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.

32 awareness and realistic opportunity to appear. The court takes into account the force majeure, military events, movement restrictions, disease, and other circumstances objectively excluding the appearance [1]. In case of martial law, the possible participation in videoconference should be evaluated concretely, taking into account the filing of the motion, the permission to participate in this way from the court, and the compliance with Article 336 [1]. Its mere possibility does not exclude the validity of the reason for physical non-appearance The Ukrainian context of the standard in question is also helpful. According to Strizhak v. Ukraine, judgment of 8 November 2005, the appellate examination of the case without evidence of the notification of the hearing violated Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention [11]. A somewhat limited perspective of this requirement is provided by Vasylkiv v. Ukraine, decision of 30 April 2025. Three registered letters were sent to the correct address of the applicant, but they were returned, after which the publication of the notice took place; the applicant did not challenge neither the dispatch nor the address and did not ask about the proceedings for almost one year. In the particular civil proceedings, the Court declared the complaint manifestly ill-founded, explaining that the authorities were not obliged to provide the functioning of the postal system [12, p. 5]. The judgment does not affect the explicit evidentiary requirements of Article 139 of the CPC. The High Anti-Corruption Court makes the similar statement when considering the issue of recusal raised in connection with the motion for the penalty [13]. The statutory provisions may be operationalized by means of five consequent checks. At the first stage, the investigating judge or court should identify the particular statutory provision establishing the procedural duty, the status of the person in question, and the provision providing for the penalty for the violation of this duty. Article 144 serves as the general frame and does not establish the independent grounds for liability. In the pre-trial investigation, the motion should specify the procedural status of the person, the procedural duty, circumstances of its violation, and the supporting evidences, attaching the copies of the materials used [1]. This check prevents the imposition of the penalty on the basis of the general status of the participant of the proceedings rather than the specific procedural duty. The second stage relates to the legality of the summons. The case file should demonstrate that it was issued by the competent body, contained all the particulars required by Article 137, was transmitted according to the rules of Article 135, and provided the period defined in Part 9 of Article 135 to the person [1]. The time, place, procedural status, purpose of appearance, and consequences of non- appearance should correlate with the duty described in the motion. The defect preventing the addressee from understanding where, when, before whom, and for what purposes appearance is required cannot serve as the proof of the culpable breach of a clear procedural duty. At the third stage, the court should classify the form of the proof instead of treating all delivery records in the same way. The package of the evidences should include the summons itself and the record generated by the chosen method: signed receipt, video-record, the document proving the delivery via post, reply e-mail, delivery notification of the system, or the evidences establishing the deemed-notification rule [1]. In case the document was delivered via the intermediary, the record should include the information about him/her and the circumstances of the delivery in accordance with Part 2 of Article 135. If the delivery took place via the phone, fax, or other communication means, the evidences should include the connection of the addressee with the content of the summons, but not just the outgoing attempt to communicate. Part 8 of Article 135 needs special attention. For the person who left the territory or is staying now in the temporarily occupied territory, in the territory of the aggressor state, or in the other territory determined by that provision, the publication in the designated national means of mass media and on the site of the Prosecutor General's Office provides the deemed notification. If the person has the counsel, the copy of the document is sent to him/her [1]. The statutory fiction limits the general requirement for the proof of the actual acquaintance. It is necessary for the ruling to define the facts that bring the person to the special rule and to prove the compliance with the acts of publication and transmission required by the law. At the fourth stage, the court makes the determination whether the non-appearance occurred without a valid reason and the person informed the authority about the reason. Since Article 138 includes the open list, the determination cannot be limited by the examination of the circumstances mentioned in it [1]. The explanation should be evaluated in conjunction with the supporting evidence, the interval between the delivery and appearance, the possibility of traveling or remote participation, the security restrictions, and the conduct of the person after the receipt of the summons. The lack of notification may have evidentiary value, but it does not exclude the circumstance objectively preventing appearance and prior communication. At the fifth stage, the court makes the judicial determination. In the pre-trial proceedings, Parts 3 and 6 of Article 132, Article 145, and Part 3 of Article 146 demand the submission of the supporting materials and the determination of the investigating judge concerning the breach of the duty without a valid reason [1]. The ruling should evaluate separately the source of the duty, the legality and timing of the summons, the evidence of the receipt or deemed notification, the explanation of the non-appearance, and the grounds of the selection