Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 January 2025.Sofiyska gradska prokuratura v VB.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Directive (EU) 2016/343 – Right to be present at the trial – Article 8(2) – Trial resulting in a decision imposing a conviction in absentia or a decision of acquittal in absentia – Conditions – Article 8(4) – Obligation to inform the person tried in absentia of the legal remedies available – Article 9 – Right to a new trial or to another legal remedy which allows a fresh determination of the merits of the case and which may lead to the original decision being reversed – Article 10(1) – Right to an effective remedy – National legislation making the recognition of the right to a new trial subject to the submission of a request to reopen criminal proceedings to a judicial authority before which the person tried in absentia must appear.Case C-400/23.

This judgment concerns the interpretation of Directive 2016/343 regarding the right to be present at criminal trials and rights of persons convicted in absentia. The key provisions analyzed are:1. The Court clarifies that when a person is convicted in absentia without meeting conditions in Article 8(2), Member States can require them to request a new trial from a different court than the one that convicted them, provided that:

• The proceedings must actually allow a new trial in all cases where Article 8(2) conditions were not met
• The person cannot be required to appear in person to request the new trial
• The convicted person must receive a full copy of the conviction decision and clear information about their right to request a new trial

2. The Court conducting an in absentia trial can itself examine whether Article 8(2) conditions are met and state in its decision that the person has a right to a new trial, after hearing both prosecution and defense counsel.3. These rights apply not only to convictions in absentia but also to acquittals in absentia.The judgment is particularly relevant for Ukraine as it establishes important procedural safeguards for criminal proceedings conducted in absentia, which has become more common due to the ongoing conflict. It provides clear guidance on how to protect defendants’ rights while allowing justice systems to function when accused persons are absent.

Full text by link