CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 décembre 2023

.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 January 2024   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 23963/21 Oldřich KRPELÍK against the Czech Republic lodged on 30 April 2021 communicated on 12 December 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the criminal proceedings in which the applicant was found guilty of several theft offences and sentenced to two years’ imprisonment. During the investigation the police interviewed the applicant in the absence of a lawyer, first as a suspect and then following the bringing of charges against him. His confessions obtained by those interviews were then used to gather other evidence and subsequently relied on by the domestic courts in finding him guilty. The applicant’s constitutional appeal was dismissed as manifestly ill-founded by the Constitutional Court’s decision of 3 November 2020 (no.   I.   ÚS 2809/20). Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention the applicant complains that his conviction was based on his confession which had been obtained at the pre-trial stage in the absence of a lawyer, and that the lack of legal assistance at that stage was all the more serious that he was in a vulnerable position due to his mental capacity. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Were the criminal proceedings against the applicant fair as a whole, as required by Article   6 §§   1 and 3 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 19 and 20 May 2016 and the subsequent gathering of evidence, was the applicant’s right to remain silent and not to incriminate himself respected?   (b)     were there “compelling reasons” to justify that the applicant was not assisted by a lawyer from the moment of his first interview of 19   May   2016 or, at least, of his second interview carried out following the bringing of charges on 20 May 2016?   (c)     did the domestic authorities take due account of the applicant’s vulnerability by reason of his mental capacity?