Borotyuk v Ukraine: ECHR 16 Dec 2010

(Fifth Section) The applicant complained, in particular, that his continued pre-trial detention had been unjustified and that he had not been legally represented in the early stages of the criminal proceedings.
Held: The court summarised the general principles that are to be found in Salduz. It stated that, as a rule, access to a lawyer must be provided as from the first questioning of a suspect by the police, unless it can be demonstrated in the light of the particular circumstances that there are compelling reasons to restrict that right.

Judges:

Peer Lorenzen, President

Citations:

33579/04, [2010] ECHR 2037

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Citing:

CitedSalduz v Turkey ECHR 27-Nov-2008
(Grand Chamber) The applicant had been taken into custody before he was interrogated during his detention by police officers of the anti-terrorism branch of the Izmir Security Directorate.
Held: There had been a violation of art 6(3)(c) of the . .

Cited by:

CitedAmbrose v Harris, Procurator Fiscal, Oban, etc SC 6-Oct-2011
(Scotland) The appellant had variously been convicted in reliance on evidence gathered at different stages before arrest, but in each case without being informed of any right to see a solicitor. The court was asked, as a devolution issue, at what . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Police

Updated: 07 August 2022; Ref: scu.427249