عنوان مقاله [English]
One of the most important issues in the trial and adjudication is the trial in absentia. According to the basic principle in jurisprudence that the season of hostility should always take place in the presence of the parties, the permission of the trial in absentia is an exception and departure from the original principle, so it should be removed from the original principle as much as inferred from religious reasons. Satisfied enough. The fact cannot be ignored that the observance of the rights of the defendant in litigation, of which the summoning and hearing of his defense is also a part, is necessary and is an integral part and principle of the trial, but at the same time by limiting the plaintiff to unconditional presence. The condition is that it is not always possible to comply with this type of claimant's rights, and in some cases, committing to comply with these principles, despite its necessity, causes damage to the plaintiffs' rights. In French law, it is possible to issue a verdict in absentia in certain circumstances. When the defendant does not appear, the vote is in absentia, if the decision has been made definitively and the summons has not been notified. Articles 467 to 479 of the French Code of Civil Procedure, adopted in 1975, deal with absenteeism, which includes the rulings of the city court and special authorities in civil matters, and Articles 571 to 578, which include appeals. The purpose of the appeal is to deviate from the verdict issued in absentia, and the French legislature has accepted only the appeal of non-investigable verdicts, provided that the summons has not actually been served on the convicted person.