CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 octobre 2021

.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 } Published on 8 November 2021   FIRST SECTION Application no. 35015/20 Gejza FERENC against Slovakia lodged on 6 August 2020 communicated on 20 October 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant was convicted of a particularly serious offence of fraud and sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment. During the investigation and prior to the bringing of charges against the applicant, the police interviewed him twice as a witness, in the absence of his lawyer . During the second interview, they obtained a voice sample from him, which was then used to gather other evidence, subsequently relied on by the domestic courts in finding him guilty. Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the fair trial guarantees were not respected, namely with regards to the process of evidence gathering, and that his defence rights were violated. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Were the criminal proceedings against the applicant fair as a whole, as required by Article   6 §   1 of the Convention (see, for general principles, Bykov v. Russia [GC], no. 4378/02, §§ 88/93, 10 March 2009; Ibrahim and   Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 50541/08 and 3 others, §§   249 ‑ 274, 13 September 2016; and Beuze v. Belgium [GC], no. 71409/10, §§ 119-150, 9 November 2018)? In particular:   (a)     taking into account the circumstances of the investigation, in particular the interviews of 15 April and 30 June 2015 and the subsequent gathering of evidence prior to the bringing of charges against him, was the applicant’s right to remain silent and not to incriminate himself respected when the police obtained his voice sample (see, also, Bajić v. North Macedonia , no. 2833/13, §§ 64-68, 10 June 2021)?   (b)     were there “compelling reasons” to justify that the applicant was not assisted by a lawyer from the moment of his first interview of 15   April 2015 or, at least, from his second interview of 30 June 2015 when the voice sample was obtained from him (see, also, Schmid ‑ Laffer v. Switzerland , no.   41269/08, §§ 29-31, 16 June 2015)?   (c)     did the defence attorney (substitute lawyer) have adequate time to acquaint himself with the entire case file prior to the hearing of 8   November 2017 in which the judgment on the merits was adopted (see, Huseyn and Others v. Azerbaijan , nos. 35485/05 and 3 others, §§ 174-178, 26 July 2011)?