Bulgaria / Appellate Court / 175/2020

Key facts of the case:

3. the facts of the case (so the “real life story”) 4. the legal background against which the case unfolded (what are the relevant legal norms that are applied) Mr N.D.I. appealed the ruling of the lower court for execution of his European Arrest Warrant via which he was to be transferred to Italy to serve his prison sentences for organised criminal activities, namely tax crimes and intentional bankruptcy. The ex officio lawyer of Mr I claimed that Mr I had never participated in his trial, no legal grounds existed for his transfer under the Extradition and European Arrest Warrant Act (Закон за екстрадицията и Европейската заповед за арест) and there was no guarantee for immediate service of the Italian court’s decision to the person after his transfer in order for him to be notified about his right of appeal or new trial in his presence. Art. 6 of the ECHR and Art. 47 and 48 of the Charter were allegedly violated in relation to the in absentia proceedings against the person and his right to defence and adversarial proceedings. The appellate court found the appeal admissible, but unfounded. Special attention was given to the procedural objections of the appellant against the EAW. He had indeed not appeared at his trial in Italy, but was represented by an ex officio lawyer. He was not served with his sentences either, but could, in accordance with Italian criminal procedural legislation, request reversal of those if he could prove justified reasons for not knowing about the trial once he was acquainted with the proceedings. Thus, he had proper remedy under the Italian legal system, guarantees for fair trial and right to appeal, and no violation was in place of Art. 6 of the ECHR and Art. 47-48 of the Charter. The treatment of the case was also compliant with Directive 2016/343.

Key legal question raised by the Court:

The court had to elaborate on whether the in absentia proceedings against the appellant and the lack of service of his sentence were bases for refusing his EAW transfer to the country where he had to serve his prison sentences.

Outcome of the case:

The appellate court decided that all prerequisites for executing the two EAWs against the appellant were in place and he had to be transferred to Italy to serve his prison sentences.
Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

An appeal was filed against the decision by the appointed ex officio counsel of the requested person N. D. I., attorney. Z. of the Burgas Bar, which sets out considerations for its illegality, irregularity and unfoundedness. He states that the requested person has never participated in the legal proceedings against him, heard in Italy, i.e. EAWs have been issued for the execution of a custodial sentence imposed in a trial in which the person has not appeared. It is alleged that the conditions of Art. 40 para 2 items 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Extradition and European Arrest Warrant Act (Закон за екстрадицията и Европейската заповед за арест) are not present. It is stated that Article 629bis of the Italian Criminal Procedure Code does not cover the conditions of Article 40, paragraph 2, item 4 of the Extradition and European Arrest Warrant Act (Закон за екстрадицията и Европейската заповед за арест), because an additional condition is set for the person to prove that his

absence was due to justifiable reasons for not knowing about the trial in Italy. It is alleged that there is no guarantee that the decision of the Italian court will be served on the person immediately after his surrender, notifying him of the right to appeal or re-examination on his merits, as well as the absence of guarantees of a retrial. It is considered that none of the hypotheses of Art. 40 para. 2 of the Extradition and European Arrest Warrant Act (Закон за екстрадицията и Европейската заповед за арест) are present, due to which the court should have refused to execute the EAW. Alleged violation of Article 6 of the ECHR and Article 47, Article 48 of the Charter is claimed, violating the rights of the requested person in the proceedings in absentia, the right to defense and adversarial proceedings. The annulment of the contested decision is sought. … The appellate court found that Article 6 of the ECHR, the right of the requested person to a fair trial, as well as Article 47 of the Charter, the right to effective remedies and a fair trial, and Article 48 of the Charter, presumption of innocence and right to defense, were not violated. The requested person, as stated above, was provided with effective remedies and guarantees for a fair trial, acquaintance with the judicial act and the right to appeal, in accordance with the procedural requirements of the Italian Criminal Procedure Code. In this regard, the present instance finds that the European legislation on fair trial, the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial, Directive 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council, has also been complied with.
Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)

Срещу постановеното решение е постъпила жалба от назначения служебен защитник на исканото лице Н. Д. И., адв. З. от АК Бургас, в която се излагат съображения за неговата незаконосъобразност, неправилност и необоснованост. Посочва, че исканото лице никога не е участвал в съдебното дело срещу него, гледано в Италия, т.е. процесните ЕЗА са издадени за изпълнение на наказание лишаване от свобода, постановено в съдебен процес, на който лицето не се е явило лично. Твърди се, че не са налице условията на чл.40 ал.2 т.1, 2, 3 и 4 от ЗЕЕЗА. Заявява се, че чл.629bis от италианския НПК не покрива условията на чл.40 ал.2 т.4 от ЗЕЕЗА, защото се поставя допълнително условие лицето да доказва, че отсъствието му се е дължало на оправдателни причини за неосведоменост във връзка с провеждане на процеса в Италия. Навежда се, че няма гаранция за връчване на решението на италианския съд незабавно на лицето, лично след предаването му, като бъде уведомено за правото на обжалване или ново разглеждане с негово лично участие по същество, както и отсъствието на гаранции за повторен процес. Счита се, че не са налице нито една от хипотезите на чл.40 ал.2 от ЗЕЕЗА, поради което съдът е следвало да откаже да изпълни ЕЗА. Твърди се нарушение на чл.6 от ЕКПЧ и чл.47, чл.48 от Хартата на основните права на ЕС, като са нарушени правата на исканото лице при проведеното задочно производство, правото на защита и състезателност на процеса. Иска се да се отмени атакуваното решение. … Въззивният съд намира, че не е нарушен чл.6 от ЕКПЧ, правото на исканото лице на справедлив съдебен процес, както и чл.47 от Хартата на основните права на ЕС, правото на ефективни правни средства за защита и на справедлив съдебен процес, и чл.48 от Хартата, презумпция за невиновност и право на защита, предвид което изложеното в жалбата е неоснователно. На исканото лице, както беше посочено по-горе, са осигурени средства за защита и справедлив съдебен процес, запознаване със съдебния акт и право на обжалване, съгласно процесуалните изисквания на италианския НПК. В теза връзка настоящата инстанция намира, че е спазено и европейското законодателство за справедлив съдебен процес, укрепването на някои аспекти на презумпцията за невиновност и на правото на лицата да присъстват на съдебния процес в наказателното производство /Директива 2016/343 на Европейския парламент и на Съвета/