Appeal annuls foundation decision on 500-euro fine penalty to lawyer for lack of session

The Court of Appeals has amended the Constitutional Court's decision in Prizren, which on March 23rd 2023, against lawyer Gutaj has pronounced the fine sentence of 500 euros for lack of court hearing.

The verdict, secured by “Justice Vow”, says the Constitutional Court Act in Prizren is amended and that the sentence pronounced in the 500-euro amount has been annulled.

“The complaint is approved as based by the representative of the damaged party, Mirsad Bandali, lawyer Esat Gunj, so that the Constitutional Court Act in Prizren quite different from the Crime Department, PKR.r.2/03/2022 of the date 21,03.23, and the fined sentence is annulled in the 500m amount to the damaged party representative Esat Gutaj”, reports the “Law on Justice”.

Against the foundation decision, in legal terms, lawyer Gutaj had filed complaints due to the substantial violation of criminal procedure provisions.

According to Apel's decision, the complaining act is involved in substantial violation of legal provisions, because provisions have been incorrectly implemented by the Penal Procedure Code (KPP) and that the sentence against lawyer Gutaj must be revoted.

The Court of Appeals, after reviewing the subject's papers, the reasoning of the complaint act and the complaint of attorney Esat Gutaj, has found that the complaining act should be changed and the fined sentence on lawyer Gutaj due to such an act is involved in the substantial violation of criminal procedure provisions by Article 384 par.2 points of KPK, since he has wrongly implemented the 304PP.P.2, the decision said.

On the other hand, Apel's decision states that, out of the argument of the court's first court decision, the representative of the damaged party, Mirsad Bandali, lawyer Guttaj, was sentenced to fine sentences of 500 euros because the same one had not presented himself in the initial review, even though he was regularly invited through the accepted delivery sheet, and his absence had not reasoned.

Therefore, Appeals has estimated that the court's first-degree argument for fined lawyer Gutaj is unequivocal and due to the unfair interpretation of the procedure provision of Article 304 par.1 of the KPP, since this legal provision does not include fine of even the lawyer who protects the damaged side.

According to Appeal, the presence of the representative of the damaged party does not cause any consequences that make it impossible to keep the hearing and manage the work of the court.

The “Based in the procedural provisions, the presence of the representative of the damaged side at no moment prevents the development of the criminal procedure, and therefore neither the presence of the representative of the damaged side has caused any consequences of the inability to keep the review hearing resulting from even the process of reviewing the evidence's rejection and the request to drop the indictment of the date 21.03.2023 and that the presence of the representative of the damaged party has not caused the result of the court's performance. ” says in decision.