Revocation ends a preventive measure before its scheduled expiry because the judicial authority determines that it no longer has a lawful basis.

The rule in Article 242(1)

The Criminal Procedure Code provides for revocation, of the authority’s own motion or on application, where:

  • the grounds which justified the measure have ceased; or
  • new circumstances show that the measure is unlawful.

For detention or remand in custody, revocation entails release unless the person is detained in another case.

When have the grounds ceased?

The assessment concerns the actual, current grounds relied on, such as absconding, interference with evidence, pressure on participants, further offending or the statutory public-order ground in Article 223(2).

New circumstances may concern the evidence supporting the measure or its continuing compliance with the legal conditions, including necessity and proportionality under Article 202. A general assertion that time has passed does not replace an assessment of the actual grounds.

Revocation is different from replacement

Where the grounds have not disappeared but a less restrictive measure is sufficient, Article 242(2) permits replacement. For example, judicial control may be considered after examining the circumstances and procedural conduct against the purpose in Article 202(1).

Conversely, Article 242(3) permits replacement with a more restrictive measure where its conditions are met. Revocation and replacement therefore address different legal questions.

Periodic review

Review does not depend solely on an application. In the preliminary chamber, the judge examines the lawfulness and justification of the measure and periodically reviews remand in custody or house arrest, at intervals not exceeding thirty days under the applicable rules.

During trial, periodic review takes place at intervals not exceeding sixty days for the relevant measures. The court examines whether the grounds remain and may order revocation where the statutory conditions are met.

Expiry by operation of law

This is distinct from revocation. Preventive measures may end automatically in the situations specified by the Code, including expiry of the applicable period or maximum duration and particular procedural decisions.

The authority records that consequence and orders release where appropriate. Article 239 separately limits the total duration of remand at first instance, including its five-year ceiling and other applicable limits. Maximum duration is a distinct question from whether continuing grounds justify the measure.

The application procedure

An application for revocation or replacement is determined under Article 242 with the defendant summoned. Where present, the defendant must be heard; legal assistance and participation of the prosecutor are compulsory within the statutory framework.

The appropriate request depends on the procedural stage, existing order, grounds relied on and any new evidence. This article provides general information rather than an assessment of an individual detention measure.