- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-660/21, K.B. and F.S. (Raising ex officio of an infringement in criminal proceedings): Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 22 June 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal correctionnel de Villefranche-sur-Saône — France) — Criminal proceedings against K.B., F.S. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Directive 2012/13/EU — Articles 3 and 4 — Obligation for the competent authorities to inform suspects and accused persons promptly of their right to remain silent — Article 8(2) — Right to invoke a breach of that obligation — National legislation prohibiting the trial court from raising such a breach of its own motion — Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62021CA0660
62021CA0660
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
Official Journal of the European Union
C 278/6
(Case C-660/21, (<span class="oj-super oj-note-tag">1</span>) K.B. and F.S. (Raising ex officio of an infringement in criminal proceedings))
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Directive 2012/13/EU - Articles 3 and 4 - Obligation for the competent authorities to inform suspects and accused persons promptly of their right to remain silent - Article 8(2) - Right to invoke a breach of that obligation - National legislation prohibiting the trial court from raising such a breach of its own motion - Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)
(2023/C 278/07)
Language of the case: French
Referring court
Parties in the main proceedings
Operative part of the judgment
Articles 3 and 4 and Article 8(2) of Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings, read in the light of Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,
must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude national legislation which prohibits the trial court in a criminal case from raising of its own motion, with a view to the annulment of the procedure, a breach of the obligation imposed on the competent authorities, under Articles 3 and 4 of that directive, to inform suspects or accused persons promptly of their right to remain silent, where those suspects or accused persons have not been deprived of a practical and effective opportunity to have access to a lawyer in accordance with Article 3 of Directive 2013/48/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 on the right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings and in European arrest warrant proceedings, and on the right to have a third party informed upon deprivation of liberty and to communicate with third persons and with consular authorities while deprived of liberty, if necessary having obtained legal aid as provided in Directive (EU) 2016/1919 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2016 on legal aid for suspects and accused persons in criminal proceedings and for requested persons in European arrest warrant proceedings, and where they, like their lawyers, if any, have had a right of access to their file and the right to invoke that breach within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with Article 8(2) of Directive 2012/13.
(<span class="oj-super">1</span>) OJ C 24, 17.1.2022.
ECLI:EU:C:2023:140