CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 13 octobre 2009

.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. 123 October 2009 Dayanan v. Turkey - 7377/03 Judgment 13.10.2009 [Section II] Article 6 Article 6-3-c Defence through legal assistance Denial of access to a lawyer to a person in police custody who exercised his right to remain silent: violation   Facts – In 2001 the applicant was arrested and taken into police custody during operations against Hizbullah (“Party of God”), an illegal armed organisation. He was informed of his right to see a lawyer at the end of the police custody period and to remain silent, which he chose to do. He was remanded in custody and charged with belonging to Hizbullah. The State Security Court sentenced him to twelve years and six months’ imprisonment. The Court of Cassation upheld that judgment. Law – Article 6 §§ 1 and 3   (c): The applicant complained that he had had no legal assistance while he was in police custody. In accordance with the generally recognised international norms, which the Court accepted and which formed the framework for its case-law, an accused person was entitled, as soon as he was taken into custody, to be assisted by a lawyer, and not only in connection with questioning. The fairness of proceedings against an accused person in custody required that he be able to obtain the whole range of services specifically associated with legal assistance. Counsel had to be able to provide freely for the fundamental aspects of that person’s defence: discussion of the case, organisation of the defence, collection of evidence favourable to the accused, preparation for questioning, support to an accused in distress and checking of the conditions of detention. In the present case, it had not been in dispute that the applicant had not had legal assistance while in police custody because it was not possible under the law then in force. Such a systematic restriction, on the basis of the relevant statutory provisions, was sufficient in itself for a violation of Article   6 to be found, even though the applicant had remained silent when questioned in police custody. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41: EUR 1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   © 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