What must the presiding judge confirm before a trial without the accused? The July 2026 amendment to the Rules on Special Cases Concerning Expedition of Legal Proceedings

What changed

Before the amendment, Article 18 of the Rules obliged the presiding judge, after the identity examination of the accused, to order the accused to report any change of address and to warn that the case might be tried without the accused's statement where the accused's whereabouts could not be confirmed. It also required the judge to demand correction of the address from the prosecutor within 'a reasonable period' where the address in the indictment was not specified or it was recognised that the accused did not reside there when the case was instituted, and to take measures to find the accused where service failed. Supreme Court Regulation No. 3271, promulgated and in force on 29 July 2026, rewrites the article as 'Correction and Confirmation of Address'.

The new Article 18(1) shifts the ground for the correction demand: the judge must now require the prosecutor to correct the address within 'a reasonable period' where the address stated in the indictment is not specified or where the copy of the indictment, the summons or the like cannot be served at the address stated. Article 18(2) adds a duty to confirm, at the identity examination of the accused, an address at which the accused can be served. Article 18(3) keeps the order to report address changes and widens the warning, which now also covers an accused whose whereabouts are unconfirmed or who fails to appear at a hearing without good cause, telling the accused that the case may be tried without the accused's statement.

Article 19 is retitled 'Trial of an Accused for Whom Service Is Impossible'. Its new paragraph 1 takes over the measures to confirm the accused's whereabouts (a request for a whereabouts investigation, the issue of a writ of attendance or other necessary measures) where service on the accused is impossible. The former paragraphs 1 and 2 become paragraphs 2 and 3: public notice service after six months from the receipt of the service failure report now runs from the measures under Article 19(1) and Article 18(1), and the trial without the accused's statement after two or more summonses is expressly placed under Article 23(1) of the Act, not the whole of Article 23. The official reason gives the aim as setting out the matters delegated by the Act, as amended by Act No. 21726 (promulgated and in force on 2 June 2026), and the detail needed for its enforcement.

What to read in the text

Addendum Article 1 puts the Rules into force on the day of promulgation, and Addendum Article 2 applies them to cases already pending in court on that day. A case before a court on 29 July 2026 is therefore read under the new wording of Articles 18 and 19.

A file needs to show, step by step: whether the address in the indictment was specified and whether the indictment copy or summons reached it; whether a correction demand with a period was made to the prosecutor; whether an identity examination was held and a serviceable address confirmed there; the date the service failure report was received; and, for a trial without the accused's statement under Article 19(3), six months from that report, public notice service, and two or more summonses for a hearing. The Rules refer to a writ of attendance and other measures whose content is not in this pack, and this note has not read them.

Questions for the legislature

Article 18(1) requires the judge to demand correction of the address from the prosecutor within 'a reasonable period'. Neither the Rules, the addendum nor the official reason says what follows if the prosecutor does not correct the address within that period. May the court proceed to the next step, and from which day is the period counted?

Article 18(3) orders a warning that the case may be tried without the accused's statement where the accused 'fails to appear at a hearing without good cause', while Article 19(3) permits such a trial only under Article 23(1) of the Act and only after two or more summonses following public notice service. The pack does not say what procedure governs a trial following an earlier attendance and a later absence. Under which step of the Rules is such a trial conducted?

When to revisit

We revisit this note if Act No. 21726 or the rules on the re-fixing of hearing dates and postal summons are read against these Rules, if a court decision explains 'a reasonable period' or 'an address at which the accused can be served', or if Articles 18 and 19 are amended again to cover the later paragraphs of Article 23 of the Act.