Official Journal of the European Union

EN

C series

—

C/2024/7310

16.12.2024

(Case C-660/24)

(C/2024/7310)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Wasmeier and C. Kovács, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Hungary

Form of order sought

The Commission claims that the Court should:

—declare that Hungary has not properly transposed its obligations arising under Article 3(6)(b), read in conjunction with Article 3(3), and under Article 9 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. (1)

—order Hungary to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Directive 2013/48 provides in Article 3(3)(b) that ‘Member States shall ensure that suspects or accused persons have the right for their lawyer to be present and participate effectively when questioned’. Article 3(6)(b) of that directive makes it possible not to apply the right to have a lawyer present during questioning of the suspect or accused person only ‘in exceptional circumstances’ and ‘in the light of the particular circumstances of the case’ ‘where there is an urgent need to prevent a situation where criminal proceedings could be substantially jeopardised’. Under Article 9 of that directive ‘Member States shall ensure that, in relation to any waiver of a right referred to in [Article] 3 […] the suspect or accused person has been provided, orally or in writing, with clear and sufficient information in simple and understandable language about the content of the right concerned and the possible consequences of waiving it’, that ‘suspects or accused persons may revoke a waiver subsequently at any point during the criminal proceedings and that they are informed about that possibility’.

The Commission submits that, since Hungarian legislation (in particular Paragraph 387 of the Criminal Procedure Code) permits questioning of the suspect without a lawyer being present, where the lawyer does not attend within a certain period of time, Hungary has incorrectly transposed Article 3(6)(b) of Directive 2013/48, read in conjunction with Article 3(3) of that directive.

In addition to the above, there is no provision in Hungarian law transposing the requirements under Article 9 of Directive 2013/48.

(1)

OJ 2013 L 294, p. 1.

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/7310/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—

* * *

Language of the case: Hungarian.