CJEU clarification on trial in absentia

In a judgement from May 2025 (Case C-135/25 PPU) the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) offers key answers. It interprets the EU’s Presumption of Innocence Directive (2016/343) and sets limits on how and when courts can hold a trial in absentia—a trial that happens without the accused being present – and when they have to offer a re-trial.

Facts of The Case

The case happened in Bulgaria, where Mr. M. S. T., a Bulgarian national, faced charges of aggravated theft. He was assigned a court-appointed lawyer, informed of the charges against him, and instructed not leave his place of residence. He was also required to sign a police register periodically.  He was also asked to provide an address where he could be contacted by the authorities, as well as a phone number.
However, by the time the case went to court, he had disappeared. The courts were unable to locate him.  Notifications were sent to the address he had provided, but when the authorities contacted his family members, they responded that Mr. M.S.T.  no longer lived there. He was   working in Germany. The court tried to call him, checked border movements, and even requested police assistance to find him in time for the trial.
Under these circumstances, the court decided to proceed with the trial in his absence, with his court-appointed lawyer present. He was sentenced to one year in prison.

A few weeks later, he was found and arrested. After beginning to serve his sentence, he asked for a re-trial from the Bulgarian courts, arguing that he had been tried and convicted in absentia.

Questions to the CJEU

The Bulgarian Courts explained that, according to Bulgarian legislation, a person convicted in absentia is not entitled to a new trial when that person absconded, infringed a detention order, or unlawfully left the address that they had provided to the authorities.

However, the national court wanted to check the compatibility of national legislation with the CJEU’s interpretation of Articles 8 and 9 of that Presumption of Innocence Directive.

It asked the following questions to the CJEU:

(1)      Are national provisions compatible with the directive if they deny the right to a new trial to a person convicted in absentia, where he or she has absconded after the preliminary indictment was served on them in person during the pre-trial investigation, thus making it impossible for the court to inform them of the date and place of the trial or of the consequences of not appearing before the court, namely, that the case can be heard and decided in his or her absence?

(2)     Can national courts deny a new trial when:

• the court has made every reasonable effort to inform the person of the trial, but, after having been officially informed of the accusations and made them aware that he or she is going to be brought to trial, the person has taken deliberate steps to officially avoid  receiving the information regarding the date and place of the trial by absconding from the address given to the court;
• the indictment and the document indicating the date and place of the scheduled trial have been sent to the address which the convicted person had communicated to the investigating authorities after receiving the preliminary indictment;
• the convicted person was defended by the lawyer appointed by the Bar throughout the judicial proceedings conducted in his or her absence.

The Answer from the CJEU

The CJEU explained that Articles 8 and 9 of the “Presumption of Innocence Directive” allow the right to a new trial to be denied to persons convicted in in their absence when:

• competent authorities made efforts to inform the person of the date and place of the trial, but he or she had absconded, in infringement of a detention order imposed after receiving a preliminary indictment;
• the indictment and a document indicating the date and place of the trial were sent to that person and actually delivered to the address the person had provided to the authorities after receiving the preliminary indictment, provided that the content of the document corresponds, in terms of the alleged acts and their legal classification, to that of the indictment; and
• thirdly, the person was represented by a court-appointed lawyer throughout the judicial proceedings conducted in his or her absence.

The CJEU also clarified that national authorities must make use of all the means at their disposal to locate the person convicted in absentia before their trial. Furthermore, that person must have either been informed in due time of the consequences of non-appearance or must have unequivocally entrusted their court-appointed lawyer a mandate to represent them before the trial court in their absence.

The Court also reiterated its position on what it considers mandated representation. It stated that, in order for there to be a ‘mandate’ within the meaning of Article 8(2)(b) of Directive 2016/343, the person concerned must entrusted a chosen lawyer, or the court-appointed lawyer, with the task of representing them at the trial in absentia. b (see also C‑569/20, para. 56).

Why this case matters?

These clarifications help shed light on the obligations of national authorities have when a convicted person fails to appear for their trial. They explain that national authorities must take all reasonable steps to locate and inform the person of their trial. If the person does not respond, the trial may proceed in the person’s absence.

The Court also explains that the right to a new trial is not  absolute, and that in some cases, a new trial can be refused.

This might seem technical but it’s about ensuring real, meaningful defence rights, not just ticking boxes. The right to be present at your own trial is fundamental to a fair justice system. It allows you to hear the evidence, question witnesses, and fully defend yourself fully.

Unfortunately, as the  EC Impact Assessment shows, this right is still not respected consistently across the EU. Some countries hold trials without properly notifying the accused or deny retrials even when due process has not been followed.

This ruling sends a clear message: justice can’t take shortcuts. Yes, courts can proceed if someone evade the law, but they must show they tried hard to reach them, and that their rights were protected even in their absence.

Want to know more? Check out our “Practitioners’ Guide on the Presumption of Innocence and Right to be Present at Trial Directive” for more insight.

Author: Cristinel Buzatu, Fair Trials’ Legal Officer.

Article edited by: Ángela Rodríguez, Fair Trials’ Communications Officer.