Subject and Keywords:
In the commented decision the Supreme Court presented the view that absence of any of the members of the court panel during the whole trial constitutes absolute grounds for reversing the judgment only if he or she was absent during evidentiary proceedings. The author agrees with this thesis. However, she points out that the Supreme Court took into account – while establishing that absolute grounds for reversal existed – whether the particular procedures conducted during the absence infringed the rights of the accused. The author does not approve of such an approach as leading to unnecessary relativity of absolute grounds for reversing the judgment.