Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of
Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of
Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of
Recital 10 of Directive 2016/343.
In the Opinion of
Member States shall ensure that suspects or accused persons are provided promptly with information concerning at least the following procedural rights, as they apply under national law, in order to allow for those rights to be exercised effectively:
…
…
…
Suspects or accused persons shall have access to a lawyer without undue delay. In any event, suspects or accused persons shall have access to a lawyer from whichever of the following points in time is the earliest:
https://www.legislationline.org/documents/section/criminal-codes/country/39/Bulgaria/show
According to the police officers, EP told them that he had killed his mother because she had betrayed him to the Serbian mafia. When asked why he had taken her body into the street, he replied that it was so it would not be stinking in his garden.
afford vulnerable persons an effective remedy as stipulated in Article 13 in conjunction with Article 12 of Directive 2013/48 and Article 8(2) in conjunction with Article 3(2) of Directive 2012/13, and are the different powers available to the court depending on the nature of the procedure, the latter being itself dictated by whether the mental health of the person identified as the perpetrator is such as to render him criminally responsible, compatible with the principle of non-discrimination laid down in Article 21(1) of the Charter?
Judgment of
The referring court states in its order (paragraphs 17 and 18) that the Varhoven kasatsionen sad (Supreme Court of Cassation) was made aware that EP had not been informed of his rights, or of the accusation against him, or of the right to appoint a defence counsel and to challenge the decision of the public prosecution service. The referring court further states that the Varhoven kasatsionen sad (Supreme Court of Cassation)
that relating to the application of the Health Law (Article 155 et seq.), pursuant to which the Rayonen sad Lom (District Court, Lom) decided at the outset that EP should be admitted to a psychiatric hospital; that corresponding to the criminal proceedings instituted by the public prosecution service; following the discontinuance of those proceedings, the referring court (the Rayonen sad Lukovit (District Court, Lukovit)) is required to give a final decision on committal under the NPK. The three directives cited above apply only in these proceedings.
It is for the national court to interpret national law, but the Health Law appears to provide sufficient safeguards, since there are
According to the order for reference, the NPK governs pre-trial custody and the equivalent preventive detention of persons in a state of insanity (Article 70), meaning that use of the procedure under the Health Law could conceal a misuse of judicial power. However, I stress that the solution to that hypothetical misuse of power must be found in national law, as a means of resolving a possible conflict of jurisdiction between national courts.
It should be noted that the police are responsible for commencing and handling procedures relating to administrative offences concerning, for example, public safety or order in public places. Those procedures are not necessarily criminal.
Recitals 19 and 28 of Directive 2012/13 state that suspects and accused person must be provided with information
Council Framework Decision of
As I have already stated, I am leaving aside the non-criminal procedure governed by the Health Law.
Council Resolution of
The ECtHR, in the judgment of
See points 9 and 10 of Commission Recommendation of
The NPK reflects this logic: if the degree of disability nullifies understanding, a lawyer should be appointed immediately so that, while also planning the defence, he can ensure that the other rights are duly respected. Article 94(1), subparagraph 2, provides that the participation of a lawyer in criminal proceedings is compulsory where the accused suffers from a physical or mental disability which prevents him from defending himself. In that case, Article 94(3) provides that the court concerned must appoint a lawyer as defence counsel.
That interpretation would not be impossible under Bulgarian law: in fact, the Health Law, which is, in principle, further removed from the rules governing ordinary proceedings than the special procedure for committal, provides in Article 165(1) for the supplementary application of the NPK.
The Bulgarian Government and the public prosecution service declined to take part in these preliminary ruling proceedings and therefore the presentation of national law and its interpretation is restricted to that provided by the referring court.
Article 430(2) and (3). The person whose committal is sought may also appear at that hearing unless his state of health prevents this.
The ECtHR also took that view in its judgment of
In respect of minor offences, Article 2(4) of Directive 2013/48 allows certain limitations, such that the safeguards it lays down apply only to proceedings before a court having jurisdiction in criminal matters.
Article 14(1) of Directive 2016/343.
Article 7(6) includes certain differentiations in respect of minor offences.
as regards Directives 2012/13 and 2013/48, those considerations relate to the subject matter of questions 1 to 4 inclusive and question 7(a); as regards Directive 2016/343, the considerations relate to questions 5 and 6.