What should be done when the court dismisses the claimant's request for investigation of the case by default since the defendant is regularly absent from the courtroom and the court postpones the trail? The defendant does not submit any documents explaining his absence, but there is a document which certifies that the defendant was informed on the date, time and place of the trial. Can the court defend the defendant in this way?

The absence of a defendant who was informed on the date, time and place of the trial from the courtroom can not impede the case investigation. The court being a mediator holds a neutral position in a dispute and cannot share the defendant's position who by his absence from the courtroom openly and repeatedly demonstrates his disrespect to the court, and the court does not respond to this extreme disrespect. How can the court "defend" the defendant if he neglects not only the claimant's rights but also the court itself? It looks as if a collusion takes place since the court breaches the procedural rules (breaching the principle of the sides' equality and the principle of emulation).

In this case the Civil Law provides several opportunities for defending the rights of a claimant (third party): judge declination if a judge is interested in the outcome of the trial personally, directly or indirectly, or if there are circumstances that give rise to doubts in his fairness; appeal of the court decision on postponing the trial in the appeals court. An appeal to the city or regional court should contain a request to check the correctness of application of the substance and legal procedures in the lower court. The legal grounds: the court does not need to make the defendant attend if he did not inform the court about the reasons of his absence and if there is a document which proves that the defendant was informed about the date, time and place of the trial. If a sick leave claim is submitted, and a claimant moved a motion about investigation of the case by default, the court does not have the right to delay the trial again if deliberate protraction of case was proved. In this case the court breaches law principles since the defendant misuses his procedural rights, and the court facilitates infringement of the rights of the claimant. Any infringement of rights can be appealed in a higher court. The infringement can be proved by a copy of the court decision on postponing the trial (the reasons for postponing the trial must be specified in the decision, and they should be examined for soundness).

Apart from appealing to an appeals court, a complaint can be addressed to the chairman of this court and the prosecutor since not only the fairness of court is discredited but the reputation of the juridical system in general.

The appeal court does not check the soundness of the decision (ruling) of the lower court. That is why the complaint does not have to contain references to unproven facts in respect of the case.

The complaint should contain: the name of the addressed court; the name of person who lays a complaint and the name of the person involved in the case; the name of the court that adopted the decision (ruling) in respect of which the complaint is laid, the file number and the date of awarding the decision or ruling, the subject of the dispute; the demands of the plaintiff and a description how the substance or procedural rules were breached or misapplied; a list of documents attached to the complaint; references to the law and materials of the case; the signature of a supervisor on the appeal (if the appeal is signed by the supervisor's deputy, his position and name should be indicated).

A complaint addressed to the prosecutor usually contains a request to protest the groundless decision of the lower court on postponing the trial (an appealing protest) and a demand to review the case. If the complaint is satisfied, the judge will be dismissed, and the case will be considered by another judge. If this is hard to do due to the volume of other cases which need to be considered, the case will be considered by a higher (regional) court.

What is deliberate protraction of case by a defendant, and what can be done against it?

Deliberate protraction of case by a defendant is a solid basis for awarding a decision in absentia which cannot be ignored by the lower court. In this case a plaintiff should prove that the defendant delays the trial by his deliberate actions. For example, the claimant sent a copy of the notification to the defendant who refused to sign a receipt. In this case a record made by a postman about the refusal to accept the notification (in the receipt) serves as an evidence of deliberate protraction of the justice procedure. The notification can be handed in by a local policeman (prosecutor) who will also effect a document proving the refusal. If the defendant having signed the receipt of notification will submit a new sick leave claim, at the request of the prosecutor or a local policeman the medical records will be examined on the subject of compliance of the data in the medical records with the submitted sick leave claims. It is quite easy to obtain a sick leave certificate but it is difficult to feign medical records. If a sick leave certificate does not comply with medical records, forgery takes place. The conditions under which the sick leave was issued must be examined: the results of medical tests, registration of the sick leave in the files, etc. If it is found out that the sick leave is not registered with the indicated clinic or if it was issued unlawfully, an act should be effected. All listed documents are the evidence of deliberate protraction of case and the basis for adopting a decision on conducting a trial in absentia of the defendant. If the court ignores these facts, the breach of the procedural law should be appealed in the appeals instance because the court instead of postponing the trial again must assure the attendance of the defendant applying administrative measures (fines).