Judicial aspects regarding the procedure and effects of the declaration of abstention of an entire court

Abstract

Through the amendments made during 2016 at the level of the criminal procedure law, the procedure of abstention of the entire court was regulated. If all judges of a court are in a state of incompatibility in a certain case, the judge of the superior court orders the referral of that case to another court of equal rank. Situations of abstention of an entire court have become more common since incompatibility has acquired a much wider scope of incidence according to the new law and in the field, the number of judges has continued to decrease. This study refers to the possibility of avoiding the repeated formulation of statements of abstention by the entire court, by sending the case to an equal court to resolve all issues arising at a certain stage of the trial, not just to resolve the first incident that justified the abstention of the entire court. As the number of judges of a court change more slowly, it is almost certain that in the situation of the next potential incident, incompatibility will remain an issue. The question therefore arises as to whether a new request for the abstention of the entire court is necessary or whether the entire stage of the trial in which it was formulated should be taken into account when resolving the first statement, by pronouncing a decision to refer to another equal court so as to resolve all requests and exceptions made at the specific stage of the trial.