Question 12.
Do you have any good practices to pass on, that you have not already mentioned? (N.B. This question is particularly important, given that one of the sections of the final report will focus on good practices.)
|
Austria
|
No
|
Belgium
|
Some Belgian investigating magistrates or Prosecutors accept that if requested by the concerned person of his/her lawyer, the lawyer of the victim, the person questioned for information or the witness may be present during the questioning of his client. It is indeed a real shame that the Directive did not extend the right of the presence of the lawyer also for the questionings of victims, person heard for information or witness although these kind of persons may also possibly be the subject of abuse, pressures or unfair attitudes of the interrogators…
|
Bulgaria
|
In my view, there is an example of good legislative approach and good practice in Bulgaria going in a helpful direction beyond the requirements of the Directive itself. The example refers to the application of Article 6 of the Directive relating to the right of the accused persons to communicate with third persons during detention. The positive aspect both of law and national practice is that the scope of third persons, with whom the accused persons may communicate, is expanded beyond the scope of persons pointed out by Article 6. Thus, under the respective provision of CPC, the accused persons have the unconditioned right to communicate with international experts, who may visit the detainees in compliance with the international treaties, to which Bulgaria is a party. Communications are also admissible, if the third persons are representatives of human rights defending NGOs or religious NGOs, or representatives of the mass media but under the condition that the communications with these representatives have been already permitted in writing by the prosecutor or the court.
|
Croatia
|
No.
|
Cyprus
|
As mentioned above in a nutshell I believe that the establishment of the Independent Authority for the Investigation of Allegations and Complaints Against the Police in 2006 is a good practice because even though we have more or less the legal framework demanded by the European Union in reality there are problems in complying with the law.
Furthermore an inclusion of the right to communicate with the said independent authority in the legislation and also an expansion of the current IAIACAP which will include permanent criminal investigators, translators, photographers and other personnel will increase the confidence of the Public that the Police is under constant scrutiny and they comply with all the provisions of the Law. This will improve the administration of Justice and the protection of fundamental human rights.
|
Czech Republic
|
No.
|
Estonia
|
The fact that our law does not provide for any derogations from the right to access to a lawyer (and this rule is also widely accepted in practice without any complications) is certainly something that other Member States should consider.
|
Finland
|
|
France
|
No.
|
Germany
|
|
Greece
|
No.
|
Hungary
|
No.
|
Ireland
|
For further consideration.
|
Italy
|
No good practice applied but it should be appropriate to consent the lawyer in the issuing state to communicate the judicial authority in the executing state and vice versa.
|
Latvia
|
No.
|
Lithuania
|
There are no examples of good practises to pass on yet.
|
Luxembourg
|
Of course.
The aces to a lawyer, object of the directive, makes only sense if the lawyer is granted full aces of the case file, before meeting the person he is supposed to “effectively assist”.
If the assistance of a lawyer in pre-trial proceedings will in future be limited to his sole nomination with the only prerogative to inform the person under proceedings of his right to keep silent, than the contribution of the directive, regarding the effectivity of defence rights is rather poor.
|
Malta
|
Prosecution should inform the accused’s lawyer immediately upon confirmation of time and date of arraignment.
|
Poland
|
No, I don’t.
|
Portugal
|
No.
|
Romania
|
|
Slovakia
|
|
Slovenia
|
I believe that the right to meet and communicate with the defendant is very well implemented in Slovenian law and it's worth mentioning that a lawyer can meet his/her client in every phase of the criminal procedure (even when the defendant is in police custody), there are no time limits or specific days when a lawyer can meet with the defendant who is in jail or police custody. The state will also provide for a translator if the need arises, and the translator will accompany the lawyer on his visit in jail/police custody.
|
Spain
|
No good practise to share.
|
Sweden
|
See above mentioned practice.
|
The Netherlands
|
No.
|
