Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 May 2024 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad – Bulgaria) – Criminal proceedings against CH
(Case C-15/24 PPU, 1 Stachev) 2
(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Directive 2013/48/EU – The right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings – Article 3(6)(b) – Temporary derogation from the right of access to a lawyer in exceptional circumstances – Article 9 – Waiver of the presence or assistance of a lawyer – Conditions – Article 12(2) – Respect for the rights of the defence and the fairness of the proceedings – Admissibility of evidence – Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Written waiver of an illiterate suspect’s right of access to a lawyer – No explanation as to the possible consequences of waiving that right – Implications for subsequent investigative acts – Decision on an appropriate restraint measure – Assessment of evidence obtained in breach of the right of access to a lawyer)
Language of the case: Bulgarian
Referring court
Sofiyski rayonen sad
Party in the main criminal proceedings
CH
Intervening party: Sofiyska rayonna prokuratura
Operative part of the judgment
Article 3(6)(b) of Directive 2013/48/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council 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,
must be interpreted as meaning that where that provision has not been transposed into the national legal order, the police authorities of the Member State concerned cannot rely on that provision in relation to a suspect or accused person in order to derogate from the application of the right of access to a lawyer, which is laid down in a clear, precise and unconditional manner by that directive.
Article 9(1) and (2) of Directive 2013/48
must be interpreted as meaning that the statement of waiver of the right of access to a lawyer by an illiterate suspect cannot be regarded as complying with the requirements laid down in Article 9(1) of that directive, where that suspect has not been informed, in a manner which takes due account of his or her particular circumstances, of the possible consequences of such a waiver and where that waiver has not been recorded in accordance with national procedural law, in such a way as to enable compliance with those requirements to be verified.
Article 9(3) of Directive 2013/48
must be interpreted as meaning that in the event of a vulnerable person waiving the right of access to a lawyer, within the meaning of Article 13 of that directive, that person must be informed of the possibility of revoking that waiver before any subsequent investigative act is carried out during which, taking into account the intensity and importance of that investigative act, the absence of a lawyer is liable particularly to harm the interests and rights of that person.
Article 12(2) of Directive 2013/48, read in conjunction with the first and second paragraphs of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union
must be interpreted as precluding national case-law under which a court which examines the involvement of an accused person in a criminal offence in order to determine whether the restraint measure to be imposed on that accused person is appropriate, is deprived of the possibility, when adopting a decision on the continued detention of that accused person, of assessing whether evidence has been obtained in breach of the requirements of that directive and, where appropriate, of disregarding such evidence.
____________
1 OJ C 2016, 18.3.2024.
1 The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.