Procedural costs when the accused has died

Positions of the trial and appellate courts: the trial court found the defendant guilty and convicted him under Article 115(1) of the Criminal Code. It ordered him to reimburse procedural costs to the State. The appellate court set aside the judgment and closed the proceedings under Article 284(1)(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code because the defendant had died.

In the cassation appeal, the prosecutor argued that, contrary to Articles 118, 124 and 126 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the appellate court had failed to determine the procedural costs, which should have been charged to the State.

Position of the Criminal Cassation Court: the appellate ruling was amended and the procedural costs were charged to the State.

Reasoning of the Criminal Cassation Court: the panel stated that a court must determine the allocation of procedural costs in any decision concluding the consideration of criminal proceedings on the merits, including a decision closing them. Under Article 124(3), where an appellate court, without ordering a retrial, amends a judgment or delivers a new one, it must adjust the allocation of procedural costs accordingly. Article 419(1)(3) requires the operative part of an appellate ruling to contain the decision on procedural costs.

The case materials showed that the appellate court had failed to determine procedural costs in its ruling, thereby failing to comply with the Criminal Procedure Code.

The panel referred to the Joint Chamber’s conclusion in its judgment of 12 September 2022 in case No. 203/241/17. Where a person is released from criminal liability under Article 49 of the Criminal Code because the limitation period has expired, procedural costs incurred by the pre-trial investigation authority in connection with the proceedings, including expert examination costs, are not recovered from the person whose proceedings were closed on that ground. They are borne by the State, except for costs relating, in particular, to the engagement of an expert by the defence. The panel considered the same approach applicable to closure under Article 284(1)(5), given the absence of a proper person on whom those costs could lawfully be imposed.