{"id":1426,"date":"2020-01-02T18:48:35","date_gmt":"2020-01-02T17:48:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/johan-callewaert.eu\/?p=1426"},"modified":"2020-01-02T23:04:08","modified_gmt":"2020-01-02T22:04:08","slug":"judgment-of-the-cjeu-in-the-case-of-rayonna-prokuratura-lom","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/johan-callewaert.eu\/de\/judgment-of-the-cjeu-in-the-case-of-rayonna-prokuratura-lom\/","title":{"rendered":"Judgment of the CJEU in the case of Rayonna prokuratura Lom"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

In Rayonna\nprokuratura Lom<\/strong> (19.9.2019) the CJEU ruled on the scope of three of the directives on procedural rights in criminal\nproceedings<\/strong>, being Directive 2012\/13 on the right to information, Directive\n2013\/48 on the right of access to a lawyer and Directive 2016\/343 on the\npresumption of innocence and the right to be present at the trial. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

As regards the directives\non the right to information and on access to a lawyer, the CJEU stated that these\nDirectives also apply to proceedings for\nthe committal to a psychiatric hospital of a person who committed a criminal\noffence<\/strong>, provided that such a measure was justified not only on therapeutic\ngrounds but also on safety grounds. The CJEU came to this conclusion by relying\ninter alia <\/em>on the case-law of the ECHR\non Article 5 of the Convention (right to liberty and security), which also\ncovers deprivations of liberty resulting from psychiatric or medical care\nmeasures. After recalling that Art. 6 of the EU-Charter corresponded to Art. 5 of\nthe Convention and therefore, by virtue of Art. 52(3) of the Charter, had to be\ninterpreted having regard to that case-law of the ECHR, the CJEU concluded: \u201cAccordingly,\nin the light of the right to liberty and security guaranteed by Article 6 of\nthe Charter, Directives 2012\/13 and 2013\/48 cannot be interpreted as excluding\nfrom their scope judicial proceedings in which an order may be made for the\ncommittal to a psychiatric hospital of a person who, at the conclusion of\nearlier criminal proceedings, was found to be the perpetrator of acts\nconstituting a criminal offence.\u201d (\u00a7 46)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thus, through this new\ncase-law the concept of \u201ccriminal\nproceedings\u201d \u2013 and the fair-trial guarantees which go with it \u2013 are being\nextended<\/strong>, for the purpose of the said directives, to \u201cproceedings for\ncommittal to a psychiatric hospital which, although they do not lead to a\n\u2018sentence\u2019 in the strict sense, nevertheless result in a measure involving a\ndeprivation of liberty, provided that such a measure is justified not only on\ntherapeutic grounds but also on safety grounds\u201d (\u00a7 41). Moreover, the court\ndealing with a request for such a committal must have the power to verify that the procedural rights covered by those directives were respected in\nproceedings prior to those before that court (\u00a7 63).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In simple terms, the\nprocedure for the committal to a psychiatric hospital with a \u201cpenal purpose\u201d (\u00a7\n71) is being assimilated with standard criminal proceedings on the ground that both\ncan lead to a deprivation of liberty coming under the scope of Articles 5 of\nthe Convention and 6 of the Charter. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

By contrast, the CJEU\nruled in the same judgment that the Directive on the presumption of innocence \u2013\nand indeed EU law as such \u2013 did not apply to a procedure for the committal to a\npsychiatric hospital which had a purely therapeutic purpose and was implemented\nindependently of any criminal proceedings (\u00a7 66).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As a result of this case-law, domestic authorities<\/strong> dealing with procedures for the committal to a psychiatric hospital which are governed by any of the above-mentioned directives will now have to combine<\/strong> the safeguards laid down in those directives with the requirements under Art. 5 of the Convention relating to the deprivation of liberty of persons of unsound mind, as they have been recapitulated by the ECHR in the cases of Stanev v. Bulgaria<\/em> (17.1.2012) and Rooman v. Belgium <\/em>(31.1.2019). While those requirements to some extent draw on the fair-trial guarantees laid down in Art. 6 of the Convention, they cover many more aspects of the committal than just the rights of the defence. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Finally, as regards the substance of the rights at stake in the present case, it is perhaps worth noting that in relation to the right to information in criminal proceedings as enshrined in Directive 2012\/13, the CJEU ruled that the relevant information was to be provided \u201cas soon as possible\u201d and \u201cat the latest, before [the persons concerned] are first officially questioned by the police\u201d (\u00a7 53). This would appear to be in slight contrast with the requirement flowing from Simeonovi v. Bulgaria<\/em> (ECHR 12.5.2017) according to which this information is to be provided immediately <\/em>(\u00a7 119). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Rayonna-prokuratura-Lom<\/a>Download PDF<\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In Rayonna prokuratura Lom (19.9.2019) the CJEU ruled on the scope of three of the directives on procedural rights in criminal proceedings, being Directive 2012\/13 on the right to information, Directive 2013\/48 on the right of access to a lawyer and Directive 2016\/343 on the presumption of innocence and the right to be present at […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[23,19],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1426","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-court-of-justice-of-the-eu","category-recent-case-law"],"translation":{"provider":"WPGlobus","version":"3.0.2","language":"de","enabled_languages":["en","de","fr"],"languages":{"en":{"title":true,"content":true,"excerpt":false},"de":{"title":false,"content":false,"excerpt":false},"fr":{"title":false,"content":false,"excerpt":false}}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/johan-callewaert.eu\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1426","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/johan-callewaert.eu\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/johan-callewaert.eu\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/johan-callewaert.eu\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/johan-callewaert.eu\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1426"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/johan-callewaert.eu\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1426\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1427,"href":"https:\/\/johan-callewaert.eu\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1426\/revisions\/1427"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/johan-callewaert.eu\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1426"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/johan-callewaert.eu\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1426"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/johan-callewaert.eu\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1426"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}