A.T. v. Luxembourg (application no. 30460/13) (AIHS md. 6)

Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi, “cezai muamelelerde etkili hukuki yardım hakkının kapsamını açıklığa kavuşturmuştur.”

A.T. v. Luxembourg kararı uyarınca, somut olay yönünden, ilk olarak, polis mülakatı esnasında hukuki yardım sunmamak; ikinci olarak, soruşturma hâkiminin önüne ilk kez çıkmadan evvel başvurucu ile avukatı arasında iletişim eksikliği nedeniyle adil yargılanma hakkı, ihlal edilmiştir. Bununla birlikte, başvurucunun soruşturma hâkiminin önüne ilk kez çıkmasından evvel dava dosyasına erişimin yokluğu, somut olay yönünden adil yargılanma hakkının ihlali sayılmamıştır.

A.T. v. Luxembourg kararı, “http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/” adresinden erişilebilirdir.

A.T. v. Luxembourg kararının basın duyurusu, “http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/webservices/content/pdf/003-5057990-6221376” adresinden erişilebilirdir.

Bu basın duyurusunun özeti, İngilizce haliyle, aşağıdaki gibidir:

The Court clarifies the scope of the right to effective legal assistance in criminal proceedings

In today’s Chamber judgment in the case of A.T. v. Luxembourg (application no. 30460/13) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:

a violation of Article 6 § 3 (c) (right to assistance of counsel) of the European Convention on Human Rights taken together with Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) on account of a failure to provide legal assistance during a police interview,

no violation of Article 6 § 3 (c) taken together with Article 6 § 1 as regards the lack of access to the case file prior to the applicant’s first appearance before the investigating judge, and

a violation of Article 6 § 3 (c) taken together with Article 6 § 1 on account of the lack of communication between the applicant and his lawyer prior to his first appearance before the investigating judge.

The case concerned the failure to provide A.T. with effective legal assistance after he was arrested under a European Arrest Warrant, during both the police interview and his first appearance before the investigating judge.

The Court found in particular that, as regards the police interview, the statutory provisions then in force implicitly excluded the assistance of a lawyer for persons arrested under a European Arrest Warrant issued by Luxembourg. Since the domestic court had not remedied the consequences of that lack of assistance, by excluding from its reasoning the statements taken during that interview, the Court found on this point that there had been a violation of Article 6.

As regards the applicant’s first appearance before the investigating judge, the Court found that the lack of access to the file prior to that hearing had not constituted a violation of Article 6, as that provision did not guarantee unlimited access to the file prior to such an appearance. However, the Court held that the possibility for the applicant to consult his lawyer before that hearing was not sufficiently guaranteed by Luxembourg law. In so far as A.T. had not been able to converse with his lawyer before the hearing in question, the Court thus found a violation of Article 6.