CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 5 janvier 2010

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 126 January 2010 Diallo v. Sweden (dec.) - 13205/07 Decision 5.1.2010 [Section III] Article 6 Article 6-3-e Free assistance of interpreter Absence of an authorised interpreter at the applicant’s initial questioning by a customs officer, who had a command of the foreign language concerned: inadmissible   Facts – In 2006 the applicant, a French national, was stopped when she entered Sweden from France with 988   grams of heroin wrapped in two parcels in her suitcase. She alleged that she had been unaware of the contents of the parcels, which she had been carrying on behalf of someone else. The first interview with the Swedish Customs was held in French by a customs officer, who subsequently gave evidence against the applicant. Subsequently, the applicant was convicted of drug-trafficking and sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment. Leave to appeal was refused by the Supreme Court. The applicant complained before the European Court that the first interview with the Swedish Customs had been held without an authorised French interpreter. Law – Article 6 § 3 (e): The investigation stage had crucial importance for the preparation of the criminal proceedings, as the evidence then obtained determined the framework in which the offence charged would be considered. Access to a lawyer should normally be provided from the moment of the first interrogation of a suspect by the police. Following the same reasoning, the assistance of an interpreter should be provided during the investigation stage unless it was demonstrated in the light of the particular circumstances of the case that there were compelling reasons to restrict that right. In the present case, the applicant’s complaint concerned the fact that she had not been provided with the assistance of an authorised interpreter. Under domestic law, an interpreter was to be used when needed, and in practice the assessment of such a need was made on a case-by-case basis having regard to relevant circumstances including the nature of the case, its level of importance to the individual and the customs officer’s knowledge of the foreign language concerned. Accordingly, there were no elements indicating that access to an interpreter was restricted systematically. There was nothing in the case file to show that the customs officer’s conduct of the interview in French had been inaccurate or otherwise inadequate and the applicant had not contested the officer’s qualifications until, during the trial, she was confronted with her statement that “the packages contained a product to wash money”. The applicant had insisted that the officer must have misunderstood her and that she had, in fact, intended to say that she needed to go to the toilet. The Court had difficulties, however, in believing that the officer would not have been able to detect such a concrete wish and found, moreover, that the appeal court had exercised a sufficient degree of control of the adequacy of the officer’s interpretation skills. Furthermore, the applicant’s disputed statement had been far from the only evidence in the criminal proceedings against her and there was nothing to indicate that it had been decisive to the outcome of the case. The applicant had therefore received sufficient linguistic assistance during the first interview with the Swedish Customs. Subsequently, an authorised interpreter had been involved each time the applicant had been heard, both during the pre-trial stage and at the trial. Accordingly, the Court was unable to discern any violation of the right to a fair trial. Conclusion : inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes