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.

33 of the amount within the statutory range. Article 146 establishes another notification issue: the person and the official who made the motion are notified of the time and place of the consideration of the motion, but their absence does not prevent its determination [1]. The delivery of the summons and notification of the penalty hearing are different procedural acts. Article 147 provides the correctional mechanism for the person absent during the imposing of the penalty. The CPC does not establish the special deadline for the motion for revocation of the ruling, but in case the arguments of the motion are well-founded, the investigating judge or court can revoke it directly, and otherwise, the hearing is scheduled. The resulting ruling is non-appealable [1]. This mechanism reinforces the necessity of the complete explanation and the availability of the delivery record at the first stage. The authorities of the ECtHR support the structured approach in this context, but the differentiation is also necessary: Colozza and Sejdovic relate to the criminal trials in absentia, and Dilipak and Karakaya, Strizhak and Vasylkiv – to the civil proceedings [8–12]. The former cases provide the guidance for the assessment of the meaning participation and waiver without the equating of the proceedings to the motion for the penalty. The proofs of the delivery and the proofs of the breach are analytically different. The complete delivery record provides the precondition for the evaluation of the behavior, but the court still needs to determine whether the person failed to appear, whether the notification of the reason was feasible and whether the circumstance of Article 138 objectively excluded appearance [1]. The subsequent awareness cannot cure the inadequate preliminary notice that did not give the time to prepare and travel. On the contrary, the initial lack of response to the summons does not decide the case in case the further evidences demonstrate the hospitalization, restriction of movement, disturbance caused by the military events, or the other obstacle. Determination of the amount is an independent element of the resolution. Article 139 specifies one range for the absence of an investigator or prosecutor and another wider range for the absence of the investigating judge or court [1]. The exact figure within the applicable range should be assessed by the court. A reasonable choice should consider the duration and repetition of the failure, the addressee's attempts to reach out to the authority, the effect of such failure on the implementation of the planned procedural step, previous procedural conduct and the nature of the reason for the failure. An automatic determination of the maximum amount would hide individual circumstances; choosing the minimum amount without explanation would not provide an orientation for similar cases. The identification of the factors considered allows subsequent examination under Article 147 and ensures consistency without the substitution of judicial discretion for a tariff. The reliability of electronic confirmation affects the probative value of the evidence. A detached screenshot may not include information about the identity of the account, the delivered document, the time zone, the status of delivery, or modifications. In case of electronic summons, the case file must include a message or record of the system containing all the above data about the recipient, content of the summons, the moment of sending and delivery or other reaction. In case of telephonic communication, the record must specify the phone number used, the source of this number, the official making the call, the person answering it, and the information conveyed by the phone; an audio recording or a protocol prepared immediately after the call substantially strengthen this link. This does not introduce a new category of evidence in the statute. It only helps to interpret the notion of "other data" from Article 136 and provides means for evaluation of the reliability of the evidence rather than a conclusory remark [1]. A standardized annex to the motion filed under Article 145 could include all of the above facts. Its fields could include the source of the duty, the service channel, the statutory provision allowing the use of this channel, the source of the address or account, the date and full text of the summons, the confirmation of the fact of the service or awareness of the summons, the interval between service and appearance, any communication of the addressee, analysis of the reasons according to Article 138 and the amount. The annex would serve as an evidential index but not a replacement for underlying evidence. Together with a respective section of the decision, it will make evident missing links early enough, avoid inconsistencies in description of electronic records, and ensure reproductivity of the decision for review under Article 147. Procedural consequences of improper service follow from these criteria. During the pre-trial procedure, the motion without sufficient materials should be denied since Parts 3 and 6 of Article 132 and Article 145 shift the burden of proving the grounds of this measure on its author [1]. But if the sanction has been imposed anyway, Article 147 provides the addressee the right to request revocation of this sanction from the investigating judge or court that adopted the decision. The sanction is annulled if the imposition of this sanction is proved to lack sufficient ground. Under Part 3 of Article 146, the copy of the original decision must be sent to the addressee no later than the next working day [1]. This is an additional chance to