Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 173
April 2014
Blaj v. Romania - 36259/04
Judgment 8.4.2014 [Section III]
Article 6
Criminal proceedings
Article 6-1
Fair hearing
Article 6-3-c
Defence through legal assistance
Lack of assistance from a lawyer during police questioning under flagrante delicto procedure: no violation
Facts – The applicant, who was suspected of accepting a bribe, had been placed under police surveillance. A third party who had been cooperating with the police came to meet him and left an envelope containing money on his desk. The police officers intervened immediately and caught the applicant red handed. In accordance with domestic law, they drew up a report of the offence. Later that day the applicant was informed of the charges against him and of the fact that he had a right to remain silent and to see a lawyer. Subsequently he had the assistance of a lawyer during questioning.
Law – Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c): The applicant had not had a right to be assisted by a lawyer during questioning by the investigators in the proceedings because he had not yet been charged with a criminal offence. In flagrante delicto proceedings were aimed at catching a person suspected of an offence in the act of committing the offence in question and a record had to be drawn up recording the statement of the suspect at the time. The investigators had to confine themselves to asking questions about the physical evidence of the offence observed at the time and avoid transforming the statement into questioning about the offence.
In the present case the investigators had recorded the physical evidence observed during the in flagrante delicto proceedings and noted the applicant’s replies to their questions without his having been questioned about the circumstances or the motives inducing the third party to leave the envelope on his desk or about any agreement entered into with that third party. Subsequently, as soon as he had been charged, on the same day, the applicant had had the assistance of a lawyer of his choosing who had later assisted him during all his statements before the prosecution and before the High Court in which he had denied the offence. However, he had never retracted the statements that had been noted in the offence report. Lastly, that report had been one of the items of evidence on which the High Court had based their finding that the applicant was criminally liable, without considering his answers recorded in it as a separate statement about the offence. Furthermore, the High Court had noted that the applicant had always denied committing the offence. Accordingly, the applicant’s statements recorded in the offence report had not harmed him. Moreover, he had been informed of the content of the charges against him when he had first been questioned and placed in detention pending trial and had been represented by lawyers at every stage of the proceedings. Lastly, the applicant had not alleged either before the domestic courts or before the Court that he had made his initial statements under duress.
Conclusion: no violation (unanimously).
The Court also held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 concerning the allegations of police entrapment as the applicant had had the benefit of adequate procedural guarantees before the domestic courts; no violation of Article 8 regarding the tapping and recording of the applicant’s telephone conversations; no violation of Article 13 taken in conjunction with Article 8 regarding a remedy allowing the applicant to dispute the interference with his right to respect for his private life on account of the recordings of his conversations; and no violation of Article 34 regarding an interference with the applicant’s right of application.
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy