Official Journal of the European Union

C series

—

C/2025/3377

(Case C-530/23,

(1)

Barało)

(2)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Directive (EU) 2016/1919 - Legal aid - Directive 2013/48/EU - The right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings - Procedural safeguards for vulnerable persons - Determination of the vulnerability of those persons - No legal presumption - Direct effect - Interview of a suspect in the absence of a lawyer - Admissibility of evidence obtained in breach of procedural rights)

(C/2025/3377)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Parties in the main proceedings

other party to the proceedings: Prokurator Rejonowy we Włocławku

Operative part of the judgment

1.Article 2(1)(b), Article 4(5) and Article 9 of 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, read in conjunction with Article 3(2)(a) to (c) and Article 3(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,

must be interpreted as meaning that Member States are under an obligation, first, to ensure that the vulnerability of an accused person or of a suspect is ascertained and acknowledged before that person or suspect is questioned in the context of criminal proceedings or before specific investigative or evidence-gathering measures have been carried out in relation to that person or suspect and, second, to ensure that such persons or suspects have access to a lawyer with the benefit of legal aid for the purposes of those proceedings without undue delay and, at the latest, before questioning by the police or by another law enforcement authority or by a judicial authority, or before the investigative or evidence-gathering act in respect of which that person or suspect is required or permitted to attend is carried out.

2.Article 12 of Directive 2013/48 and Article 8 of Directive 2016/1919

must be interpreted as requiring that decisions concerning, first, the assessment of the potential vulnerability of a suspect or an accused person and, second, the refusal to grant legal aid to a vulnerable person and to choose to question that person in the absence of the lawyer, are reasoned and may be the subject of an effective remedy.

By contrast, those provisions do not preclude national legislation which, in criminal proceedings, do not allow for a court to declare inadmissible incriminating evidence contained in statements made by a vulnerable person during questioning by the police, by another law enforcement authority or by a judicial authority in breach of the rights laid down by Directive 2013/48 or 2016/1919, provided, however, that, in criminal proceedings, that court is in a position, first, to verify that those rights, read in the light of Article 47 and Article 48(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, have been respected and, second, to draw all the inferences from that breach, in particular as regards the probative value of the evidence obtained in those circumstances.

—

(1) OJ C C/2023/1283.

(2) The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.

—

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/3377/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—