In a judgment handed down on Thursday, 22 June, the Court of Justice of the EU ruled that the prohibition on a national court from raising of its own motion a breach of the obligation to promptly inform a suspect of his or her right to remain silent does not, in principle, violate European Union law (Case C-660/21).
In France, two individuals were arrested in a car park for fuel theft and immediately questioned, without being informed of their rights, before being taken into police custody.
The tribunal correctionnel de Villefranche-sur-Saône [criminal court of Villefranche-sur-Saône] referred the matter to the Court [of Justice], which has examined whether the directive (2012/13) on the right to information in criminal proceedings conflicts with a prohibition on a national court from raising of its own motion a breach of the obligation to promptly inform a suspect of his or her rights, in particular the right to remain silent.
In its judgment, the Court [of Justice] considers that this prohibition on the criminal court respects, in principle, the right to an effective remedy and the rights of the defence where the suspect or accused person or his or her lawyer has been able to invoke the breach concerned within a reasonable period of time and has had access to the file.
The European court emphasised that, in order to preserve the practical effect of the right to remain silent, this consideration applies only if a suspect has actually had the right of access to a lawyer as facilitated by the system of legal aid. It explains that if this person waives this right of the defence, he or she must bear the consequences of such a waiver, given that the waiver was made in accordance with the conditions laid down by EU law.
The suspect or accused person must have received, orally or in writing, clear and sufficient information—in simple, understandable language—on the content of the right of access to a lawyer and the potential consequences of waiving this right. The waiver must also have been made voluntarily and unequivocally.
See the Court of Justice’s judgment: https://aeur.eu/f/7n3 (Original version in French by Mathieu Bion)