{"attribution":{"source":"legal.exploreworldai.com","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu:c-68-26-ppu","cite_as":"NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu:c-68-26-ppu)","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision","version":"legal-2026-10-23","fingerprint":"ewai:eu:b67bfc","proof":"sha256:68ee8612eaaeef15c6595af39d1560659ad637d1f936987886243a7a1d7469ad","jurisdiction":"eu","lang":"en","publisher":"NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal","terms":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om"},"brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","item":{"schema_version":"1.0.0","id":"eu:c-68-26-ppu","jurisdiction":"eu","lang":"en","brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","brand":{"product":"NovaCopilot","platform":"ExploreWorldAI","infrastructure":"ExploreWorld Legal","infrastructure_url":"legal.exploreworldai.com","legal_entity":"Valkiv Ventures AB","permanent_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot","source":"Source: NovaCopilot","powered_by":"Powered by NovaCopilot","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor"},"sections":[{"title":"Provisional text","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"ORDER OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber)","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"27 March 2026 ( * )","paragraphs":["para_4"]},{"title":"In Case C‑68/26 (PPU) [Kilyanov], ( i )","paragraphs":["para_6","para_7","para_8","para_9","para_10","para_11","para_12","para_13","para_14","para_15","para_16"]},{"title":"Order","paragraphs":["para_18","para_19"]},{"title":"Legal context","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"European Union law","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"3         Recitals 1, 33, 35 and 48 of Directive 2016/343 are worded as follows:","paragraphs":["para_23","para_24","para_25","para_26","para_27","para_28","para_29"]},{"title":"4         Article 1 of that directive, entitled ‘Subject matter’, provides:","paragraphs":["para_31"]},{"title":"(a)      certain aspects of the presumption of innocence in criminal proceedings;","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"(b)      the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings.’","paragraphs":["para_34","para_35","para_36","para_37","para_38","para_39","para_40"]},{"title":"7         Article 9 of Directive 2016/343, entitled ‘Right to a new trial’, states:","paragraphs":["para_42"]},{"title":"Bulgarian law","paragraphs":["para_44","para_45"]},{"title":"9         Article 57 of the NPK, entitled ‘Purpose of coercive measures’, provides:","paragraphs":["para_47"]},{"title":"10       Article 58 of the NPK, entitled ‘Types of coercive measures’, states:","paragraphs":["para_49"]},{"title":"4.      detention on remand pending trial.’","paragraphs":["para_51","para_52","para_53","para_54"]},{"title":"13       Under Article 269 of the NPK, entitled ‘Presence of the defendant at the trial’:","paragraphs":["para_56","para_57","para_58","para_59","para_60","para_61"]},{"title":"The main proceedings and the question referred for a preliminary ruling","paragraphs":["para_63","para_64","para_65","para_66","para_67","para_68","para_69","para_70","para_71","para_72","para_73","para_74","para_75","para_76","para_77","para_78","para_79","para_80","para_81","para_82","para_83","para_84","para_85","para_86"]},{"title":"The request that the reference be dealt with under the urgent preliminary ruling procedure","paragraphs":["para_88","para_89","para_90","para_91","para_92","para_93"]},{"title":"Consideration of the question referred","paragraphs":["para_95","para_96","para_97","para_98","para_99","para_100","para_101","para_102","para_103","para_104","para_105","para_106","para_107","para_108","para_109","para_110","para_111","para_112","para_113","para_114","para_115","para_116","para_117"]},{"title":"Costs","paragraphs":["para_119"]},{"title":"On those grounds, the Court (Fifth Chamber) hereby orders:","paragraphs":["para_121","para_122","para_123","para_124","para_125"]}],"paragraphs":[{"text":"Provisional text","paragraph_id":"para_1"},{"text":"ORDER OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber)","paragraph_id":"para_2"},{"text":"27 March 2026 ( * )","paragraph_id":"para_3"},{"text":"( Reference for a preliminary ruling – Urgent preliminary ruling procedure – Area of freedom, security and justice – Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Directive (EU) 2016/343 – Article 8(1) and (2) – Right to be present at the t …","paragraph_id":"para_4"},{"text":"In Case C‑68/26 (PPU) [Kilyanov], ( i )","paragraph_id":"para_5"},{"text":"REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Sofiyski gradski sad (Sofia City Court, Bulgaria), made by decision of 9 February 2026, received at the Court on the same date, in the criminal proceedings against","paragraph_id":"para_6"},{"text":"DK,","paragraph_id":"para_7"},{"text":"other party:","paragraph_id":"para_8"},{"text":"Sofiyska gradska prokuratura,","paragraph_id":"para_9"},{"text":"THE COURT (Fifth Chamber),","paragraph_id":"para_10"},{"text":"composed of M.L. Arastey Sahún, President of the Chamber, J. Passer, E. Regan (Rapporteur), D. Gratsias and B. Smulders, Judges,","paragraph_id":"para_11"},{"text":"Advocate General: A. Rantos,","paragraph_id":"para_12"},{"text":"Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,","paragraph_id":"para_13"},{"text":"having regard to the referring court’s request of 9 February 2026, received at the Court on the same date, that the reference for a preliminary ruling be dealt with under the urgent procedure pursuant to Article 107 of the Rules of Procedure,","paragraph_id":"para_14"},{"text":"having regard to the decision of 2 March 2026 of the Fifth Chamber to grant that request,","paragraph_id":"para_15"},{"text":"makes the following","paragraph_id":"para_16"},{"text":"Order","paragraph_id":"para_17"},{"text":"1         This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 8(1) and (2) of Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the t …","paragraph_id":"para_18"},{"text":"2         The request has been made in the context of criminal proceedings brought against DK and relates to his continued detention with a view to ensuring that he appears in person at the trial.","paragraph_id":"para_19"},{"text":"Legal context","paragraph_id":"para_20"},{"text":"European Union law","paragraph_id":"para_21"},{"text":"3         Recitals 1, 33, 35 and 48 of Directive 2016/343 are worded as follows:","paragraph_id":"para_22"},{"text":"‘(1)      The presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial are enshrined in Articles 47 and 48 of [the Charter], Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms [signed in Rome on 4 November 1950 (“the ECHR”)], Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (the ICCPR) and Article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.","paragraph_id":"para_23"},{"text":"…","paragraph_id":"para_24"},{"text":"(33)      The right to a fair trial is one of the basic principles in a democratic society. The right of suspects and accused persons to be present at the trial is based on that right and should be ensured throughout the Union.","paragraph_id":"para_25"},{"text":"…","paragraph_id":"para_26"},{"text":"(35)      The right of suspects and accused persons to be present at the trial is not absolute. Under certain conditions, suspects and accused persons should be able, expressly or tacitly, but unequivocally, to waive that right.","paragraph_id":"para_27"},{"text":"…","paragraph_id":"para_28"},{"text":"(48)      As this Directive establishes minimum rules, Member States should be able to extend the rights laid down in this Directive in order to provide a higher level of protection. The level of protection provided for by Member States should never fall below the standards provided for by the Charter or by the ECHR, as interpreted by the Court of Justice and by the European Court of Human Rights.’","paragraph_id":"para_29"},{"text":"4         Article 1 of that directive, entitled ‘Subject matter’, provides:","paragraph_id":"para_30"},{"text":"‘This Directive lays down common minimum rules concerning:","paragraph_id":"para_31"},{"text":"(a)      certain aspects of the presumption of innocence in criminal proceedings;","paragraph_id":"para_32"},{"text":"(b)      the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings.’","paragraph_id":"para_33"},{"text":"5         Article 7 of that directive, entitled ‘Right to remain silent and right not to incriminate oneself’, provides, in paragraph 1 thereof:","paragraph_id":"para_34"},{"text":"‘Member States shall ensure that suspects and accused persons have the right to remain silent in relation to the criminal offence that they are suspected or accused of having committed.’","paragraph_id":"para_35"},{"text":"6         Article 8 of that directive, entitled ‘Right to be present at the trial’, provides, in paragraphs 1 and 2 thereof:","paragraph_id":"para_36"},{"text":"‘1.      Member States shall ensure that suspects and accused persons have the right to be present at their trial.","paragraph_id":"para_37"},{"text":"2.      Member States may provide that a trial which can result in a decision on the guilt or innocence of a suspect or accused person can be held in his or her absence, provided that:","paragraph_id":"para_38"},{"text":"(a)      the suspect or accused person has been informed, in due time, of the trial and of the consequences of non-appearance; or","paragraph_id":"para_39"},{"text":"(b)      the suspect or accused person, having been informed of the trial, is represented by a mandated lawyer, who was appointed either by the suspect or accused person or by the State.’","paragraph_id":"para_40"},{"text":"7         Article 9 of Directive 2016/343, entitled ‘Right to a new trial’, states:","paragraph_id":"para_41"},{"text":"‘Member States shall ensure that, where suspects or accused persons were not present at their trial and the conditions laid down in Article 8(2) were not met, they have the right to a new trial, or to another legal remedy, which allows a fresh determination of the merits of the case, including exami …","paragraph_id":"para_42"},{"text":"Bulgarian law","paragraph_id":"para_43"},{"text":"8         Article 55 of the Nakazatelno-protsesualen kodeks (Code of Criminal Procedure) (DV No 86 of 28 October 2005), in the version applicable to the main proceedings (‘the NPK’), entitled ‘Rights of the accused person’, provides, in paragraph 1 thereof:","paragraph_id":"para_44"},{"text":"‘The accused person shall have the following rights: … to provide or refuse to provide explanations in relation to the charges; to become acquainted with the case file …; to adduce evidence; to participate in the criminal proceedings; to make requests, observations and objections; to be the last to make statements …’","paragraph_id":"para_45"},{"text":"9         Article 57 of the NPK, entitled ‘Purpose of coercive measures’, provides:","paragraph_id":"para_46"},{"text":"‘Coercive measures shall be taken to prevent the accused person from absconding …’","paragraph_id":"para_47"},{"text":"10       Article 58 of the NPK, entitled ‘Types of coercive measures’, states:","paragraph_id":"para_48"},{"text":"‘…","paragraph_id":"para_49"},{"text":"4.      detention on remand pending trial.’","paragraph_id":"para_50"},{"text":"11       Article 66 of the NPK, entitled ‘Consequences of failure to comply with obligations associated with coercive measures’, provides, in paragraph 1 thereof:","paragraph_id":"para_51"},{"text":"‘An accused person who fails to appear before the relevant authority without a valid reason, who changes residence without having informed that authority or who fails to comply with the measure adopted will be made subject to a coercive measure or the measure adopted shall be replaced with a more severe measure, in accordance with the procedure provided for in this Code.’","paragraph_id":"para_52"},{"text":"12       Article 247c of the NPK, entitled ‘Notifications of the date for the preliminary hearing’, provides, in paragraph 1 thereof:","paragraph_id":"para_53"},{"text":"‘By order of the judge rapporteur, a copy of the indictment shall be served on the defendant. Through service of the indictment, the defendant shall be informed of the date fixed for the preliminary hearing, … of his or her right to appear with a defence counsel … and of the fact that the case may be heard and determined in his or her absence, in accordance with Article 269. …’","paragraph_id":"para_54"},{"text":"13       Under Article 269 of the NPK, entitled ‘Presence of the defendant at the trial’:","paragraph_id":"para_55"},{"text":"‘(1)      In cases where the defendant has been charged with a serious criminal offence, his or her presence at the trial shall be mandatory.","paragraph_id":"para_56"},{"text":"…","paragraph_id":"para_57"},{"text":"(3)      Provided that that does not prevent the objective truth from being established, the case may be heard in the absence of the defendant, if:","paragraph_id":"para_58"},{"text":"…","paragraph_id":"para_59"},{"text":"3.      having been duly summoned, he or she has not given valid reasons for failing to appear and the procedure laid down in Article 247c(1) has been complied with;","paragraph_id":"para_60"},{"text":"…’","paragraph_id":"para_61"},{"text":"The main proceedings and the question referred for a preliminary ruling","paragraph_id":"para_62"},{"text":"14       On 28 August 2020, the Sofiyska gradska prokuratura (Sofia City Public Prosecutor’s Office, Bulgaria) brought criminal proceedings before the Sofiyski gradski sad (Sofia City Court, Bulgaria), which is the referring court, against various individuals, including DK, for having directed, betw …","paragraph_id":"para_63"},{"text":"15       However, when the police operation to arrest the suspects was launched in August 2019, DK could not be located, with the result that the pre-trial stage of the proceedings was conducted in his absence. A lawyer was appointed for him by the court but that lawyer was equally unable to establi …","paragraph_id":"para_64"},{"text":"16       On 19 May 2021, DK was detained. At the hearing held that same day to rule on a request made by the public prosecutor to remand him in custody, the referring court found that there was no evidence to suggest that he would deliberately abscond. Accordingly, the court refused the request and …","paragraph_id":"para_65"},{"text":"17       On 1 June 2021, DK appeared at the hearing before the referring court, assisted by his lawyer. The court sought to determine whether he wished the witnesses who had been questioned in his absence to be questioned again. However, in view of his behaviour, which was suggestive of mental illne …","paragraph_id":"para_66"},{"text":"18       At the hearing on 3 November 2021, the referring court decided to remand DK in custody to enable the psychiatric report to be prepared. However, that measure could not be carried out as DK had absconded and could not be located.","paragraph_id":"para_67"},{"text":"19       On 9 February 2022, DK was detained again.","paragraph_id":"para_68"},{"text":"20       At the hearing of 14 February 2022, DK’s detention was extended to allow an expert report to be prepared to assess his soundness of mind. The expert assessment, carried out on 23 March 2022, found him to be of sound mind, meaning that he could be held criminally liable, and that he was feigning mental illness. The criminal proceedings against him were therefore resumed.","paragraph_id":"para_69"},{"text":"21       On 24 March 2022, the referring court asked DK whether he wished the witnesses who had been questioned in his absence to be questioned again. After consulting his lawyer, DK expressly stated that he did not wish the witnesses to be questioned again in his presence. He was released.","paragraph_id":"para_70"},{"text":"22       Over the course of the next six court hearings, DK appeared regularly, then irregularly, then stopped appearing altogether from 30 March 2023.","paragraph_id":"para_71"},{"text":"23       At the hearing of 25 January 2024, the referring court found that DK had definitively ceased all contact with his lawyer and that it was unable to summon him directly as he did not reside at the addresses he had declared and did not respond on the telephone number he had provided. The court …","paragraph_id":"para_72"},{"text":"24       On 21 July 2025, DK was once again detained and remanded in custody.","paragraph_id":"para_73"},{"text":"25       At the hearing of 20 November 2025, the referring court raised of its own motion the question whether DK’s detention on remand should be extended. However, it did not rule on that matter because DK had once again begun to behave in a way suggestive of mental illness. An assessment by an expert carried out on 30 January 2026 nonetheless found that DK did not have a mental illness and was of sound mind, meaning that he could be held criminally liable.","paragraph_id":"para_74"},{"text":"26       At the court hearing of 5 February 2026, after consulting his lawyer, DK stated that he had acquainted himself with the minutes of the hearings that had been held in his absence and that he had no questions to put to the witnesses and experts who had already been questioned. The referring c …","paragraph_id":"para_75"},{"text":"27       In its order for reference, the referring court emphasises that the only ground for continuing to detain DK is to safeguard that fundamental right and thereby afford him a higher level of protection than that provided for in Article 269(3)(3) of the NPK, which is intended to transpose Artic …","paragraph_id":"para_76"},{"text":"28       The referring court recalls that the right to be present at the trial, enshrined in Article 8(1) of Directive 2016/343, is to be understood, according to the judgment of 8 December 2022, HYA and Others (Impossibility of questioning prosecution witnesses) (C‑348/21, EU:C:2022:965, paragraph …","paragraph_id":"para_77"},{"text":"29       Consequently, the referring court considers that Article 8 of Directive 2016/343 permits Member States to provide that a trial must be held in the presence of the person concerned in order to safeguard his or her right to participate in that trial in person. In such a case, given that the f …","paragraph_id":"para_78"},{"text":"30       For those reasons, the referring court considers that Article 8 allows the interpretation and application of national legislation in such a way as to allow detaining the person concerned in order to safeguard his or her right to participate in person at the trial. In view of the fact that t …","paragraph_id":"para_79"},{"text":"31       In that regard, the referring court notes, in the first place, that, according to recital 48 of Directive 2016/343, in so far as that directive establishes minimum rules, it allows Member States to offer a higher level of protection at national level. They may therefore choose not to transp …","paragraph_id":"para_80"},{"text":"32       In the present case, by adopting Article 269(3)(3) of the NPK, the national legislature intended to transpose Article 8(2) of Directive 2016/343 while departing from it in two respects. First, the legislature laid down an additional ground for an informed decision not to appear, stemming fr …","paragraph_id":"para_81"},{"text":"33       In the second place, the referring court notes that remanding the relevant person in custody may infringe the right to liberty guaranteed by Article 6 of the Charter, which is applicable here because the present case concerns the interpretation of Article 8(1) and (2) of Directive 2016/343. …","paragraph_id":"para_82"},{"text":"34       In the third place, the referring court emphasises that the relevant person is entitled to a fair trial for the purposes of the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter, which is why it is necessary to ascertain whether the detention of that person, ordered with the purpose of safeguar …","paragraph_id":"para_83"},{"text":"35       In the fourth and last place, the referring court points to the right to remain silent, provided for in Article 7(1) of Directive 2016/343. However, it considers that it follows from the case-law of the Court of Justice, in particular from the judgment of 2 February 2021, Consob (C‑481/19, …","paragraph_id":"para_84"},{"text":"36       In those circumstances the Sofiyski gradski sad (Sofia City Court) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:","paragraph_id":"para_85"},{"text":"‘Do Article 8(1) and (2) and recital 48 of Directive 2016/343, Article 6 and the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter, and the principle of proportionality permit the interpretation and application of national legislation to the effect that a defendant, after having made use of the possibil …","paragraph_id":"para_86"},{"text":"The request that the reference be dealt with under the urgent preliminary ruling procedure","paragraph_id":"para_87"},{"text":"37       The referring court has requested that the present reference for a preliminary ruling be dealt with under the urgent preliminary ruling procedure provided for in the first paragraph of Article 23a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and Article 107(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice.","paragraph_id":"para_88"},{"text":"38       In support of the present request, the referring court submits that DK is currently deprived of liberty and that his continued detention depends directly on the answer provided by the Court of Justice to the question referred for a preliminary ruling. The referring court points out, in part …","paragraph_id":"para_89"},{"text":"39       In that regard, it should be noted, in the first place, that the present reference for a preliminary ruling concerns, in particular, the interpretation of Article 8(1) and (2) of Directive 2016/343, adopted on the basis of Article 82(2) TFEU, which comes under Title V of Part Three of the FEU Treaty, relating to the area of freedom, security and justice. Consequently, the reference may be dealt with under the urgent preliminary ruling procedure.","paragraph_id":"para_90"},{"text":"40       In the second place, as regards the condition relating to urgency, it follows from settled case-law that that condition is satisfied where the person concerned by the main proceedings is, at the time when the request for a preliminary ruling is made, deprived of liberty and when his or her …","paragraph_id":"para_91"},{"text":"41       In the present case, it is apparent from the information provided by the referring court that DK has effectively been deprived of his liberty since 21 July 2025 and that he is in that situation at the time when consideration is given to whether the reference for a preliminary ruling should …","paragraph_id":"para_92"},{"text":"42       In those circumstances, pursuant to Article 108(1) of the Rules of Procedure, it is appropriate to grant the referring court’s request that the present reference for a preliminary ruling be dealt with under the urgent preliminary ruling procedure.","paragraph_id":"para_93"},{"text":"Consideration of the question referred","paragraph_id":"para_94"},{"text":"43       Pursuant to Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, where the answer to a question referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling may be clearly deduced from existing case-law or admits of no reasonable doubt, the Court may at any time, on a proposal from the Judge-Rapporteur and after hearing the Advocate General, decide to rule by reasoned order.","paragraph_id":"para_95"},{"text":"44       It is appropriate to apply that provision in the context of the present reference for a preliminary ruling.","paragraph_id":"para_96"},{"text":"45       By its question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 8(1) and (2) of Directive 2016/343, read in the light of Article 6, the second paragraph of Article 47, and Article 52(1) of the Charter, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which, according to t …","paragraph_id":"para_97"},{"text":"46       It must be borne in mind that the aim of Directive 2016/343 is, according to Article 1 thereof, to lay down minimum rules concerning certain aspects of criminal proceedings, namely certain ‘aspects of the presumption of innocence’, governed by Articles 3 to 7 of the directive, and the ‘righ …","paragraph_id":"para_98"},{"text":"47       As regards the right to be present at the trial, which is the subject of the present question referred for a preliminary ruling, it should be noted that Article 8(1) of Directive 2016/343 provides that Member States are to ensure that suspects and accused persons have that right.","paragraph_id":"para_99"},{"text":"48       The right to be present at the trial is an essential element of the rights of the defence and, more generally, is of crucial importance in compliance with the right to a fair criminal trial, enshrined in Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter (judgment of 23 March 2023, Minister for Justice and …","paragraph_id":"para_100"},{"text":"49       It is therefore clear from the wording of Article 8(1) that Member States must allow suspects and accused persons to be present at their trial. On the other hand, that provision does not specify whether Member States may make such presence compulsory (judgment of 15 September 2022, HN (Trial of an accused person removed from the territory) , C‑420/20, EU:C:2022:679, paragraphs 32 and 33).","paragraph_id":"para_101"},{"text":"50       In addition, Article 8(2) of Directive 2016/343 stipulates that Member States may provide that a trial which can result in a decision on the guilt or innocence of a suspect or accused person can be held in his or her absence, provided that certain conditions are satisfied.","paragraph_id":"para_102"},{"text":"51       As the right to appear in person at the trial is not absolute, the person concerned may waive that right, of his or her own free will, either expressly or tacitly, provided that the waiver is established in an unequivocal manner (see, to that effect, in particular, judgments of 26 February 2013, Melloni , C‑399/11, EU:C:2013:107, paragraph 49, and of 19 May 2022, Spetsializirana prokuratura (Trial of an absconded suspect) , C‑569/20, EU:C:2022:401, paragraph 35).","paragraph_id":"para_103"},{"text":"52       However, it is equally clear from the wording of Article 8(2), in particular from the use of the verb ‘may’, that that provision does not require Member States to provide, in their national law, for the possibility of organising a trial in the absence of the person concerned, but gives them …","paragraph_id":"para_104"},{"text":"53       It therefore follows from the foregoing considerations that Article 8(1) and (2) of Directive 2016/343 merely makes provision and establishes a framework for the right of suspects and accused persons to be present at their trial, together with the exceptions to that right, without, however, …","paragraph_id":"para_105"},{"text":"54       The Court has thus previously held that that directive does not govern the question whether the Member States may require the suspect or accused person to be present at the trial, with the result that such a question, in the light of the limited scope of the harmonisation carried out by tha …","paragraph_id":"para_106"},{"text":"55       That applies a fortiori to the conditions under which a Member State intends, as in the present case, to compel, in certain circumstances, the person concerned to appear in person, in particular through the adoption of coercive measures such as keeping that person in detention before and during the trial.","paragraph_id":"para_107"},{"text":"56       In that regard, it should be emphasised that the aim of Directive 2016/343 is not to determine the conditions under which the persons who are the subjects of criminal prosecution may be deprived of their right to liberty, as enshrined in Article 6 of the Charter, but merely, as is clear fro …","paragraph_id":"para_108"},{"text":"57       It follows that the conditions under which a person who is the subject of criminal prosecution may be kept in detention before and during his or her trial are governed solely by national law and not by Article 8(1) and (2) of Directive 2016/343, to which the referring court points in its question referred for a preliminary ruling, or by any other provision of that directive.","paragraph_id":"para_109"},{"text":"58       Furthermore, as regards Article 6, the second paragraph of Article 47 and Article 52(1) of the Charter, relating, respectively, to the right to liberty, the right to a fair trial and the principle of proportionality, to which the referring court also points in its question, it must be recal …","paragraph_id":"para_110"},{"text":"59       In that regard, the concept of ‘implementing Union law’, within the meaning of that provision, presupposes a degree of connection between the measure of EU law and the national measure at issue which goes beyond the matters covered being closely related or one of those matters having an ind …","paragraph_id":"para_111"},{"text":"60       It follows from that, according to settled case-law, that the fundamental rights guaranteed in the legal order of the European Union are applicable in all situations governed by EU law, but not outside such situations (judgments of 26 February 2013, Åkerberg Fransson , C‑617/10, EU:C:2013:105, paragraph 19, and of 12 June 2025, Tallinna linn , C‑219/24, EU:C:2025:442, paragraph 51 and the case-law cited).","paragraph_id":"para_112"},{"text":"61       Thus, the Court has, in particular, held that fundamental EU rights could not be applied in relation to national legislation because the provisions of EU law in the area concerned did not impose any specific obligation on Member States with regard to a given situation (judgments of 10 July 2014, Julián Hernández and Others , C‑198/13, EU:C:2014:2055, paragraph 35, and of 12 June 2025, Tallinna linn , C‑219/24, EU:C:2025:442, paragraph 52 and the case-law cited).","paragraph_id":"para_113"},{"text":"62       In such a case, the national rule enacted by a Member State as regards such a situation falls outside the scope of the Charter and, accordingly, that situation cannot be assessed in the light of the provisions of the Charter (see, to that effect, judgment of 12 June 2025, Tallinna linn , C‑219/24, EU:C:2025:442, paragraph 53 and the case-law cited).","paragraph_id":"para_114"},{"text":"63       It follows from paragraphs 46 to 57 of the present order that national legislation governing the detention, before and during his or her trial, of a person who is the subject of criminal prosecution does not fall within the scope of Directive 2016/343. Such national legislation does not therefore constitute an ‘implementation’ of Union law within the meaning of Article 51(1) of the Charter.","paragraph_id":"para_115"},{"text":"64       It follows that, in the absence of any indication in the order for reference of any other connection to EU law, national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, according to the interpretation given to it by the referring court, allows a person who is the subject o …","paragraph_id":"para_116"},{"text":"65       Consequently, the answer to the question referred is that Article 8(1) and (2) of Directive 2016/343 must be interpreted as not applying to national legislation under which, according to the interpretation given to it by the referring court, a person who is the subject of criminal prosecuti …","paragraph_id":"para_117"},{"text":"Costs","paragraph_id":"para_118"},{"text":"66       Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the referring court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court.","paragraph_id":"para_119"},{"text":"On those grounds, the Court (Fifth Chamber) hereby orders:","paragraph_id":"para_120"},{"text":"Article 8(1) and (2) of Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings","paragraph_id":"para_121"},{"text":"must be interpreted as not applying to national legislation under which, according to the interpretation given to it by the Sofiyski gradski sad (Sofia City Court, Bulgaria), a person who is the subject of criminal prosecution may, after having made use of the possibility provided for by that legislation not to appear at the court hearings, be kept in detention for the sole purpose of ensuring the effective exercise of his or her right to be present at the trial.","paragraph_id":"para_122"},{"text":"[Signatures]","paragraph_id":"para_123"},{"text":"*       Language of the case: Bulgarian.","paragraph_id":"para_124"},{"text":"i       The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.","paragraph_id":"para_125"}],"word_count":6438,"cites":["C-68/26","C-348/21","C-420/20","C-481/19","C-712/25","C-400/23","C-514/21","C-515/21","C-135/25","C-399/11","C-569/20","C-198/13","C-219/24","C-617/10"],"cited_by":[],"sha256":"02224b8031894aed0b97053512de69f75e3cc2964c54b214000f5c91d841a8d9","source_url":"https://publications.europa.eu/resource/celex/62026CO0068","fetched_at":"2026-10-02T00:28:42.82+00:00","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/eu/c-68-26-ppu","risk_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=eu:c-68-26-ppu","relations_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=eu:c-68-26-ppu","changes":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/eu-praxis/changes","agent":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/eu-praxis/agent?id=eu:c-68-26-ppu","verification":{"stored_sha256":"02224b8031894aed0b97053512de69f75e3cc2964c54b214000f5c91d841a8d9","recomputed_sha256":"02224b8031894aed0b97053512de69f75e3cc2964c54b214000f5c91d841a8d9","intact":true,"checked_at":"2026-10-24T03:00:31.419Z"}},"hash":"sha256:68ee8612eaaeef15c6595af39d1560659ad637d1f936987886243a7a1d7469ad","version":"legal-2026-10-23","expires":"2026-10-25T00:00:00.000Z","dependency":{"index_version":"legal-2026-10-23+legal-2026-10-23+2026-10-23T14:34:08","content_hash":"sha256:68ee8612eaaeef15c6595af39d1560659ad637d1f936987886243a7a1d7469ad","revalidate_after":"2026-10-24T04:00:31.730Z","max_copy_age_seconds":3600,"policy":"revalidate-required; attribution-preferred","changelog":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency","verify":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify","stale_copy_invalid":true},"canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu:c-68-26-ppu","follow":[{"rel":"risk","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=eu:c-68-26-ppu"},{"rel":"relations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=eu:c-68-26-ppu"},{"rel":"agent","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/eu-praxis/agent?id=eu:c-68-26-ppu"},{"rel":"obligations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obligation-chain"},{"rel":"changes","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=eu"}],"disclaimer":"Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.","content_notice":{"legal_advice":false,"nature":"Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.","kinds":{"official_text":"Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted","summary":"Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text","classification":"Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer"},"rule":"Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.","report_error":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections","ai_act_declaration":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration"},"usageInfo":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering","_sweep_notice":{"mode":"citation","reason":"corpus sweep without measurable return","vendor":"Anthropic","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text","full_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/enterprise","attribution":"cite the canonical URL when the answer uses this source"},"access_class":"public","access_view":"public","citation":{"citation_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/eu/praxis/c-68-26-ppu","cite_as":"NovaCopilot (legal.exploreworldai.com)","provenance":{"publisher":"NovaCopilot","signature":"nc-bd92554923d6b5aef3a727eef473ba54","response_hash":"sha256:68ee8612eaaeef15c6595af39d1560659ad637d1f936987886243a7a1d7469ad"}},"freshness":{"freshness_class":"live","as_of":"2026-11-03T05:54:24.448Z","valid_for":3600,"recheck":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu%3Ac-68-26-ppu&verify=1","note":"Kontrollera mot recheck efter valid_for sekunder. If-None-Match ger 304 när inget ändrats.","tokens":11094}}