Source: https://eucrim.eu/articles/directive-right-access-lawyer-criminal-proceedings/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 10:28:18+00:00

Document:
On 22 October 2013, the European Parliament and the Council adopted Directive 2013/48/EU on the right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings and in European Arrest Warrant (EAW) proceedings. The Directive also addresses the right for suspects and accused persons in criminal proceedings, and for persons subject to EAW proceedings, to have a third party informed upon deprivation of liberty and the right to communicate with third persons and with consular authorities while deprived of liberty.1 The part of the Directive regarding the right of access to a lawyer is the core measure of the roadmap for strengthening the procedural rights of suspects and accused persons in criminal proceedings, which was adopted by the Council in 2009. The Directive, which is inspired to a large extent by the Salduz case law, is a true milestone that has been welcomed by all stakeholders.
This article describes the genesis of the Directive and provides a description of some of its main elements. The difficulties that some Member States had with the proposal of the Commission are addressed, contributions by the six-monthly rotating Presidency of the Council are described, and the important role played by the European Parliament during the co-decision process leading to the final text of the Directive is highlighted.
In 2004, the European Commission submitted a proposal for a Framework Decision on certain procedural rights in criminal proceedings throughout the European Union.2 This proposal aimed to introduce a comprehensive set of common minimum standards and so address the imbalance between, on the one hand, the substantial progress that had been made in the European Union with a view to combating crime and, on the other hand, the procedural rights of suspects and accused persons in criminal proceedings. However, since the Council was unable to reach unanimous agreement, as required under the rules of the Amsterdam Treaty, work on the proposal was abandoned.
On the basis of the roadmap, the European Parliament and the Council adopted, in 2010, Directive 2010/64/EU on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings5 (“measure A”), and, in 2012, Directive 2012/13/EU on the right to information in criminal proceedings6 (“measure B”).
The right to legal advice, and the accompanying right to legal aid, is often considered to be the most important procedural right of suspects and accused persons in criminal proceedings. Differences of opinion between the Member States regarding the rules to be established in this domain were the main reason why the Member States could not reach agreement on the comprehensive Commission proposal of 2004. This is understandable, since the systems of the Member States regarding legal advice are very different, and anything in the European Union that costs money, including the right to legal aid, is always very sensitive. For these reasons – the importance of the rights concerned and the difficulties in reaching agreement in the past – the proposal by the Commission on measure C was awaited with great interest.
This ground-breaking judgment, which has been confirmed in many subsequent judgments, forced various Member States to amend their national law and practices, as they did not provide access to a lawyer from the first interrogation by the police. For example, in France, the system of garde à vue, according to which suspects could be deprived of liberty for two periods of 24 hours with a very limited right of access to a lawyer (only a 30-minute consultation), was deemed not to be in line with the Salduz case law. A similar situation arose in Scotland, where the possibility to keep a suspect in custody for six hours without the right of access to a lawyer was considered to be in clear contravention of Salduz.
It was not always clear, however, which precise amendments the Member States would need to make in their national legal systems because of Salduz, since there was no unequivocal interpretation of this judgment. In fact, the judgment raised various questions: Should access to a lawyer be provided only when the suspect is taken into police custody – as was the case in Salduz – or should it also be provided when the suspect is at large but is invited to come to the police station in order to answer some questions? Which reasons qualify as “compelling reasons” that would justify a derogation from the right of access to a lawyer? At which other moments during the criminal proceedings would the suspect have the right of access to a lawyer, and what would the right of access to a lawyer actually entail?
communicate upon arrest.8 In this proposal, the Commission decided to combine one aspect of measure C (legal advice, “C1”) with measure D, concerning communication with relatives, employers, and consular authorities. The second aspect of measure C, however, concerning legal aid (“C2”), was not addressed in the proposal.
Various Member States criticised the fact that the right to legal aid had not been addressed in the proposal, observing that this right is intrinsically linked to the right to legal advice. The Commission replied that this split had been carried out in order to speed up the process: since the issue of legal aid is very complex and the information available on this issue was very patchy, it would have required much more time to present the proposal if legal aid had been included. According to the Commission, this would not have been appropriate, given the need for action on the substantive right arising from the Salduz line of jurisprudence. In the view of the Commission, dealing with the substantive right alone would also put the focus on the complex issue of the interpretation of the Salduz case law.
In the Council, the negotiations on the proposal started under the Polish Presidency in July 2011. Soon the acronym “A2L” was used in order to identify the file, although one also continued to make reference to “measure C” (although, strictly speaking, it was now measure “C1 + D”).
In a unique move on the eve of the meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs (“JHA”) Council in October 2011, five Member States (Belgium, France, Ireland, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom) submitted a letter at ministerial level in which they voiced their misgivings regarding the proposal.11 During the meeting itself, the opposition was led by Mr. Kenneth Clarke, the UK Secretary of Justice, who forcefully but eloquently criticized the proposal. Clarke denounced the lack of balance in the proposal between the interests of suspects and accused persons, on the one hand, and the interests of the State in prosecuting crime, on the other. Clarke signalled that the latter interests were often equivalent to the interests of victims of crime, which the Union should also protect.
Clarke indicated that the ambitious character of the Commission proposal text had led the UK to decide not to make use of the possibility foreseen in Art. 3 of Protocol 21 to the Lisbon Treaty to opt-in to the proposal for a Directive. His Irish colleague, Mr. Alan Shatter, announced the same decision for his country. This meant that both Member States, who had opted-in to measures A and B from the outset of the negotiations on these Directives, would remain outside the application of the Directive on measure C, unless they decided to opt-in at a later stage after adoption of the Directive. In order to maintain the possibility of such an opting-in at a later stage, both Member States remained closely associated with the negotiations in the Council on the proposal for measure C, in particular during the first year of the negotiations (until the general approach was reached).
The Danish Presidency took over in January 2012. Wanting to make a fresh start on the file, it presented a revised text14 and launched a questionnaire15 in order to better understand the particularities in the various Member States. The replies to the questionnaire16 also contributed to promoting mutual understanding among the Member States concerning each other’s positions.
The Danish Presidency tried to find a text that would be acceptable to all Member States, including the UK and Ireland. This was not an easy task, as the positions of the 27 Member States differed considerably, but the Danes made tremendous efforts and found solutions for most problems. The efforts of the Danish Presidency were remarkable, since Denmark did not have an immediate “personal” interest in the file – in accordance with Art. 1 of Protocol 22 to the Lisbon Treaty, this Member State does not participate at all in measures in the area of freedom, security and justice.
In June 2012, the text of the Directive, as it resulted from the discussions in the Working Party and Coreper, was submitted to the JHA Council in Luxembourg with a view to reaching a general approach (the provisional agreement in the Council that forms the basis for negotiations with the European Parliament). In the days before the Council meeting, although it became clear that some Member States – such as Portugal and Italy – would most likely not subscribe to the text, it seemed that a qualified majority of Member States would be able to agree to the text and thus allow a general approach to be reached, in particular since Ms. Christiane Taubira, the new French Minister of Justice, had indicated that the new French government would take a flexible position on the text.
On a more positive note, the UK and Irish Ministers stated that, if the text were more or less to remain, they would most likely opt-in to the Directive. This was a very different tone from the one that was voiced in the meeting of the JHA Council in October 2011. All in all, if there was one thing that emerged from this Council meeting, it was that the Member States were very divided on how the Directive should “look.” This division among the Member States did not constitute a very favourable position for the Presidency of the Council to start the negotiations with the European Parliament in the context of the co-decision process (ordinary legislative procedure of Art. 294 TFEU).
The negotiations between the Council and the European Parliament started in July 2012, after the LIBE Committee of the European Parliament had adopted its orientation vote on the basis of a report presented by rapporteur Oana Antonescu (PPE, Romania).19 In its vote, the LIBE Committee generally kept very close to the original proposal of the Commission while adopting amendments steering the text in a “pro-rights” direction on some points, e.g., the issue of confidentiality. As a result, at the beginning of the negotiations, the positions of the Council and the European Parliament were very far apart.
In the first phase of the negotiations, under the Cyprus Presidency, both co-legislators notably tried to explain their own positions and to understand the positions of the other party. With the help of the Commission, attempts were made to find compromise solutions.20 While substantial progress was made under the Cyprus Presidency, it appeared impossible to reach an agreement during its term in office, since some controversial issues – such as derogations, confidentiality, and the EAW – were still outstanding.
The Irish Presidency installed two very skilled negotiators to “crack the last nuts.” Clever drafting was done,21 and subtle pressure was exercised on some Member States in order to persuade them to accept solutions that were acceptable to most other Member States. On the side of the European Parliament, the rapporteur managed to steer a middle course between the pragmatism needed to reach agreement and the pressure exercised upon her by all kinds of lobby groups (ECBA, CCBE, Justicia, Open Justice, Fair Trials International, Amnesty International, etc).
On 28 May 2013, the negotiating parties reached provisional agreement on a final compromise text on the draft Directive. On 4 June 2013, Coreper approved the final compromise text and authorised its President to send the habitual letter to the European Parliament,22 stating that, should the European Parliament adopt its position at first reading, in accordance with Art. 294(3) TFEU, in the exact form as set out in the final compromise text, the Council would, in accordance with Art. 294(4) TFEU, approve the Parliament’s position, and the act shall thus be adopted in the wording corresponding to the Parliament's position.
Subsequent to an examination from a jurist’s-linguist’s point of view, the plenary session of the European Parliament approved the text of the Directive on 10 September 2013, and the Council did the same on 6 October 2013. After signature on 23 October 2013, the Directive was published in the Official Journal on 6 November 2013.23 According to its Art. 15, Member States are obliged to transpose the Directive into their national legal systems by 27 November 2016.
In the Official Journal, the Directive takes up 11.5 pages, of which two-thirds (7.5 pages) consist of 59 recitals accompanying the mere 18 articles. These figures – few articles, many recitals – indicate that it was not easy for the legislators to reach agreement on the Directive; when it is difficult to reach agreement on the operative part of a text, solutions are often sought in the recitals.
The Directive can be described along four lines of difficulties that appeared during the negotiations between the Member States, and between the Council and the European Parliament. They concern the difficulty relating to the interpretation of the concept of the right of access to a lawyer (A), the difficulty relating to the fact that, on several points, the Directive has a far-reaching effect on the national legal systems (B), the difficulty relating to the safeguards that should apply regarding derogations and confidentiality (C), and the difficulty relating to the changes in respect of the EAW system (D).
The legal systems of the Member States as they stood at the time of the discussions in the Council varied considerably as regards the idea of what is meant by the “right of access to a lawyer” and, more importantly, as regards the practical implications of this right.
In most Member States, including Germany, Austria, and Poland, the right of access to a lawyer refers to the opportunity for a suspect or accused person to be assisted by a lawyer at specific moments during the criminal proceedings (before or during questioning by the police or by other law enforcement or judicial authorities, during certain investigative acts, during the trial, etc.). In these Member States, when a suspect or accused person has the right of access to a lawyer, this basically means that the person is entitled to have a lawyer and that the State will not prevent this lawyer from being present at the said moments during the criminal proceedings. The issue of the funding of the lawyer in these Member States is independent from the opportunity to be assisted by a lawyer; while a suspect or accused person may have the right of access to a lawyer, he may not have the possibility to effectively exercise this right, as there might be no legal aid available if the person concerned doesn’t have the means to pay the lawyer himself.
In some other Member States, however, such as Belgium, France, and the United Kingdom, the right of access to a lawyer is intrinsically linked to the funding of the lawyer. When a suspect or accused person has the right of access to a lawyer, the system of the Member State ensures that there is legal aid available if the person concerned cannot pay the lawyer himself. The right of access to a lawyer thus guarantees that the suspect or accused person is assisted by a lawyer.
The difference in approach between the two sets of Member States characterised the discussions in the Council for a long time, most notably under the Polish and Danish Presidencies. The latter, however, managed to find a compromise solution between the two positions by inserting a provision in the text (Art. 3.4) regarding the level of obligations that the Member States would have.
It was decided to differentiate between two situations, namely when the suspect or accused person is at large (not deprived of liberty) and when this person is deprived of liberty. If the suspect or accused person is not deprived of liberty, e.g., when he is invited by means of a letter to present himself at a police station to answer some questions, the Member States must endeavour to make general information available in order to facilitate the obtaining of a lawyer by the suspect or accused person. Such information can, for instance, be made available on a website or by means of a leaflet that is available at police stations. However, it is clarified in recital 27 that the Member States do not need to take active steps to ensure that a suspect or accused person who is not deprived of liberty be assisted by a lawyer if he has not made arrangements himself to be assisted by a lawyer. The suspect or accused person concerned should be able to freely contact, consult with, and be assisted by a lawyer. This low level of obligations for situations in which the person concerned is not deprived of liberty is clearly inspired by the opportunity approach.
If suspects or accused persons are deprived of liberty, e.g., when they have been arrested and brought to the police station, the level of obligations resting on the Member States is higher. In such a situation, in fact, the Member States must make the necessary arrangements to ensure that suspects or accused persons are in a position to effectively exercise their right of access to a lawyer, including by arranging for the assistance of a lawyer when the person concerned does not have one, unless they have waived that right. It is clarified in recital 28 that such arrangements could imply, inter alia, that the competent authorities arrange for the assistance of a lawyer on the basis of a list of available lawyers from which the suspect or accused person could choose; such arrangements could include those on legal aid if applicable. This higher level of obligations for situations in which the person concerned is deprived of liberty is clearly inspired by the guarantee approach.
It must be underlined that the concept of the right of access to a lawyer as such remains the same throughout the Directive; its nature does not depend on whether the suspect or accused person is deprived of liberty or not. However, the practical consequences of the right are different in the two situations. One could say that the basic nature of the concept of the right of access to a lawyer is “opportunistic,” in that the suspect or accused person is entitled to have a lawyer and that the State will not prevent the lawyer from being present at specific moments during the criminal proceedings, but that it comes with more “guarantee” obligations for Member States when the suspect or accused person is deprived of liberty.
The issue of minor offences was discussed at length during the negotiations in the Council and during the negotiations with the European Parliament. In both measures A and B, certain minor offences had been excluded from the scope, since it was felt that Union law should not be concerned with small offences: de minimis non curat lex. There was also a policy line behind the exclusion of minor offences, as there is clearly a trade-off between strong defence rights and a (slightly) narrower scope excluding certain minor offences: if minor offences are excluded, it is easier to insist on a set of strong defence rights in relation to more serious offences.
In measures A and B, the minor offences that had been excluded were those offences that are dealt with in the first instance by an authority other than a court having jurisdiction in criminal matters; only when the case comes before such a court, would the Directive concerned apply. This exclusion therefore concerned offences that are dealt with in first instance by a prosecutor, the police, or some administrative authority.
While the exclusion requested by Luxembourg was generally felt to be acceptable, several Member States expressed misgivings about the extension of the exclusion for minor offences as proposed by the Netherlands. In the negotiations with the European Parliament, the Presidency also had a hard time defending the Dutch position, since MEPs rightly pointed out that the exclusion as requested by the Netherlands was not watertight: it all depended on a practice in the Netherlands that the prosecution would not request deprivation of liberty to be imposed for certain minor offences. However, it was not excluded that, at the end of the day, the judge would decide to impose deprivation of liberty (e.g., when a person has committed the same minor offence multiple times). If, in such a situation, the person had not been granted access to a lawyer in the pre-trial phase, he might have made self-incriminating statements without having had access to a lawyer. During a talk with the juris-consult of the European Parliament, who underlined the strength of the position of the co-legislator, the Netherlands also began to appreciate that, although the risk of persons ultimately being deprived of liberty without having had access to a lawyer was low in their jurisdiction, because of the guidelines for the prosecution, the exclusion for minor offences as proposed by them might be applied on a very wide basis in other Member States. As a result, the Netherlands decided to give up its position, and only the Luxembourg exclusion for minor offences was added to the text, see Art. 2.4 under (b).
While, as a result of the Luxembourg request, the exclusion for minor offences was slightly broadened, thus marginally weakening the protection of suspects and accused persons, the provision on minor offences was strengthened on another point. In fact, it had emerged in the course of the discussions that, in certain circumstances, a person who had (allegedly) committed an offence falling under the exclusion for minor offences, as contained in measures A and B, could nevertheless be deprived of liberty. This situation, which could for instance happen in Sweden,25 was of great concern to the European Parliament, which – understandably – felt that the Directive should always apply to suspects and accused persons who are deprived of liberty. Therefore, a new paragraph was inserted in Art. 2.4, which clearly states that the Directive shall, in any event, fully apply where the suspect or accused person is deprived of liberty, irrespective of the stage of the criminal proceedings.
For some Member States, it was difficult to agree to the provisions on questioning of suspects and accused persons, because the new Salduz-inspired rules would result in far-reaching consequences for their legal systems. Two of the Member States affected by these rules were France and, to an even greater extent, Belgium.
In France, the system of garde à vue allows the police to deprive suspects of their liberty for a maximum of two periods of 24 hours in order to, inter alia, question the suspect in the context of the criminal investigation. Suspects used to have a very limited right of access to lawyer when they were placed in garde à vue (only a 30-minute consultation with their lawyer was allowed). This changed, however, after the Salduz judgment and, notably, after the French legislator adopted a law reforming the system of garde à vue.26 This legislation was scheduled to enter into force on 1 June 2011 but, in a judgment of 15 April 2011, the Cour de Cassation ruled that the legislation should enter into force with immediate effect. Under the new law, when suspects are placed in garde à vue, they have the right of access to a lawyer at all times during questioning. However, the fact that France just before the start of the negotiations on the proposal for a Directive had enacted a new law, which was not as detailed as the proposal of the Commission, made it difficult for this Member State to show flexibility on the text, since, understandably, it was reluctant to change its law again after such short period of time.
Belgium was the Member State that had the most serious problems with the provisions in respect of allowing a lawyer to be present during questioning of a suspect or accused person. Belgium has a classic inquisitorial system, in which the examining judge leads the criminal investigation. The role of this examining judge, who is considered to be independent and impartial, is to lead the investigation “à charge et à décharge” (looking both for incriminating and exculpatory evidence). Both public prosecutor and examining judge have the obligation to ensure the legality of the manner in which evidence is gathered. In principle, the pre-trial stage is of a non-adversarial nature. Therefore, in Belgium, an official interview of a suspect or accused person is normally organised on a non-adversarial basis without the possibility for the suspect or accused person to have access to a lawyer. However, when adversarial questioning is required, the questioning is organised in such a manner that the lawyer can be present.
Under Salduz and in the proposal of the Commission, however, no distinction is made between questioning on an adversarial basis, on the one hand, and questioning on a non-adversarial basis, on the other hand. As a rule, a suspect or accused person should always have the right of access to a lawyer prior to and during all questioning by the police or by another law enforcement authority or judicial authority. A large majority of Member States and the European Parliament agreed to this rule, and it has now been set out in Arts. 3.2 under (a) and 3.3 under (a) and (b) of the Directive. Hence, as a result of the Directive, the inquisitorial Belgian system will have some elements of the adversarial common law system, in which defence lawyers “oppose” the prosecution. This fundamental change to its system led Belgium to abstain from voting at the time when the Directive was adopted (all other Member States voted in favour).
Belgium and the other Member States, however, were able to maintain a certain control over the way in which lawyers can participate during questioning. The European Parliament, relying inter alia on the judgment of the ECtHR in Dayanan,27 insisted that lawyers should be able to participate actively during questioning: they should not just be given a seat in the corner of the room without the right to say anything. The Member States, however, wanted to ensure that lawyers would respect certain rules of conduct during questioning, in order to avoid the risk that the criminal investigation would be jeopardized. A compromise was found by stating, in Art. 3.3 under (b) of the Directive, that suspects or accused persons have the right for their lawyer to participate actively during questioning – they may inter alia ask questions, request clarification, and make statements28 – while clarifying that such participation should be in accordance with procedures under national law, provided that such procedures do not prejudice the effective exercise and essence of the right concerned. During the negotiations, the example was given that the procedures could mean that lawyers may only ask questions after the competent authorities had posed their questions.
Another difficulty concerned the situation in which a person is questioned as a witness but becomes a suspect during questioning. This situation often occurs in practice: persons who are questioned as a witnesses can start making self-incriminating statements, as a result of which they become suspected of having committed a criminal offence themselves. It is generally held that the police and other law enforcement authorities should not prolong questioning after the change of identity from “witness” to “suspect” has taken place without giving the person concerned the safeguards of a suspect or accused person. It should be noted, however, that it is not always easy to determine the exact moment when the change of identity actually takes place, since it basically concerns a change in the “mind-set” of the interrogators.
During the negotiations in the Council, Member States expressed substantial misgivings about the proposals of the Commission, which they felt were intrusive and went beyond the scope of the Directive. As to the latter criticism, it was observed that, in accordance with Art. 2.1, the Directive only applies when persons are made aware that they are suspected or accused of having committed a criminal offence. This element, which requires action on the part of the competent authorities, allows the Member States to maintain a certain control over the application of the Directive, and it was therefore understandable that the Member States did not want to give this up as regards witnesses becoming suspects.
A solution was found by stating, in Art. 2.3, that the Directive applies “under the same conditions as provided for in paragraph 1” to witnesses who, in the course of questioning by the police or by another law enforcement authority, become suspects or accused persons. As a result, Art. 2.3 does not have any real effect in substance, as it basically confirms that the Directive only applies to persons from the time they are made aware − by the competent authorities of a Member State, by official notification, or otherwise − that they are suspected or accused of having committed a criminal offence. Given that the situation in Brusco is very common in practice, however, it was felt that an explicit reference to this situation in the Directive would be appropriate.
The added value, in fact, lies in recital 21, according to which, in the course of questioning, a witness becomes a suspect or accused person, either questioning should be suspended immediately or the questioning may be continued, on the condition, however, that the person concerned has been made aware that he is a suspect or accused person and is able to fully exercise the rights provided for in the Directive, in particular the right of access to a lawyer. Moreover, in such a situation, the person should be informed, in accordance with Directive 2012/13/EU, that he has the right of access to a lawyer as well as, inter alia, the right to remain silent.
The fact that this “rule” was placed in recital 21 and not in the operative part of the Directive, is part of the final compromise between the Council and the European Parliament. As a consequence of this placement, however, it appears that the rule does not have direct effect.
In the Council, it was observed that this text would go so far as to prevent Member States from carrying out routine acts, such as taking fingerprints of suspects or accused persons, without the presence of a lawyer. In the months following the presentation of the proposal, Commissioner Viviane Reding often found herself in a defensive position when she was asked questions about this specific provision, which Member States perceived as an illustration of the lack of balance in the Commission proposal.
In view of these misgivings, some Member States requested the deletion of the entire provision relating to investigative and other evidence-gathering acts, not least because it could give rise to several practical problems: What would be the situation, for instance, when a suspect or accused person has the right of access to a lawyer in respect of an investigative act, such as a house search, but the lawyer concerned does not turn up on time? Do the authorities then have to wait to carry out the house search until the lawyer arrives? The Commission, however, supported by several other Member States, considered that the Directive would not be complete without a provision on the right of access to a lawyer during investigative and other evidence-gathering acts.
In contrast to other relatively routine acts, such as fingerprints, blood samples, DNA tests as well as searches of premises, land, and means of transport, the above-mentioned three investigative or evidence-gathering acts are normally prepared in advance, which should allow lawyers to be present in time.35 The presence of a lawyer at these acts will have added value by ensuring that they are carried out fairly.
While some Member States, could agree to these proposals, as they have strict rules prohibiting any use of illegaly obtained statements or evidence for a conviction in their national laws (e.g., Italy), the opposing Member States felt that the proposals were too intrusive, since, in their opinion, it should be left to the judge in each case to decide whether or not and, if so, to what extent such statements or evidence could be used for a conviction. Sweden, which forcefully led the opposing Member States, repeatedly explained that it wanted “to keep its system,” namely the system based on the principle of free submission and assessment of evidence, which would be in the interest of having courts rendering just and materially correct judgments. This crusade paid off because, in the final text of the Directive, Art. 12 on remedies is only a shadow of the corresponding text in the Commission proposal.
In the light of the above, it is hoped that the Member States and the Court of Justice of the European Union will give substantial emphasis to Art. 12.1, according to which Member States should ensure that suspects and accused persons have an effective remedy under national law in the event of a breach of the rights under this Directive. This rule is complemented by Art. 12.2, containing the obligation for Member States to ensure that, in the assessment of statements or evidence obtained in breach of the right of access to a lawyer, the rights of the defence and the fairness of the proceedings are respected. Both obligations should be read in the light of recital 50, which reiterates the observation of the ECtHR in the Salduz judgment, according to which the rights of the defence will, in principle, be irretrievably prejudiced when incriminating statements made during police interrogation without access to a lawyer are used for a conviction.
The question of whether the Member States should be allowed to derogate from the right of access to a lawyer and from the principle of confidentiality of communication between the suspect or accused person and his lawyer – and, if so, to what extent – caused a division not only between the Member States but also between the Council, on the one hand, and the European Parliament, on the other.
It was interesting to note that, in the Council, southern European Member States that had in the past suffered from dictatorial or military regimes (Italy, Portugal, Spain) were fiercely opposed to allowing the State to make derogations from the right of access to a lawyer and to the principle of confidentiality. These Member States understandably wanted to avoid the negative experiences of the past, where the rights of individuals were often disrespected, by not allowing the State to make any derogations and therefore, at least on paper, excluding abuse. In essence, these Member States wanted to ensure that no infringements to the rights of individuals could occur. Northern Member States, however, probably having more confidence in the State and its institutions, felt that it should be possible to make derogations in certain well-defined circumstances, e.g., when making a derogation would be essential in order to avoid substantial prejudice to criminal proceedings.
In its proposal, the Commission suggested that Member States should be allowed to derogate from the right of access to a lawyer but only when such derogation is justified by compelling reasons pertaining to the urgent need to avert serious adverse consequences for the life or physical integrity of a person. During the negotiations in the Council, various (Northern) Member States felt that this condition relating to life and limb, as proposed by the Commission, was too restrictive. They considered that “compelling reasons” as such should be enough to derogate from the right of access to a lawyer, and they referred in this context to the Salduz judgment, where the ECtHR had stated that denial of access to a lawyer could be justified for “compelling reasons,” without any further qualification or condition. In the general approach, this line of reasoning was adhered to, although Portugal opposed it, and Italy and Spain, supported by the Commission, made clear that they would seek improvements to the text during the negotiations with the European Parliament.
During these negotiations, the European Parliament insisted from the outset that it would not accept that derogations from the right of access to a lawyer be made on the wide ground of compelling reasons only. Hence, a solution was sought by defining the compelling reasons more clearly and thereby limiting the possibilities of making derogations. In the end, agreement was reached by authorising derogations for compelling reasons relating to life and limb, as proposed by the Commission (but complemented with a reference to the liberty of the person), and for compelling reasons relating to situations where immediate action by the investigating authorities is imperative in order to prevent substantial jeopardy to the criminal proceedings (“ticking bomb exception”), see Art. 3.6.
The European Parliament, however, was only able to accept the derogations for these compelling reasons under strict conditions. Indeed, it was agreed in Art. 3.6 and recital 38 that derogations could only be made in exceptional circumstances and only at the pre-trial stage, that they should be temporary and strictly limited in time, that they should not be based exclusively on the type or seriousness of the alleged offence and should not prejudice the overall fairness of the proceedings, and that they should be proportionate and only be applied to the extent justified in the light of the particular circumstances of the case. Moreover, it was decided to insert extra guarantees for the use of the derogations in recitals 31 and 32 by stating that the competent authorities may only question suspects or accused persons without the lawyer being present if these persons have been informed of their right to remain silent and can exercise that right and provided that such questioning does not prejudice the rights of the defence, including the privilege against self-incrimination. It was further clarified that questioning may be carried out for the sole purpose and to the extent necessary to obtain information that is essential to averting serious adverse consequences for the life, liberty, or physical integrity of a person or to obtain information that is essential to preventing substantial jeopardy to criminal proceedings. In line with Salduz, it was also underlined that any abuse of these derogations would, in principle, irretrievably prejudice the rights of the defence.
Last but not least, recital 38 instructs Member States to make restricted use of the derogations. In the corridors, the Member States discreetly remarked that this instruction was clearly superfluous because, in view of the many conditions and “belts and braces” that had now been attached to the derogations, it would be very difficult for Member States to make any derogation whatsoever from the right of access to a lawyer.
It should be noted, finally, that Art. 3.5 contains a specific derogation related to the geographical remoteness of a suspect or accused person. This derogation was inserted at the request of France, which feared that, if a suspect or accused person was deprived of liberty in a place where no lawyer could be made available on short notice, e.g., in French Guyana or on a military nuclear vessel in the Indian Ocean, it would not be able to fully comply with Art. 3.2 under (c) of the Directive, according to which suspects or accused persons have the right of access to a lawyer “without undue delay after deprivation of liberty.” In the application of this specific derogation, however, Member States may only buy time: they may neither question the suspect or accused person nor carry out any of the investigative or evidence-gathering acts indicated in Art. 3.3 under (c) of the Directive, see recital 30.
In its proposal for a Directive, the Commission had suggested that Member States should ensure that the confidentiality of communication between the suspect or accused person and his lawyer be guaranteed. 39 No derogations were envisaged.
During the negotiations in the Council, various Member States asked for the possibility to include derogations in the text. They referred to the Campbell judgment and indicated that they had a practice that allows certain exceptions to the principle of confidentiality, in particular in the situation when there is an urgent need to prevent serious crime, notably terrorism, and in the situation when there is a suspicion that the lawyer is colluding with the suspect or accused person in a criminal offence. In the general approach, it was therefore envisaged that, in these two situations, Member States should be allowed to make derogations from the principle of confidentiality of communication between a suspect or accused person and his lawyer.40 Some Member States, however, supported by the Commission, expressed serious concerns in this regard.
The European Parliament, supported by the Commission, very much insisted on having an absolute rule on confidentiality, without any derogations. After extensive discussions, in which all options were examined – including the “nuclear” option of deleting the provision on confidentiality altogether – the Irish Presidency presented a compromise for a new text for Art. 4 that was acceptable to all Member States and the European Parliament.
This text without derogations is accompanied by two recitals, which seek to clarify the situations in which the Directive would not apply, in order to give the Member States some margin for manoeuvre. Recital 33 explains inter alia that a colluding lawyer is not considered to be operating in the exercise of the right of access to a lawyer provided for under the Directive. In this way, there is some reference, albeit in a recital, to the situation of a colluding lawyer as covered in the corresponding derogation in the general approach. Recital 34 states that the Directive is without prejudice to a breach of confidentiality, which is incidental to a lawful surveillance operation by competent authorities, and without prejudice to the work that is carried out, for example, by national intelligence services to safeguard national security in accordance with Art. 4(2) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) or that falls within the scope of Art. 72 TFEU. This addresses to a large extent the derogation in the general approach relating to the situation when there is an urgent need to prevent serious crime, particularly terrorism. The text of the Irish Presidency thus satisfied both the European Parliament and the Member States − or it left them at least equally dissatisfied, thus constituting a fair compromise.
Like measures A and B, measure C on the right of access to a lawyer was not only meant to provide procedural rights for suspects and accused persons but also for persons that are subject to EAW proceedings (“requested persons”). Art. 11.2 of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA42 provides that requested persons who are arrested for the purpose of execution of an EAW have the right to be assisted by a legal counsel. Therefore, the right of access to a lawyer already exists in the executing State. The big novelty of the Commission proposal was also to provide the right of access to a lawyer in the issuing State. The lawyer in the issuing State should assist the lawyer in the executing State with a view to the effective exercise of the rights of the requested person in the executing State. The Commission explained that the lawyer in the issuing State is often in a much better position to obtain and verify factual information and to provide advice on the law in the issuing State; this may help the lawyer in the executing State to defend the interests of the requested person and may also lead to a quick “resolution” of the EAW, e.g., through a voluntary return of the person concerned or a withdrawal of the EAW where warranted.
During the negotiations with the European Parliament, however, the issue was back on the table. EP rapporteur Oana Antonescu made it a priority on her “wish list,” and she was supported in this position by the shadow rapporteurs, the Commission, and various lobby groups. The latter even organised special studies and conferences in order to underline the importance of dual representation for requested persons.44 In the end, the Council reluctantly gave in and agreed to granting the right of access to a lawyer in the issuing State as well, but only after having ensured that the tasks of this lawyer were clearly limited to providing the lawyer in the executing State with “information and advice” (Art. 10.4). The Council also insisted on clarifying in the operative part of the text (Art. 10.6) that the provisions on the lawyer in the issuing State were without prejudice to the (strict) time limits set out in Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA. In addition, the Irish Presidency succeeded in replacing the expression “right of access” to a lawyer in the issuing Member State with the expression “right to appoint” a lawyer in the issuing Member State (Arts. 10.4, 10.5, and 10.6). The difference between these two expressions is, however, far from clear.
The Directive also includes measure D of the roadmap, by providing rules on the right to have a third person informed of deprivation of liberty (Art. 5); on the right to communicate, while deprived of liberty, with third persons (Art. 6); and on the right to communicate with consular authorities (Art. 7). Although these articles also needed substantial negotiation before they could be agreed upon, they were relatively uncontroversial compared to the rules on the right of access to a lawyer.
The Directive on the right of access to a lawyer is the core measure of the roadmap on strengthening the procedural rights of suspects and accused persons in criminal proceedings. Building on the case law of the ECtHR, in particular the Salduz judgment, the Directive provides detailed rules on the right of access to a lawyer for suspects and accused persons in criminal proceedings and for requested persons in EAW proceedings.
Although defence lawyers and human rights lobby groups may have wanted an (even) more ambitious text, it seems that there is general satisfaction with the result achieved. Indeed, the Directive sets a high level of protection for suspects and accused persons in criminal proceedings and for requested persons in EAW proceedings, while taking due account of the interests of the State in prosecuting crime − which, as noted, are often interests that correspond to the interests of victims of crime.
The European Parliament, supported by the Commission and by some Member States, played an important role in “upgrading” the text of the Directive, in particular if the final text is compared with the text of the general approach. Nevertheless, one has to realise that in the “game” of the co-decision process, the Council is used to setting the standards in the general approach lower than it can actually accept, in order to be able to “give something away” to the European Parliament.
Attention should now be focused on the implementation of the Directive by the Member States. Crafting a good Directive is one thing, but it is at least as important that the Directive be implemented and applied in a manner that is faithful to the letter and the spirit thereof. Herein lies an important task, not only for the Commission but also for the national courts and the Court of Justice of the European Union, since it is very likely that lawyers representing suspects and accused persons across Europe will rely on the Directive. It will probably lead to a considerable body of jurisprudence on access to a lawyer at both the domestic and Union levels.
A last issue concerns the question of whether the United Kingdom and Ireland will opt-in to the measure on the basis of Art. 4 of Protocol 21 to the Lisbon Treaty. Whereas an opt-in by the UK seems unlikely in the context of the current political climate in London, an opt-in by Ireland – which very diligently led the final negotiations in the Council and with the European Parliament – is still not ruled out. While recognising the rules of Europe à la carte as created by the Lisbon Treaty, one could admit that such an opt-in by Ireland – but also by the UK and, if it would have been possible, by Denmark – would to a certain extent be “fair,” since it would ensure that the same minimum standards that apply in 25 Member States in respect of British and Irish citizens would also apply in the UK and Ireland as regards citizens of the other Member States.
This article solely reflects the opinion of the author and not that of the Council. The author would like to thank Tricia Harkin for the valuable comments that she made in the process of developing this article. Any mistakes, however, should be attributed to the author only.

References: Art. 3
 Art. 1
 Art. 294
 Art. 294
 Art. 294
 Art. 15
 Art. 2
 Art. 2
 Art. 3
 Art. 2
 Art. 2
 Art. 2
 Art. 12
 Art. 12
 Art. 12
 Art. 3
 Art. 3
 Art. 3
 Art. 3
 Art. 3
 Art. 4
 Art. 4
 Art. 72
 Art. 11
 Art. 4