THE EROSION OF THE SALDUZ DOCTRINE IN THE CASES OF IBRAHIM AND OTHERS V. THE UNITED KINGDOM AND BEUZE V. BELGIUM
Author/s: Faruk H. Avdić,
Pages: 95-122
UDK: 341.231.14
340.142:341.645(4)
DOI: https://doi.org/10.47152/rkkp.59.3.5
Abstract: The so-called Salduz doctrine that concerns the right to a fair trial and the right to the defense attorney emerged from the case of Salduz v. Turkey, decided on the part of the European Court of Human Rights where the Grand Chamber found the violation of Article 6, paragraph 3(c) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. In this connection, the aim of this paper is twofold. In the first place, the paper aims to demonstrate how the European Court of Human Rights has overturned the two main tenents of the so-called Salduz doctrine derived from its landmark case of Salduz v. Turkey in its later Judgments delivered in the case of Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom and the case of Beuze v. Belgium. The two tenets derived from the Salduz doctrine being examined in the paper are the right to access to the defense attorney as a rule during pre-trial proceedings and the absolute exclusionary rule. In the second place, the paper aims to offer a critique of the standard of compelling reasons employed in the Ibrahim Judgment. In order to achieve its aim, this paper primarily analyses the jurisprudence of the European Human Court of Human Rights in the cases of Salduz v. Turkey, Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom, and Beuze v. Belgium. Besides, the paper also touches upon other judgments of the European Court of Human Rights related to its subject. The paper in question, therefore, primarily relies on the case-law method in achieving its aims. The paper concludes that in overturning the Salduz doctrine in relation to aspects examined in the paper, the European Court of Human Rights has exacerbated the legal standing of the person against whom criminal proceedings are being conducted.
Keywords: Salduz doctrine, Salduz case, restriction of the right to access the defense attorney, the absolute exclusionary rule, Ibrahim case, Beuze case
References:
− Ashworth, A. (2007) Security, Terrorism and the Value of Human Rights. In: Goold. B. & Lazarus, L. (eds.) Security and Human Rights. Oxford: Hart Publishing, pp. 203-226.
− Burić, Z. (2018) Re-Assessing the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights on Police Interrogation-Case of Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom. EU and comparative law issues and challenges series, 2(2), pp. 338-354. DOI: https://doi.org/10.25234/eclic/7116
− Celiksoy, E. (2018) Ibrahim and Others v. UK: Watering down the Salduz principles?. New Journal of European Criminal Law, 9(2), pp. 229-246. DOI: 10.1177/2032284418778149
− Celiksoy, E. (2019) Overulling of ‘the Salduz Doctrine’ in Beuze v Belgium: The ECtHR’s further retreat from the Salduz principles on the right to access
to lawyer. New Journal of European Criminal Law, 10(4), pp. 1-21. DOI: 10.1177/2032284419879228
− Giannoulopoulos, D. (2019) Improperly Obtained Evidence in Anglo-American and Continental Law. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
− Goss, R. (2014) Criminal Fair Trial Rights: Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. London: Hart Publishing.
− Goss, R. (2017) Out of Many, One? Strasbourg’s Ibrahim Decision on Article 6. The Modern Law Review, 80(6), pp. 1137-1150.
− Goss, R. (2019) The Undermining of Article 6 ECHR. In: Czech, P. et al. (eds.) European Yearbook on Human Rights 2019. Cambridge: Intersentia, pp. 295-312. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781780689562.014
− Ramos, V. C. (2016) The Rights of the Defence According to the ECtHR: An Illustration in the Light of ATV Luxembourg and the Right to Legal Assistance. New Journal of European Criminal Law, 7(4), pp. 397-417. DOI: 10.1177/203228441600700403
− Sakowicz, A. (2021) Suspect’s access to a lawyer at an early stage of criminal proceedings in view the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights.
Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal, 7(3), pp. 1979-2014. DOI: set./dez. 2021. https://doi.org/10.22197/rbdpp.v7i3.565.
− Sidhu, O. (2017) The Concept of Equality of Arms in Criminal Proceedings under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Cambridge/Antwerp/Portland: Intersentia.
− Soo, A. (2017) Divergence of European Union and Strasbourg Standards on Defence Rights in Criminal Proceedings? Ibrahim and the others v. the uk (13th of September 2), European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 25(4), pp. 327-346. DOI: 10.1163/15718174-02504002
− Soo, A. (2018) (Effective) Remedies for a Violation of the Right to Counsel during Criminal Proceedings in the European Union: An Empirical Study.
Utrecht Law Review, 14(1), pp. 18-60. DOI: http://doi.org/10.18352/ulr.418
− Trechsel, S. (2005) Human Rights in Criminal Proceedings. New York: Oxford University Press.
Legal Instruments
− Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,
available at: https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/convention_eng.pdf, accessed: 30 October 2021.
Decisions of the European Court of Human Rights
− ECtHR, A.T. v. Luxembourg, no. 30460/13, 9 Judgment of April 2015 (A.T. v. Luxembourg).
− ECtHR, Aras v. Turkey (no. 2), no. 15065/07, Judgment of 18 November 2014 (Aras v. Turkey (no. 2)).
− ECtHR, Artico v. Italy, no. 6694/74, Judgment of 13 May 1980, Series A no. 37 (Artico v. Italy).
− ECtHR, Begu v. Romania, no. 20448/02, Judgment of 15 March 2011 (Begu v. Romania).
− ECtHR, Beuze v. Belgium, no. 71409/10, Judgment of 9 November 2018 [GC] (Beuze v. Belgium, [GC]).
− ECtHR, Borg v. Malta, no. 37537/13, Judgment of 12 January 2016 (Borg v. Malta).
− ECtHR, Brennan v. the United Kingdom, no. 39846/98, Judgment of 16 October 2001, ECHR 2001-X (Brennan v. the United Kingdom).
− ECtHR, Brusco v. France, no. 1466/07, Judgment of 14 October 2010 (Brusco v. France).
− ECtHR, Dayanan v. Turkey, no. 7377/03, Judgment of 13 October 2009 (Dayanan v. Turkey).
− ECtHR, Doyle v. Ireland, no. 51979/17, Judgment of 24 May 2019 (Doyle v. Ireland).
− ECtHR, Dvorski v. Croatia, no. 25703/11, Judgment of 20 October 2015 [GC] (Dvorski v. Croatia, [GC]).
− ECtHR, Hulki Güneş v. Turkey, no. 28490/95, Judgment of 19 June 2003, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 2003-VII (Hulki Güneş v. Turkey).
− ECtHR, İbrahim Öztürk v. Turkey, no. 16500/04, Judgment of 17 February 2009 (İbrahim Öztürk v. Turkey).
− ECtHR, Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom, nos. 50541/08, 50571/08, 50573/08 & 40351/09, Judgment of 13 September 2016 [GC] (Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC])
− ECtHR, Imbrioscia v. Switzerland, no. 13972/88, Judgment of 24 November 1993, Series A no. 275 (Imbrioscia v. Switzerland).
− ECtHR, John Murray v. the United Kingdom, no. 18731/91, Judgment of 8 February 1996 [GC], Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-I (John Murray v. the United Kingdom, [GC]).
− ECtHR, Papon v. France, no. 54210/00, Judgment of 25 July 2002 (Papon v. France).
− ECtHR, Quaranta v. Switzerland, no. 12744/87, Judgment of 24 May 1991, Series A no. 205 (Quaranta v. Switzerland).
− ECtHR, Salduz v. Turkey, no. 36391/02, Judgment of 26 April 2007 (Salduz v. Turkey).
− ECtHR, Salduz v. Turkey, no. 36391/02, Judgment of 27 November 2008 [GC] (Salduz v. Turkey, [GC]).
− ECtHR, Simeonovi v. Bulgaria, no. 21980/04, Judgment of 12 May 2017 [GC] (Simeonovi v. Bulgaria).
− ECtHR, Teixeira de Castro v Portugal, no. 25829/94, Judgment of 9 June 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-IV (Teixeira de Castro v
Portugal).
− ECtHR, Zherdev v. Ukraine, no. 34015/07, Judgment of 27 April 2017 (Zherdev v. Ukraine)