CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 décembre 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } Communicated on 16 December 2020 Published on 11 January 2021   FIRST SECTION Application no. 4315/18 Ladislav RIGO against Slovakia lodged on 13 January 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the criminal proceedings in which the applicant was found guilty of robbery ( lúpež ). Invoking Article 6 §§ 1, 2 and 3 (b), (c) of the Convention the applicant complains that the domestic courts convicted him on the basis of unlawful evidence, in particular his pre-trial identification by the injured party ( rekognícia ) and the latter’s testimony given during the trial. He argues that prior to the identification the investigator had showed his photos to the injured party. He further complains that the impugned judgments were based on his confession which had been obtained at the pre-trial stage in the absence of a lawyer and which he had later withdrawn. He argues in that regard that the police had taken advantage of his vulnerable situation, in particular his young age and drug addiction.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing, in accordance with Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention, in the determination of the criminal charges against him, in particular with regard to the circumstances in which the evidence had been obtained and his opportunity of challenging its authenticity and of opposing its use (see, for example, Bykov v. Russia [GC], no. 4378/02, §§ 89-90, 93, 10 March 2009)? 2.     Did the applicant benefit from the assistance of a lawyer during his time in police custody, as required by Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention (see Zachar and Čierny v. Slovakia , nos. 29376/12 and 29384/12, §§ 58-60, 21 July 2015; Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no. 36391/02, §§ 50-55, ECHR 2008, with further references)? Was his right not to incriminate himself respected?   The parties are requested to submit copies of all relevant documents, in particular, the records of the applicant’s testimony from the pre-trial stage of the criminal proceedings (dated 15 February 2012, 17 February 2012 and 12   April 2012) and the expert opinion concerning his mental health state.