The Act, the Code of Criminal Procedure lists situations in which the presence of a prosecutor is obligatory (e.g. in principle in cases of offenses prosecuted by public prosecution), and in which it is optional (e.g. in a conviction session without a hearing).
Often, in situations where the prosecutor was absent at the hearing (even the optional ones), the court would announce a break and set a different date for the hearing. This was to enable the prosecutor to familiarize himself with the statements of the parties to the proceedings.
Such a situation took place in the proceedings of two accused of attempted fraud. At the first hearing, both accused filed motions for voluntary submission to punishment (the so-called sentencing without trial). Due to the absence of the prosecutor, the court announced a break to examine the applications. Despite being informed about the date, the prosecutor did not appear at the next hearing either.
The District Court, having regard to the above, granted the motions of the defendants. The prosecutor appealed, citing „no prosecutor’s office”.
The case was brought to the Supreme Court, which was to comment on the matter. The Supreme Court (file reference number: I KZP 16/20, however, refused to adopt a resolution) stated that the prosecutor’s absence at the hearing, which he does not have to attend, should be considered as the absence of his possible objection to the accused voluntarily submitting to punishment.
Such an opinion of the Supreme Court may accelerate the activity of courts full of cases, because if the cases do not require the presence of the prosecutor at the hearing, e.g. due to his lack of objections to the judgment, the proceedings will end faster, sometimes even at the first hearing.
