(b) the limitations or deferrals imposed on this right?
|
Austria
|
None
|
Belgium
|
See the previous answer.
|
Bulgaria
|
In my view, no changes are needed regarding the limitations or deferrals imposed on this right. The respective legal provisions of Bulgarian law seem to comply with the standards of the Directive to a sufficient degree.
|
Croatia
|
No changes are needed, as it is prescribed in Article 139. of Croatian CPA.
|
Cyprus
|
Currently Article 3(3)(b) of the Rights of Persons Arrested and Detained into Custody Law of 2005 provides that the right to communicate with third persons might be denied for no more than 12 hours after the arrest of a person provided that there is reasonable suspicion that the arrested person might:
(a) (a) lead to destruction or concealment of evidence related to the investigation of the offense,
(b) prevent the arrest or questioning of another person in relation to the offense or lead to his getaway,
(c) lead to the commission of another offense, or death or personal injury of any person, or
(d) result:
(i) in damage to the interests of national security of the Republic or the constitutional or public order, or
(ii) it results in obstruction of justice:
These provisions do not apply in the case the arrested person is mentally impaired and cannot understand the procedure.
|
Czech Republic
|
The Act no. 293/1993 Coll., about execution of custody regulates specific conditions for correspondence, phone calls and visits of the accused in custody.
|
Estonia
|
As the right to communicate is not provided for (see answer to (a) above), any limitations or derogations must also be stipulated in our implementing legislation.
|
Finland
|
See question 6, the answer is the same.
|
France
|
See the previous answer.None.
|
Germany
|
|
Greece
|
Sometimes it does not take place immediately following the arrest, but a limited time frame may be interjected.
|
Hungary
|
No proposal.
|
Ireland
|
As above.
|
Italy
|
|
Latvia
|
Limitations or deferrals imposed on this right are not provided in law.
|
Lithuania
|
See the answer in (a).
|
Luxembourg
|
There is a possibility to make a request to the judge to modify this regime or to take a judicial decision, which may be appeal at the chamber of council.
|
Malta
|
No information
|
Poland
|
It has been already mentioned that due to the rule expressed in the Article 217 § 1 ECC a person who is temporarily arrested gets the opportunity to visit with other subjects (also with a person closest to him or her) by courtesy of the proper authority. According to the Article 217 § 1a ECC a temporarily arrested person is entitled to have, at least, one visit with his or her closest person per month. In turn, the Article 217 § 1b ECC states that the denial of approval is exceptional and its exists if there is the motivated fear that the visit (a form of communication) would be used in order to illegal obstructing of the criminal proceedings or the visit (a form of communication) would be used to commit a crime (especially to abetting to a crime). It seems that indicated prerequisites for decline of approval correspond to the general meaning of the phrase ‘imperative requirements or proportionate operational requirements’ contained in the Article 6(2) of the EU directive 2013/48.
|
Portugal
|
No information.
|
Romania
|
|
Slovakia
|
Exercise of this right is determined in Act No. 221/2006 on the execution of the custody in the jail. The accused is entitled to receive visitors once a month for two hours, to send/receive correspondence without restriction, to phone call twice a month for 20 minutes to maximum five persons.
|
Slovenia
|
No changes are needed.
|
Spain
|
See answer below.
|
Sweden
|
Limitations or deferrals are generally imposed with reference to a risk of impeding the investigation. A more thorough examination by the investigative authorities and the courts whether the limitation or deferral is proportionate and/or necessary in the specific case would ensure the right of the suspect referred to in Article 6.
|
The Netherlands
|
See answer above.
|
