(b) the time when it is provided?
|
Austria
|
The access must be granted during the office hours (§ 53(2) StPO). According to the case law, short delays due to administrative requirements shall be admissible; in practice, it may sometimes take several days to have access to the file.
|
Belgium
|
For suspect NOT deprived of liberty : when he asks it in writing to the magistrate in charge of the investigation (the latter may however refuse for the good sake of the investigation), a right of appeal exits but only concerning a refusal of an investigating judge, not if it is the prosecutor who investigates).
Such request to access the investigation file may however not be file earlier than one month from the opening of the proceeding.
For suspect deprived of liberty : at the latest after 4 days of privation of liberty, he and his lawyer receives the possibility to access the investigation file during one day, and subsequently during two days each month.
He or his lawyer may also ask in writing for a “normal” access to the file to the magistrate in charge of the investigation, as the suspect not deprived of liberty (see previous bullet).
|
Bulgaria
|
Access to all the materials is granted to the accused person or her/his lawyer in due time upon finishing all the investigating activities in the pre-trial stage of proceedings. Access is granted at any time of the trial stage on the request of the accused person or her/his lawyer. This holds true as regards both national law and practice.
|
Croatia
|
According to the Article 184 of CPA, victim, injured party and their lawyer are entitled to access the material after they gave their statement in that concrete criminal procedure. The accused person and his defence lawyer are entitled to access the material after interrogation, or after delivery of decision on conducting of investigation or private sue.
|
Cyprus
|
According to Article 7 of the Criminal Procedure Law Cap 155 the material of the case is given in time so that the defence lawyer has time to prepare the defence of the suspect or the accused. In my experience this is done according to the said legislation.
|
Czech Republic
|
See the previous answer.
|
Estonia
|
According to § 341(1) of CCP, access to the evidence collected shall be ensured at the latest after the prosecutor's office has declared the pre-trial proceedings completed and submitted the criminal file for examination.
The above rule means that in vast majority of cases, access to materials is provided only after the close of pre-trial investigation proceedings (which could take many years).
The suspect and defence counsel are entitled to apply for access to be granted earlier, but the prosecution has wide discretion to refuse it.
|
Finland
|
Usually only after the pre-trial investigation stage is concluded and the material is sent to the parties for closing submissions to the pre-trial investigation.
|
France
|
See above.
|
Germany
|
|
Greece
|
Usually before the apology, during the investigation stage and prior to the hearing of a case before court, upon request.
|
Hungary
|
See above.
|
Ireland
|
The material is often provided only a matter of days before a trial takes place which is considered unsatisfactory. There is no statutory scheme governing disclosure and this is a subject of criticism by defence lawyers. A real concern is that no individual person is identified as having responsibility for the completeness of disclosure and accordingly nobody is accountable if there is a shortcoming.
|
Italy
|
at the moment the investigations come to an end, when there is an indictment/submission of
accusation, request for a trial and when, even before, under national law, an activity or investigation must be carried on in the presence of the lawyer
|
Latvia
|
After completion of a pre-trial criminal proceedings or when the case is closed.
|
Lithuania
|
The access to the full case material is being provided when the pre-trial investigation is finished.
|
Luxembourg
|
After first hearing
|
Malta
|
As above
|
Poland
|
Generally, the time in which the parties or other entitled persons may have granted the access to the materials of criminal case in the course of proceedings before the court is not marked by using the phrase ‘in due time’ or other synonymous one. The mentioned right might be exercised by parties and other entitled subjects in every moment of the proceedings before the court and the access to files is granted by them without an undue delay. However, although the access of accused persons to materials of the proceedings before the court without an undue delay is not clearly expressed by proper procedural provisions, it results from the interpretation of the right to defence as well as from the right to the fair criminal proceedings (the right to a fair trial). Nowadays, it’s a standard of Polish practice. The same remarks generally concern also a situation in preparatory proceedings (this right might be exercised by parties also after the conclusion of the preparatory proceedings). Exceptionally, the Article 156 §5a CCP clearly states that in case of lodging a motion for application or extension of the temporary arrest in the course of preparatory proceedings, a suspect and his or her defence lawyer shall have a prompt access to the files of the criminal case in the area of materials including evidences presented in the aforementioned motion.
By the way it may be noted that on the grounds of Polish criminal proceedings regulations if there exist prerequisites to conclude preparatory proceedings (an inquiry), on the request of a suspect, an injured person, a defence lawyer or a legal representative concerning the enabling of the final referring to the materials of the preparatory proceedings, the authority conducting the preparatory proceedings (police, prosecutor) informs the entitled person about the possibility to review files of the proceedings and fixes a date for being familiar with materials, ensuring the access to the files of criminal case and informing which materials of these files will be submitted to the court together with the indictment (see the Article 321 § 1 CCP). See more e.g.: M. Jeż-Ludwichowska, Dochodzenie po 1 lipca 2015 r. z perspektywy obrońcy i pełnomocnika [in:] P. Wiliński (ed.), Obrońca i pełnomocnik w procesie karnym po 1 lipca 2015 r. Przewodnik po zmianach, Warszawa 2015, pp. 96 – 99; J. Śliwa, Dostęp obrońcy i pełnomocnika do akt sprawy w postępowaniu przygotowawczym – wybrane aspekty praktyczne [in:] P. Wiliński (ed.), Obrońca i pełnomocnik w procesie karnym po 1 lipca 2015 r. Przewodnik po zmianach, Warszawa 2015, pp. 137 – 139.
|
Portugal
|
The access to the materials, in practice, sometimes is not granted in a due time; it depends on the judge.
|
Romania
|
|
Slovakia
|
Information is provided upon request. Should the access to files cause delays in the criminal proceeding, the law enforcement bodies are entitled to limit the access to the files by an adequate period of time.
|
Slovenia
|
Access to the materials is granted at the submission of the merits of the accusation to the judgment of a court.
|
Spain
|
Promptly in Court premises.
|
Sweden
|
See the answer under (a) above.
|
The Netherlands
|
Though the moment of access to the file exists immediately after the first interrogation, in practice it appears quite difficult to actually receive the file. generally speaking three distinctions can be made:
1. After his first interrogation the suspect requests the police to provide him with the file. The police consults the public prosecutor and the same day the file is provided to the suspect r his lawyer. This scenario seems to comply with the Directive.
2. In case the suspect is in pre-trial detention the lawyer requests the public prosecutor after the first interrogation to provide him with the file. The prosecutor rejects this request without giving any motivation. As a result, the lawyer has to file a complaint against the prosecutor's decision to refuse with the court. Foundation of the prosecutor's rejection may be tactical reasons, but it is not an exception that the prosecutor simply does not know or realize that the general rule is that the suspect actually has the right to receive the file directly after his first interrogation. Further, it is no exception that the prosecution, guided by the police, gives an alternative explanation to the law while the wording of the law is crystal clear. Often, once the complaint has been submitted, the file suddenly is provided as yet. Meanwhile, several weeks have gone by. It seems very likely that often this is the result of well deliberate tactics of the police and/or the prosecutor to delay the moment the lawyer receives the file as much as possible.
3. If a suspect is not in pre-trial detention, the file is never automatically send to him by the public prosecutor, not even if it is completed and not even if the suspect has been interrogated. If the suspect's lawyer wishes to receive the file prior to the moment a court hearing has been scheduled he has to be active, by explicitly and in writing asking for the file), and sometimes be very perseverant as the mere fact that a written request to receive the file has been filed often still does not result in receiving the file though the suspect is entitled to. In case the prosecutor explicitly refuses, for instance because he has not yet read the file himself and does not want the lawyer to have the file at his disposal before the prosecutor has made a final decision to continue the criminal proceedings. Here again, the defense should file a complaint with the court to force the prosecutor to provide the file.
It can be concluded that the prosecutor's work processes are not implemented in such a way that the file actually is provided to the suspect or his lawyer directly after his first interrogation. Dutch law explicitly requires the suspect to file a request while the Directive (article 7) orders the Member States to take care that the suspect and his lawyer actually have access to the file. The Directive requests an active attitude from the Member States in this respect; Dutch law seems to require an active attitude from the suspect and a passive attitude from the authorities.
|
UK
|
England and Wales
See the answer to (a).
|
Scotland
The 2010 Act provides that information must be disclosed “as soon as reasonably practicable” after an accused person’s first appearance in court charged with an offence (in a solemn case) or after a plea of not guilty is entered (in a summary case). The duty to disclose is a continuing one; the Act requires the prosecutor to review the information in his possession “from time to time” and to disclose any information which has become material. In particular, when details of an accused person’s defence are made known to the Crown, the prosecutor must review all information which may be relevant to the case, and disclose any information considered to be material in light of the accused’s defence.
|
Northern Ireland
See above
|
