The operative part of uniformity decision no. 1/2013 BJE

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly version

If the accused person’s residence becomes unknown after submitting the indictment and the warrant issued against the accused did not have any result, the proceeding can be resumed in the absence of the accused according to Chapter XXV of the Code of Criminal Procedure only if the prosecutor makes a proposal for that based on Article 529, paragraph (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

In view of Article 529, paragraph (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure the court shall suspend the proceeding if the prosecutor proposes not to resume the proceeding or fails to make a proposal for the resumption of the proceeding in the absence of the accused within the prescribed time period of fifteen days in Article 529, paragraph (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

In such a case the reason of suspension is that a proceeding against an accused whose residence is unknown cannot be continued in the absence of a motion by the prosecutor.

After suspension, however, the prosecutor can still propose to resume the proceeding in the absence of the accused by applying the provisions pertaining to special proceedings in Chapter XXV of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The obstacle to resume the proceeding, therefore the reason of suspension, is in this way removed. Therefore, the court shall resume the proceeding based on the prosecutor’s motion in view of Article 266, paragraph (5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.