Τhe right of access to a lawyer since the beginning of the criminal proceedings as an aspect of the right to a fair trial

Article by Giorgos Kazoleas, Lawyer LL.M.

The right to communicate with a lawyer since the very beginning of the criminal proceedings is an important aspect of the right of access to a lawyer. Article 6 (3) (c) of the ECHR and Article 48 (2) of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights expressly guarantees the right to legal aid in criminal matters. The right to legal aid applies throughout the criminal proceedings, i.e. from the police interrogation -and more precisely, before the commencement of the interrogation - to the termination of the second instance appeal. Suspects or defendants must have access to a lawyer without undue delay.

The term "lawyer" refers to any person who, in accordance with national law, is qualified and entitled, inter alia, through accreditation to an authorized body, to provide legal advice and legal assistance to suspects or accused persons.

The relevant Directive 2013/48 / EU [1], delimits the time frames during which the arrested suspect or accused may get in touch with a lawyer. In particular,  the arrested suspects or accused have access to a lawyer from whichever of the following points in time is the earliest:

(a) before being questioned by the police or other law enforcement or judicial authority;

(b) upon the carrying out by investigating or other competent authorities of an investigative or other evidence-gathering act in accordance with point (c) below

(c) without undue delay after deprivation of freedom;

(d) when they have been summoned before a court with jurisdiction in criminal matters, in due time before appearing before that court.

The right of a lawyer to provide legal advice to a suspect or accused person in criminal proceedings at a relatively early stage of that proceedings,  is fundamental to ensure the fairness of the proceedings. [2]

In particular, the suspect or accused person in a criminal proceeding have the right of access to a lawyer as soon as they become aware, through official notification or otherwise, by the competent authorities, that they are considered as suspects or accused of a criminal act, regardless of whether they are deprived of their freedom.[3]

In essence,since the initiation by any act whatsoever of the criminal proceedings by the state officials, the suspects or accused have the right to contact their lawyers.

Upon informing the suspects or accused, the competent authorities should pay attention to cases in which they are unable to understand the content or meaning of the information, e.g. due to young age and/or their mental or physical condition

It is important that the suspects or accused can understand what is happening and further, that they can be understood. A suspect or accused who does not speak or understand the language used in the proceedings will need an interpreter and a translation of the key documents.

For example, it is not sufficient to inform in the Greek language a foreign detainee who does not understand Greek regarding his/her right to contact a lawyer.

The police must provide the suspect / accused person with the means to contact with their lawyer, so that the communication is effective. Communication must also be confidential. The right to confidentiality may be restricted, but it has been deemed that is necessary to provide a substantive justification for these restrictions.[4]

 In the Lanz v. Austria case before the ECtHR, the applicant was arrested on suspicion of fraud and was kept in custody. The communication with his lawyer during the temporary detention was monitored by the investigator. The ECtHR found a violation of Article 6 (3) (b) and (c) of the ECHR. [5]

The immediate communication of the suspect or accused with their lawyer is usually decisive for the entire course of the criminal proceedings. Ignorance of procedural rights, the suddenness of the arrest and the vulnerable position of the detainee in the early stages of the proceedings make access to legal aid necessary.

In Salduz v. Turkey , the applicant was convicted of participating  to an illegal demonstration in support of the PKK (Kurdistan Workers' Party). He did not have access to a lawyer and pleaded guilty during interrogation while in police custody, and later withdrew his statements. The Turkish court relied on initial statements of his conviction. The ECtHR confirmed that, in order for the right to a fair trial to remain "practical and effective", access to a lawyer must be granted since the first police interrogation.[6]

Of particular importance here is the Court's assertion that the suspects are particularly vulnerable at the stage of the investigation and that the evidence gathered may determine the outcome of their case. Early access to a lawyer protects the right against self-incrimination and is a fundamental safeguard against ill-treatment. As the ECtHR has noted, any exception to this right must be clearly defined  and limited in time. Even when there are compelling reasons, any restrictions must not unjustifiably infringe on the rights of the accused. In the above applicant 's case, the absence of a lawyer while he was under  police custody irreparably affected his rights to defense, in breach of Article 6 (3) (c) in conjunction with Article 6 (1) of the ECHR.

Read other articles by Giorgos Kazoleas here

[1] Directive 2013/48/EU of 22 October 2013 on the right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings and in European arrest warrant proceedings, and on the right to have a third party informed upon deprivation of liberty and to communicate with third persons and with consular authorities while deprived of liberty

[2] Resolution of the Council of Europe of 30 November 2009 on a Roadmap for strengthening procedural rights of suspected or accused persons in criminal proceedings

[3] European Commission Recommendation of 27 November 2013 on the right to legal aid for suspects or accused persons in criminal proceedings

[4] ECtHR Sakhnovskiy v. Russia - 21272/03 Judgment 2.11.2010 

[5] ECtHR Lanz v. Austria - 24430/94, Judgment 30.1.2001

[6] Salduz v. Turkey - 36391/02 Judgment 27.11.2008

Comments

Post a Comment

Editorial

Editorial
George Kazoleas, Lawyer

Top Stories

Ombudsman inquiry on Commission President’s text messages is a wake-up call for EU

Image
The European Ombudsman inquiry into the Commission’s handling of a request for text messages between its President and the CEO of a pharmaceutical company is a wake-up call for all EU institutions about ensuring accountability in an era of instant messaging. One year after the initial request by a journalist, the Commission has still not clarified whether messages reported to concern major vaccine procurement deals exist and whether the public is entitled to see them. The Ombudsman had asked the Commission, in a finding of maladministration in January, to conduct a more thorough search for the text messages. The Commission’s recent response failed to say whether it had looked directly and correctly for the text messages and if not, why not. While the response recognised that work-related text messages can be EU documents, it reiterated that the Commission’s internal policy is, in effect, not to register text messages. The Ombudsman has closed  the inquiry  and upheld...
Read more

Daily Mail publisher wins case against ‘success fees’ paid to lawyers (ECtHR)

Image
Obligation on publisher of the Daily Mail to pay substantial “success fees" in defamation and breach of privacy cases was excessive. The case Associated Newspapers Limited v. the United Kingdom (application no. 37398/21) concerned the fact that Associated Newspapers Limited the publisher of the Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday had been obliged to pay extensive costs incurred by claimants who had successfully sued it in privacy and/or defamation proceedings following articles it had published in print or online in 2017 and 2019.  Since one of the claimants had entered into a conditional fee arrangement (CFA) with his legal representative, and both had taken out “after-the-event” (ATE) insurance, Associated Newspapers Limited had been liable not only for their base costs, but also for fee uplifts including the “success fee” in the CFA and for their ATE insurance premiums.  In Chamber judgment (12.11.2024) in the case, the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that t...
Read more

ECtHR elects a new Vice-President of the Court and two new Section Presidents

Image
The European Court of Human Rights has elected on 23.9.2024 a new Vice-President of the Court – Judge Ivana Jelić (elected in respect of Montenegro). She will take up her duties on 1 November 2024.  The Court has also elected at the same date two new Section Presidents – Judges Lado Chanturia (elected in respect of Georgia) and Ioannis Ktistakis (elected in respect of Greece). They will also take up their duties on 1 November 2024. Ivana Jelić was born on 17 March 1975 in Podgorica, Montenegro and was elected Judge of the European Court of Human Rights on 12 July 2018. Lado Chanturia was born on 14 April 1963 in Tsalenjikha, Georgia, was elected Judge of the European Court of Human Rights on 8 January 2018 and is Vice-President of Section since 18 May 2023. Ioannis Ktistakis was born on 3 January 1971 in Thebes, Greece and was elected Judge of the European Court of Human Rights on 8 March 2021. (source/photo: echr.coe.int) Read more here
Read more

Intellectual property: the figurative sign consisting of the phrase ‘RUSSIAN WARSHIP, GO F* *K yourself’ in Russian and English cannot be registered as an EU trade mark

Image
In its Judgment in Case T-82/24 (Administration of the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine v EUIPO) (RUSSIAN WARSHIP, GO F**K YOURSELF) the General Court ruled that the figurative sign consisting of the phrase ‘RUSSIAN WARSHIP, GO F* *K yourself’ in Russian and English cannot be registered as an EU trade mark. That phrase, which has become a symbol of Ukraine’s fight against Russian aggression, is not perceived as an indication of a commercial origin.  The Administration of the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine (Kyiv, Ukraine) requests the General Court of the European Union to annul the decision of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 1 st December 2023, which refused registration of the following figurative sign as an EU trade mark: ‘RUSSIAN WARSHIP, GO F* *K yourself’ That mark is a war cry uttered by the Ukrainian border guard on Snake Island on 24th February 2022, the first day of the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine. Registration was sou...
Read more

The banks Crédit agricole and Credit Suisse participated in a cartel in the sector for suprasovereign bonds, sovereign bonds and public agency bonds denominated in US dollars

Image
According to the Judgment of the General Court in Cases T-386/21 (Crédit agricole and Crédit agricole Corporate and Investment Bank v Commission) and T-406/21 (UBS Group and Credit Suisse Securities (Europe) v Commission), the banks Crédit agricole and Credit Suisse participated in a cartel in the sector for suprasovereign bonds, sovereign bonds and public agency bonds denominated in US dollars (‘SSA Bonds’).  The General Court of the European Union confirms the Commission’s finding of an infringement and maintains the amount of the fines imposed in 2021. In 2018, the European Commission initiated proceedings for infringement of the competition rules involving Deutsche Bank, Bank of America, Crédit agricole and Credit Suisse (now UBS Group [1] ).  In 2021, the Commission found that those banks had entered into an agreement on the secondary market for suprasovereign, sovereign and agency bonds denominated in dollars (SSA bonds). According to the Commission, traders employed by ...
Read more

European Ombudsman asks Commission to publish details of its handling of senior staff move to law firm

Image
The European Ombudsman has asked the European Commission to publish details about how it has handled the planned move by a former director in its competition department to the Brussels office of a US corporate law firm as a partner. Any restrictions that have been placed on the activities of the former director to mitigate potential conflicts of interest should be made public without delay, said the Ombudsman. She noted that public information about the move came from the law firm and gives the impression that the Commission has allowed a senior official to work for a company that anticipates major benefits from their inside knowledge.  The Ombudsman also noted that the Commission declined to give details about the individual’s professional experience despite the fact that the law firm itself has put out a press release detailing it. The Ombudsman has previously criticised a tendency in the EU administration to underestimate the potential negative effects of staff moves to th...
Read more

A national court is not required to apply a decision of its constitutional court that infringes EU law (ECJ)

Image
In its Judgment of 26.9.2024 in Case C-792/22 (Energotehnica) the Court of Justice ruled as regards the right to an effective remedy that a national court is not required to apply a decision of its constitutional court that infringes EU law. In such a case, the national court may not be penalised.  Following the death of an electrician by electrocution during a maintenance operation, an administrative procedure was initiated against his employer. At the same time, criminal proceedings for negligence and manslaughter were initiated against the supervisor. The victim’s next of kin also became civil parties to the criminal proceedings.  The administrative court hearing the dispute concluded that the present case did not involve an ‘accident at work’. It annulled the administrative penalties imposed on the employer. According to national legislation, as interpreted by the Romanian Constitutional Court, that administrative decision prevents the criminal court from reconsidering whe...
Read more