Case C-15/24, Stachev: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 11 January 2024 — Criminal proceedings against CH
Date: 2024-01-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European arrest warrant, criminal proceedings, illiteracy, restriction of liberty, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_202402016EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2024/2016


18.3.2024





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 11 January 2024 — Criminal proceedings against CH
(Case C-15/24, Stachev) (1)

(C/2024/2016)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Sofiyski rayonen sad

Party/parties to the main proceedings

CH

Questions referred







1.


Are national legislation and case-law, on the basis of which the court examining whether there is reasonable suspicion that an accused person was involved in the alleged criminal offence, with a view to adopting or enforcing an appropriate restraint measure, is deprived of the possibility of assessing whether, at the time that person was a suspect and his or her right of free movement was restricted by the police authorities, evidence was gathered in breach of his or her right of access to a lawyer under Directive 2013/48/EU (2) 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, compatible with Article 12(2) of that directive, in conjunction with Article 47(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?










2.


Is the requirement of respect for the rights of the defence and the fairness of the proceedings within the meaning of Article 12(2) of Directive 2013/48 […] satisfied if, in establishing its inner conviction, the court examining whether the restraint measure is appropriate takes into consideration evidence which was gathered in breach of the requirements of that directive at the time the person was a suspect and his or her right of free movement was restricted by the police authorities?










3.


Does the exclusion by the court examining whether the restraint measure is appropriate, despite instructions to the contrary from a higher court, of evidence gathered in breach of Directive 2013/48 […] have negative effects on the requirements laid down in Article 12(2) of Directive 2013/48 […] in conjunction with Article 47(1) and (2) of the Charter […] concerning the fairness of the proceedings, and does it cast doubt on the impartiality of the court?










4.


Does the possibility provided for in Article 3(6)(b) of Directive 2013/48 […], in exceptional circumstances at the pre-trial stage, of temporarily derogating from the right of access to a lawyer where immediate action by the investigating authorities is imperative to prevent substantial jeopardy to criminal proceedings have direct […] effect in the EU Member State concerned, where that provision has not been transposed into its national law?










5.


Are the safeguards provided for in Article 9(1)(a) and (b) in conjunction with recital 39 of Directive 2013/48 […] respected if a suspect makes a waiver in writing of the right of access to a lawyer, but the suspect is illiterate and was not informed of the possible consequences of waiving that right, and subsequently claims before the court that he or she had not been aware of the content of the document signed by him or her at the time of the restriction of his or her right of free movement by the police authorities?










6.


Does a waiver of the right to be assisted by a lawyer under the provisions of Directive 2013/48 […], made by a suspect as at the time of his or her detention, exempt the authorities from the obligation to inform him or her, immediately prior to performing each further investigative action with his or her participation, of the right of access to a lawyer and of the possible consequences of waiving that right?






(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.

(2)  
            OJ 2013 L 294, p. 1.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/2016/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)