of Article 8(4) thereof, is provided? 
23. That question is based on the statements of the Court of Justice in 
paragraphs 41 and 43 of the judgment in [IR], Case С-569/20, according to which 
it is for the national court to check whether the conditions set out in Article 8(2) of 
Directive 2016/343 are met. After having carried out that check, it may conclude 
that they are not met, as was the case in the main proceedings. This determines the 
next logical steps to be taken by the court, namely ensuring that the information 
referred to in the second sentence of Article 8(4) of the Directive is provided. 
24. This means that, in the case of a conviction in absentia, the court formally 
finds that the conditions laid down in Article 8(2) of the Directive are not met and 
the convicted person therefore has the right to have the proceedings reopened. 
This ensures that, when the person convicted in absentia is detained, he or she is 
formally informed of the court’s finding that he or she was convicted without the 
conditions laid down in Article 8(2) of Directive 2016/343 having been met and 
that he or she therefore has the right to have the proceedings reopened in 
accordance with Article 9 of the Directive, in conjunction with the second 
sentence of Article 8(4) thereof. 
25. That manner of informing the accused person, namely in the text of the 
judicial decision, corresponds to the manner of informing the accused person of 
VB 
 
9 
the right to appeal against a judgment in criminal proceedings, as provided for by 
national law (see paragraph 11 above). 
26. The Court of Justice’s answer to that question will be sufficient. In the 
referring court’s view, there is no doubt that, should it be found that the court is 
obliged to determine the nature of the absence and, accordingly – in the event that 
the conditions laid down Article 8(2) of Directive 2016/343 are not met – to 
recognise the right to the reopening of the proceedings already in the judicial 
decision rendered in the absence of the accused person, further obligations on the 
part of the court follow logically and automatically: 
- to determine the conditions under which reopening of the proceedings is to be 
requested, in particular the time limit for and the form of the request; 
- to recognise the right of the person convicted in absentia to [be able to] acquire 
full knowledge of the entire case and to receive a copy of the judicial decision by 
which he or she was convicted in absentia; 
- to inform the person convicted in absentia of his or her right to consult with a 
lawyer in order to determine whether he or she [wishes to] request to reopen the 
proceedings, including the obligation to inform him or her of the right to have a 
court-appointed lawyer, if the requirements for that are met; 
- to oblige the authorities responsible for detaining the person convicted in 
absentia to inform him or her of those rights and to create the conditions for the 
exercise of those rights. 
Therefore, those additional obligations are not the subject of the request for a 
preliminary ruling. 
-- 
27. In paragraphs 21 to 23 of the judgment in [IR], Case С-569/20, the Court of 
Justice considered that the possibility that a person convicted in absentia will be 
arrested pursuant to a European arrest warrant is hypothetical and need not be 
examined. 
Nevertheless, that possibility is in fact an equivalent alternative to an arrest on 
national territory. 
Furthermore, an arrest pursuant to a European arrest warrant may possibly lead to 
the conclusion that the question referred is irrelevant in so far as it does not appear 
to be necessary in the context of that type of arrest. 
This makes it necessary to refer to the European arrest warrant in the question 
referred and to justify that reference below. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 28. 6. 2022 – CASE C-430/22 
 
10  
28. When issuing a European arrest warrant for the purpose of executing the 
sentence imposed on the person convicted in absentia, the form, including 
points 2 and 3 of box (d), concerning different situations – points 3.1 to 3.4 – is 
completed. That latter point – namely point 3.4 – contains the information 
concerning the right to have the proceedings reopened. 
Therefore, it could be assumed that, if the person convicted in absentia were 
arrested pursuant to a European arrest warrant, that person – by virtue of the 
filling in of the European arrest warrant – would be duly informed within the 
meaning of the second sentence of Article 8(4) of Directive 2016/343, since, in 
accordance with Article 11(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584, when the 
requested person is arrested, he or she is to be informed of the contents of the 
European arrest warrant. It could [then] also be assumed that the question referred 
is not necessary because the information will have been provided. 
29. Nevertheless, it should be pointed out that, under national law, the European 
arrest warrant is issued only by the public prosecutor (see paragraph 17 above). 
The court has no involvement. Consequently, it is only the public prosecutor – 
who takes cognisance of the documents from the proceedings concluded – who 
decides on the nature of the absence and, accordingly, whether or not the 
conditions laid down in Article 8(2) of Directive 2016/343 have been met. At the 
same time, the documents from the proceedings already concluded do not contain 
a judicial finding on that issue. 
30. The Court of Justice of the European Union has already held that the 
issuance of a European arrest warrant is a measure in which a court must 
participate during at least one stage – either in the issuance of a national arrest 
warrant or in the issuance of the European arrest warrant (judgment of 27 May 
2019, [OG (Parquet de Lübeck),] C-508/18 and C-82/19 PPU, EU:C:2019:456, 
paragraph 75). That decision concerns the issuance of a European arrest warrant 
for the purpose of criminal prosecution. 
31. With regard to an arrest warrant issued for the purpose of executing a 
custodial sentence, the Court of Justice of the European Union has held that it is in 
the nature of criminal proceedings that a court conducting the requisite judicial 
review participates (judgment of 12 December 2019, [Openbaar Ministerie 
(Public Prosecutor, Brussels),] С-627/19 [PPU], EU:C:2019:1079, paragraph 35). 
However, the Court of Justice states that: ‘the decision to issue a European arrest 
warrant for the purposes of executing a sentence is the result of a national 
procedure in which the person in respect of whom an enforceable judgment has 
been delivered has had the benefit of all safeguards appropriate to the adoption of 
that type of decision’ (paragraph 36). 
32. That requirement is not fulfilled in the present case. There is no doubt that a 
court participates, since it is precisely the court that delivers the judgment in 
absentia; nevertheless, the nature of the absence and the right to have the 
proceedings reopened are not examined. That decision is taken for the first time 
VB 
 
11 
by the public prosecutor when issuing the European arrest warrant, whereby his or 
her assessment is made independently, without any involvement of a court (see 
paragraph 17 above). 
33. Against that background, the question referred is not rendered irrelevant by 
the possibility of an arrest pursuant to a European arrest warrant. The court would 
be required to determine whether the person convicted in absentia has a right to 
have the proceedings reopened and, on the basis of that decision, the public 
prosecutor who issues the arrest warrant would be required to fill in the 
appropriate box, in line with the decision. 
--- 
34. It is in that context that the first question referred arises: must the 
information required under the second sentence of Article 8([4]) of Directive 
2016/343 be provided by the referring court in its ruling on the merits? This would 
be the most effective way of ensuring that the information reaches the person 
convicted in absentia, in particular at the time of his or her arrest. 
35. Furthermore, the referring court, as the court ruling on the merits of the 
charges and being directly aware of the circumstances of VB’s absence, can assess 
whether or not the conditions laid down in Article 8(2) of the Directive are met. 
That assessment can be made after having heard the parties to the case. At the 
same time, that assessment would also be subject to subsequent review by the 
courts ruling on appeals on the merits and appeals on a point of law, including on 
appeal by the parties. This would ensure that, at the time when VB is convicted 
and sentenced in his absence, there would be a decision on the abovementioned 
issue [and] he would have the benefit of all safeguards appropriate to the adoption 
of judgments in criminal matters. 
REASONING ON WHICH THE SECOND QUESTION REFERRED IS BASED 
36. If the Court of Justice of the European Union concludes that the referring 
court must provide such information, the question arises as to the content of the 
information. 
Specifically, of what must the person convicted in absentia, in respect of whom 
the conditions laid down in Article 8(2) of the Directive are not met, be informed? 
Must he or she be informed that: 
- he or she has a right to have the proceedings reopened, which takes place only 
upon request, and that, in considering the request, the court decides only on the 
nature of the reopening of the proceedings, [that is to say] whether the decision 
may be challenged, a new trial may be requested or another legal remedy may be 
sought; 
or 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 28. 6. 2022 – CASE C-430/22 
 
12  
- he or she has a right to request to have the proceedings reopened, and the court 
first decides on the merits of the request, whereby it can either grant or refuse it. 
37. The referring court takes the view that it is clear from the wording of the 
second sentence of Article 8(4) and Article 9 of the Directive that the person 
convicted in absentia has a right to have the proceedings reopened if the 
conditions of Article 8(2) are not met. If the first question is answered in the 
affirmative, the existence of that right would have already been determined by the 
courts ruling on the merits, and that determination would also become final when 
the judgment delivered in absentia becomes final. Therefore, the information 
provided for in the second sentence of Article 8(4) of the Directive refers to a 
right to have the proceedings reopened which has already been formally 
recognised. 
37[a]. By contrast, national law provides for separate proceedings – under 
Article 423 of the NPK – in which it is determined for the first time whether the 
conditions for reopening of the proceedings are met and which may end with a 
refusal to reopen them (see paragraph 14 above). This applies even in cases where 
the person convicted in absentia has been formally informed of the right to have 
the proceedings reopened by way of a European arrest warrant in which point 3.4 
of box (d) has been filled in and the requested person has been surrendered by the 
executing Member State, whereby the executing judicial authority was aware that 
the person has a right to have the proceedings reopened. 
38. This is also in line with the settled case-law of the Supreme Court of 
Cassation, which allows reopening of proceedings only if the national criteria 
under Article 423(1) of the NPK are fulfilled, irrespective of whether point 3.4 in 
box (d) of the European arrest warrant is ticked. 
There is a likelihood that the information formally provided by the referring court 
in the judgment, stating that there is a right to have the proceedings reopened as 
provided for in Article 9 of Directive 2016/343, will also be ignored. 
39. For those reasons, the referring court requires an interpretation by the Court 
of Justice of the European Union of the actual content of the provision of the 
second sentence of Article 8(4) of Directive 2016/343 in order that, when it 
provides the requisite information concerning the right have the proceedings 
reopened, it is adequately informed of the actual legal possibilities available to the 
person convicted in absentia. 
40. For the reasons set out above, the court makes the following 
ORDER: 
The questions with the content set out in paragraph 2 above are REFERRED to 
the Court of Justice of the European Union FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING. 
No appeal lies against the present order. 
VB 
 
13 
 […]