Guidebook 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 132 European Commission, COM (2011) 327, p.3., Council of the European Union, OJ 2009/C 295/01, Rec.8. Lloyd-Cape, p 17. Imbriosca v Switzerland, App No 13972/88 (ECtHR, 24 November 1993) § 36. Salduz v Turkey, App No 36391/02 (ECtHR, 27 November 2008, GC) (hereinafter Salduz v Turkey); Beuze v Belgium App No 7149/10 (ECtHR, 9 November 2018, GC) (hereinafter Beuze v Belgium). Kamasinski v Austria, App No 9783/82 (ECtHR, 19 December 1989), § 74; Baytar v Turkey, App No 45440/04 (ECtHR, 14 October 2014). Hovanesian v Bulgarie, App no 31814/03, (ECtHR, 21 December 2010), § 37. See European Commission, COM (2019) 560 final, p5. Lloyd-Cape, p 5. FRA, ‘Rights in practice’ (2019), p 30. Directive 2010/64/EU on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings (hereinafter: Directive on interpretation and translation; Directive 2012/13/EU on the right to information in criminal proceedings (hereinafter: Directive on right to information). Directive 2013/48/EU 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 (hereinafter: Directive on access to a lawyer), Recital 21. Directive (EU) 2016/1919 on legal aid for suspects and accused persons in criminal proceedings and for requested persons in European arrest warrant proceedings (hereinafter: Directive on legal aid), Art 2(3); Directive 2016/800 on procedural safeguards for children who are suspects or accused persons in criminal proceedings (hereinafter: Directive on children), Art 2(4); Directive on access to a lawyer, Recital 21. See also e.g. European Commission, COM (2019) 560 final, p 5. Directive on access to a lawyer, Recital 21. Directive on legal aid, Recital 10; Directive on children, Recital 29. See also eg, Bandaletov v. Ukraine, App No. 23180/06, (ECtHR, 31 October 2013),§ 56; Nechiporuk and Yonkalo v Ukraine, App No. 4231/04 (ECtHR, 21 April 2011); Brusco v France, App No 1466/07 (ECtHR, 14 October 2010) § 57.See also, Kanev, Right to a lawyer and to legal aid in criminal proceedings in five European jurisdictions: Comparative report (2018), p9 (hereinafter Kanev). FRA, ‘Rights in practice’ (2019), p 32. FRA, ‘Rights in practice’ (2019), pp 30 ff. Winter, 'The EU Directive on the Right to a Lawyer: A Critical Assessment', in Ruggeri (ed), Human Rights in European Criminal Law, (Heidelberg, etc. Springer, 2015) p.116 (hereinafter Winter). Directive on access to a lawyer, Art 2(4); Directive on children, Recital 14, 15 and 16, Art.2(6); Art (2); Directive on right to Information, Recital 17; Directive on interpretation and translation, Art 1(3), Recital 16; Directive on legal aid, Art 2(4), Recital 11 and 12. Winter, p116. Art 2(4) Access to a lawyer; Art 2(6) Recital 14, 15 and 16 Directive on the Rights of Children; Art (2), Recital 17 Directive on the Right to Information; Art 1(3), Recital 16 Directive in Right to Interpretation and Translation; Art 2(4), Recital 11 and 12 Directive on Legal Aid. See Art 6(3)(c) ECHR; Kanev, p. 8; Engel and others v The Netherlands, App nos 5100/71; 5101/71; 5102/71; 5354/72; 5370/72 (ECtHR, 8 June 1976) §§82-83. See Mc Bride:, Human FOOTNOTES 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 Rights and criminal procedure: The case law of the European Court of Human Rights (CoE, 2009) p 11; Winter, p 116. Despite the above mentioned EU instruments were all adopted after 2009, it is worth noting that the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon in 2009 introduced significant developments into the previous architecture of the area of Justice and Home Affairs matters. It marked the formal abolition of the pillar structure, thereby ‘comunitarising’ the former third pillar on police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters (PJCC). This, in practice, means that PJCC acts are now adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure in the form of Directives or Regulation, are subject to the normal effect of EU law (direct effect and supremacy) and the normal enforcement powers recognised by the Treaties to the European Commission and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), in particular, references on the validity and interpretation of EU measures in this area from all courts and tribunals in all Member States, and the power of the Commission to sue Member States for infringement of the laws in this area. For more information see, amongst others, European Parliament, ‘The End of the Transition Period for Police and Criminal Justice Measures Adopted before the Lisbon Treaty. Who Monitors Trust in the European Justice Area?’, (2014); and Peers, ‘Statewatch Analysis: The “Third Pillar acquis” after the Treaty of Lisbon enters into force’ (3 November 2009) <www.statewatch.org/ analyses/no-86-third-pillar-acquis-post-lisbon.pdf> accessed 30 October 2018 Kanev, p11. Hodgson, Chapter 8: Criminal procedure in Europe´s Area of Freedom, Security and Justice: the rights of suspects in Mitsilegas/Bergström/Konstadinides, 2016, p 174 (hereinafter Hodgson, 2016). Kamasinski v Austria, App no 9783/82 (ECtHR, 19 December 1989) (hereinafter Kamasinski v Austria). See also Cuscani v UK; Gungor v Germany, App no 31540/96 (ECtHR, 17 May 2001); FRA, ‘Translation, Interpretation and information’ (2016), p 26 ff. Directive on interpretation and translation, Art 5(1) and (2). Art 6(3)(c) ECHR. Artico v Italy, App no 6694/74 (ECtHR, 13 May 1980), § 33 and 36; Kamasinski v Austria, § 65. Directive on legal aid, Art 7(1)(a) and (b). Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), Arts 258-260. TFEU, Art 260 (2); Jacqueline Hodgson, 2016, pp 170 and 174. Salduz v Turkey, §55. E.g., Dayanan v Turkey, App No 7377/03 (ECtHR, 13 October 2009) (hereinafter Dayanan v Turkey), Aras v Turkey (No2), App No 15065/07 (ECtHR, 18 November 2014). Simeonovi v Bulgaria App no 21980/04 (ECtHR, 12 May 2017) (hereinafter Simeonovi v Bulgaria); see also Artur Parkhomenko v Ukraine App no 40464/05 (ECtHR, 16 May 2017); Fair Trials, ‘Written comments of Fair Trials to Beuze v Belgium App No 7149/10 (Grand Chamber)’, (2017). Ibrahim and others v the United Kingdom App Nos50541/08, 50571/08, 50573/08 and 40351/09 (ECtHR, 13 September 2016) (hereinafter Ibrahim and others v the United Kingdom). See also Beuze v Belgium, where the court found that the combination of various factors had rendered the proceedings unfair as a whole. See the non-regression clauses, eg Art 15 Directive on access to a lawyer. The authors have clustered the rights not according to Directives but to thematic areas. Directive on access to a lawyer; see also FRA, ‘Rights in practice’ (2019); Fair Trials, ‘Roadmap Practitioners Tools: Access to a Lawyer Directive’ <https://www.fairtrials.org/wp- 133