Criminal proceedings against Emil Milev.

• Jurisdiction: European Union
• Celex Number: 62018CJ0310
• ECLI: ECLI:EU:C:2018:732
• Docket Number: C-310/18
• Court: Court of Justice (European Union)
• Procedure Type: Petición de decisión prejudicial - procedimiento de urgencia
• Date: 19 September 2018

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber)

19 September 2018 ( *1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Directive (EU) 2016/343 — Presumption of innocence — Public references to guilt — Remedies — Procedure for reviewing the lawfulness of pre-trial detention)

In Case C‑310/18 PPU,

REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Specialised Criminal Court, Bulgaria), made by decision of 11 May 2018, received at the Court on the same date, in the criminal proceedings against

Еmil Milev,

THE COURT (First Chamber),

composed of R. Silva de Lapuerta, President of the Chamber, J.-C. Bonichot, A. Arabadjiev, S. Rodin (Rapporteur) and E. Regan, Judges,

Advocate General: M. Wathelet,

Registrar: R. Șereș, Administrator,

having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 11 July 2018,

considering the observations submitted on behalf of:

– Mr Milev, representing himself,

– the Netherlands Government, by M.K. Bulterman, acting as Agent,

– the European Commission, by R. Troosters and Y. Marinova, acting as Agents,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 7 August 2018,

gives the following

Judgment

1 This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 3, Article 4(1) and Article 10 of Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings (OJ 2016 L 65, p. 1), read in the light of recitals 16 and 48 thereof, as well as Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’).

2 The request has been made in criminal proceedings against Mr Emil Milev concerning the continuation of his pre-trial detention.

Legal context

EU law

3 Recital 10 of Directive 2016/343 states: ‘By establishing common minimum rules on the protection of procedural rights of suspects and accused persons, this Directive aims to strengthen the trust of Member States in each other’s criminal justice systems and thus to facilitate mutual recognition of decisions in criminal matters. Such common minimum rules may also remove obstacles to the free movement of citizens throughout the territory of the Member States.’

4 Recital 16 of that directive is worded as follows: ‘The presumption of innocence would be violated if public statements made by public authorities, or judicial decisions other than those on guilt, referred to a suspect or an accused person as being guilty, for as long as that person has not been proved guilty according to law. Such statements and judicial decisions should not reflect an opinion that that person is guilty. This should be without prejudice to acts of the prosecution which aim to prove the guilt of the suspect or accused person, such as the indictment, and without prejudice to judicial decisions as a result of which a suspended sentence takes effect, provided that the rights of the defence are respected. This should also be without prejudice to preliminary decisions of a procedural nature, which are taken by judicial or other competent authorities and are based on suspicion or on elements of incriminating evidence, such as decisions on pre-trial detention, provided that such decisions do not refer to the suspect or accused person as being guilty. Before taking a preliminary decision of a procedural nature the competent authority might first have to verify that there are sufficient elements of incriminating evidence against the suspect or accused person to justify the decision concerned, and the decision could contain reference to those elements.’

5 Under recital 48 of that directive: ‘As this Directive establishes minimum rules, Member States should be able to extend the rights laid down in this Directive in order to provide a higher level of protection. The level of protection provided for by Member States should never fall below the standards provided for by the Charter or by the [Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed in Rome on 4 November 1950], as interpreted by the Court of Justice and by the European Court of Human Rights.’

6 Article 1 of that directive, headed ‘Subject matter’, provides: ‘This Directive lays down common minimum rules concerning: (a) certain aspects of the presumption of innocence in criminal proceedings; (b) the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings.’

7 Article 2 of Directive 2016/343, headed ‘Scope’, provides: ‘This Directive applies to natural persons who are suspects or accused persons in criminal proceedings. It applies at all stages of the criminal proceedings, from the moment when a person is suspected or accused of having committed a criminal offence, or an alleged criminal offence, until the decision on the final determination of whether that person has committed the criminal offence concerned has become definitive.’

8 Article 3 of that directive, headed ‘Presumption of innocence’, provides: ‘Member States shall ensure that suspects and accused persons are presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.’

9 Article 4(1) of the same directive, that article being headed ‘Public references to guilt’, states: ‘Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that, for as long as a suspect or an accused person has not been proved guilty according to law, public statements made by public authorities, and judicial decisions, other than those on guilt, do not refer to that person as being guilty. This shall be without prejudice to acts of the prosecution which aim to prove the guilt of the suspect or accused person, and to preliminary decisions of a procedural nature, which are taken by judicial or other competent authorities and which are based on suspicion or incriminating evidence.’

10 Article 10 of Directive 2016/343, headed ‘Remedies’, provides: ‘1. Member States shall ensure that suspects and accused persons have an effective remedy if their rights under this Directive are breached. 2. Without prejudice to national rules and systems on the admissibility of evidence, Member States shall ensure that, in the assessment of statements made by suspects or accused persons or of evidence obtained in breach of the right to remain silent or the right not to incriminate oneself, the rights of the defence and the fairness of the proceedings are respected.’

Bulgarian law

11 Under the heading ‘Pre-trial detention’, Article 63(1) of the Nakazatelno protsesualen kodeks (Criminal Procedure Code; ‘the NPK’) provides: ‘A measure for “pre-trial detention” is to be applied where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the accused person has committed a criminal offence ...’

12 Article 64(4) of the NPK, concerning the adoption of the coercive measure of ‘pre-trial detention’ during the pre-trial phase, provides: ‘The court shall adopt the coercive measure of “pre-trial detention” where the conditions set out in Article 63(1) are satisfied ...’

13 Article 65(1) and (4) of the NPK provides, that, at any time during the pre-trial procedure, the accused person on whom a coercive measure of ‘pre-trial detention’ has been imposed may request re-examination of that measure. The court is then to review whether all the grounds which justified the adoption of that measure — including the reasonable grounds to suspect that the accused committed the offence at issue — continue to exist.

The main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling

14 In the course of an investigation of a robbery with violence, committed in 2008, of a shop in Sofia (Bulgaria), Mr Milev was suspected of being one of the perpetrators. He was not, however, charged.

15 On 31 July 2009 that investigation was suspended, since no suspects had been identified.

16 The referring court states that two other criminal cases are pending against Mr Milev.

17 The referring court states that, in the first of those cases, which concerns a bank robbery with violence, a Bulgarian court refused to place Mr Milev in pre-trial detention (remand him in custody), on the ground that the statements of the main prosecution witness, Mr BP, were not credible. A judicial decision as to the substance of that case has yet to be made.

18 In the second case, which concerns the control of a criminal organisation set up to commit robberies with violence, in the context of which Mr BP is again the main prosecution witness, the referring court states that Mr Milev was detained from 24 November 2013 to 9 January 2018, when he was acquitted of all charges against him on the ground that the statements of Mr BP were not deemed credible by the Bulgarian court. Mr Milev was not, however, released.

19 On 11 January 2018 the case concerning the robbery with violence...