Proceedings of the International scientific and practical conference ―Oxford 2026: Science and Education Today‖ (July 17-19, 2026) / Publisher website: www.naukainfo.com. - Oxford, United Kingdom, 2026. - 160 p.

31 control the minor suspect or accused (Part 5 of Article 493). Chapter 12 provides the common procedure, whereas the grounds and amounts are scattered in the norms concerning various stages and participants. The institution is not new for the 2012 codification: the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1960 provided for property-based sanctions, yet, in the fragmented way. The normative core of the institution, Articles 144- 147 of the CPC, has not undergone textual changes since 2012, whereas the periphery has evolved: in 2013 the list of addressees has been expanded by the representative of a legal entity; in 2016 the unit of calculation of the amounts has been replaced from the minimum wage by the subsistence minimum for an able-bodied person; and in 2024 the measure has been extended to the violation of the procedure of the remote participation in the hearing. The combination of the stable procedural core with the dynamic system of special norms is the explanation of the relevance of the doctrinal debates concerning the legal nature of the measure. Because the failure to appear is the prevalent reason of liability, the key applied question related to Articles 134-139 of the CPC is the evidence of proper summoning. Part 1 of Article 139 renders the imposition of the penalty conditional upon the issuing of the summons in the manner prescribed by the Code, including proving that the person was notified of the summons or otherwise became acquainted with its content, except for the deemed-notification rules established by the Code. The judgments related to participation in proceedings provide the functional criterion under Part 5 of Article 9 of the CPC. In Colozza v. Italy (12 February 1985), the Court stated that the trial on the criminal charges without the participation of the person who was not notified about the proceedings took away from him the chance to participate unless there were the subsequent complete reconsideration. The different nature of the case in relation to the monetary-penalty motion makes it necessary to apply this precedent by analogy. According to Article 136 of the CPC, there are several general types of confirmation and two different mechanisms of electronic service. The signed confirmation (signature on the postal notification form, video of the transfer of the summons, and others) may serve as confirmation [1]. In case a citizen has applied to the court for receiving the summonses in the criminal procedure via the Unified Judicial Information and Communication System and its module, service to the official electronic address is considered completed from the moment of receipt of the delivery notification from the system [1; 7]. Otherwise, when the summons is delivered to the ordinary e-mail address of the person, the service is considered completed when the addressee acknowledges the receipt by sending the reply e-mail to the sender [1]. It depends on the prior procedural decision and the nature of the technical confirmation generated. The methods of summoning described in Article 135 have different evidentiary value. The personal signature provides the direct evidence. In case the summons has been delivered during the absence of the person to his/her adult relative, cohabitant, housing organization, or the administration of the workplace in accordance with Part 2 of Article 135, the court needs to make sure that all the conditions of that kind of delivery are satisfied as well as the connection of this delivery with the addressee's acquaintance with the contents [1]. The return envelope, outbound telephone call, or the sent e-mail prove the attempt to communicate and they need additional evidences to be applied in accordance with Article 139. Electronic delivery records need to include the identification of the addressee, the storage of the transmitted content, the registration of the time, delivery event, access, or response. The weaker the evidentiary connection, the higher is the risk that awareness will be inferred from the unsupported presumption (see Dilipak and Karakaya case [9]). In this context, it is important to mention another benchmark in the case of Dilipak and Karakaya v. Turkey, judgment of 4 March 2014. Damages were granted in civil proceedings that were held in the absence of the applicants since the corresponding documents had been delivered to the wrong addresses of the applicants [9]. The Court found that the authorities had not taken the necessary actions for the participation and defense of the interests of the applicants, distinguishing the dispatch of the correspondence from the proof of the knowledge of the proceedings (see paras. 77, 79). Sejdovic v. Italy states that a waiver of participation may not be presumed and needs to be proved unequivocally (para. 86) [10]. As a functional guide, these cases demand from the court that considers Article 139 of the CPC to review the complete delivery record and the route used in accordance with that article, including the rule of constructive notification. Two further parameters complete the construction of the statutory requirement. According to Part 9 of Article 135, the person should receive the summons or receive the notification no later than three days before the required appearance, and in case some other statutory deadline excludes the possibility to deliver the summons in advance, the person should be provided with the time needed to get ready and come [1]. Inadequate receipt is included among the valid reasons in paragraph 7 of Article 138. Consequently, the deviation from the three days rule does not allow imposing the penalty in case there is other evidence of