Not called at trial – violated the law: Supreme court

The proceedings in the absence of the plaintiff/defendant – violated their rights

Not called at trial – violated the law: Supreme court

Why the trial in absentia by the courts is a violation of rights?

No notice of the hearing may be cause for return of driver’s license

The Supreme court’s decision

The Supreme court considered the case, and his decision promises to make life easier and to protect not only motorists, but also citizens of the whole country, which due to unforeseen reasons caused the court.

 

Often it turns out that judicial decisions rendered by courts in absentia. That is, the person who is in an administrative case as the defendant or even the plaintiff, at one point, maybe just not notified about the upcoming hearing and will not in the required (full) extent to protect their rights. Why is this happening? As practice shows, people simply do not receive the agenda, for one reason or another.

 

The Supreme court reviewed one of hundreds of similar examples of the unprofessional approach of the servants of judicial machinery, which sometimes simply ignore the fact of the citizens agenda. Had it come at the addressee is not reached, this case the third. We were sent, so fulfilled his duties, and was thus informed citizen who because of circumstances have to visit the building justice, it does not matter.

 

But not so rare with this approach suffer including motorists. For example, hearing the case on deprivation of the driving license without the presence of the driver. Motorist can really be aware of what is happening, because the summons did not come or came with a delay, when it’s late and have no rights and every meeting with the inspector of traffic police faces a double problem, not the fault of the driver.

 

Or the court may not invite contestation of decisions, for example, fines. He wants people to challenge the penalty, do not agree with him, even taking the time ignored a 50% discount and ready to get justice… and there it was, the court simply did not set an appointment.

 

And finally, sometimes motorists are not invited to the judicial examination of the administrative case, for example, under article 20.25 of the administrative code “Evasion from execution of administrative punishment.” The result is sad – the citizen is deprived of the possibility to defend themselves in court, the court makes a decision independently based only on their thinking and arguments of the plaintiff.

The Supreme court considered a similar case because of the complaint of the citizen, which sued the administration of the municipal formation for the land plot, belonging to it, but of consideration in urban and regional courts lost.

Not called at trial – violated the law: Supreme court

Earlier we wrote about another similar case, the Supreme court, published under the heading: Not a notice of the hearing may cause the return of a driver’s license. The full text of the article can be found by clicking on the link.

Briefly the case was this: – Offending driver on the hearing of the World court was absent and he was found guilty of committing an administrative offense in absentia. That also ruled out the realization of the right to protection by a person who is attracted to administrative responsibility.

The Supreme court in this case sided with the defendant because he violated part 2 article 25.1 of the administrative code:

“A case on an administrative offence is considered involving the person in respect of whom the proceedings on administrative offense. In the absence of the specified persons business can be considered only in cases stipulated by part 3 of article 28.6 of the Code, or if there is evidence of proper notice on the time and place of the hearing and if the person is not received the motion to postpone consideration of the case, or if such petition is left without satisfaction”.

Not called at trial – violated the law: Supreme court

The woman appealed to the Supreme court with the complaint that the adjudication of his case was not present because she was not informed, and therefore are unable to present their arguments. The Supreme court agreed with the arguments submitted in the statement and considered that the violations were the following:

 

1. In article 123 of the Constitution stipulates that the in absentia trial of criminal cases in the courts is not allowed except the cases stipulated by the Federal law and procedure on the basis of competitiveness and equality of the parties.

 

2. Because inadequate notice party to the case, undermines the protection during proceedings, this issue is particularly important and comprehensive. There is a right to present evidence to the court, to get acquainted with the evidence submitted by other citizens involved in the case, to get acquainted with the evidence which required the court to participate in the provision of evidence in their research, file petitions, give explanations to the court orally and in writing, to ensure these rights without proper notice of the persons participating in the process.

 

3. At court of appeal stricter, participants are required to attend the trial. However, it can be considered and in case of absence of any of its participants, but only with the condition that if the citizen was notified of the time and place of the meeting, and participants not told the court why he has not appeared, or if they said, why did not come, and the court found that reason disrespectful.

 

4. In article 96 of the Code of administrative procedure (CAS) are painted, according to the law to inform the citizens: by registered mail with notification by telephone or telegram, by Fax or “other means of communication, allowing the court to verify the receipt by the addressee of judicial notices”.

The main conclusion made by the Supreme court of these arguments – any option of sending/delivering the notice or communication with stakeholders not chose the court, it must provide “reliable fixation of the sent message and the fact of its receipt by the addressee”. The court can very rarely hear the case in the absence of the plaintiff and concluded that the notice reached the addressee can only be done upon confirmation of the documentary.