Quick answer
In Salduz v. Turkey (Grand Chamber, 27 November 2008, application no. 36391/02), the European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that denying a suspect access to a lawyer during police custody, and then using the statements he made to convict him, violated Article 6 § 3 (c) read with Article 6 § 1. The judgment established the “Salduz principle”: as a rule, access to a lawyer must be provided from the first interrogation of a suspect by the police.
Background and facts
The applicant, a minor at the time, was arrested on suspicion of having taken part in an unlawful demonstration. He was questioned by the police without access to a lawyer and made statements that were later used in evidence against him. Although he retracted those statements, alleging they had been extracted under duress, he was convicted, the domestic courts relying in part on what he had said in custody.
The complaint
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 3 (c) with Article 6 § 1 that he had been denied the assistance of a lawyer while in police custody, and separately under Article 6 § 1 about the non-communication of the public prosecutor’s written opinion at the Court of Cassation.
The Court’s reasoning
The Grand Chamber held that, in order for the right to a fair trial to remain sufficiently practical and effective, access to a lawyer should, as a rule, be provided from the first interrogation of a suspect by the police, unless it is demonstrated in the light of the particular circumstances that there are compelling reasons to restrict this right. Even where compelling reasons may exceptionally justify denying access, the restriction must not unduly prejudice the rights of the accused under Article 6.
The rights of the defence will in principle be irretrievably prejudiced where incriminating statements made during police interrogation without access to a lawyer are used for a conviction. Here, the applicant had been denied a lawyer without any compelling reason, and his statements had been used to convict him; the fact that he was a minor made the absence of a lawyer all the more serious. There had accordingly been a violation of Article 6, and a further violation on account of the non-communication of the prosecutor’s opinion.
The judgment
- unanimously, a violation of Article 6 § 3 (c) with Article 6 § 1 (no lawyer in police custody); and
- a further violation of Article 6 § 1 regarding the non-communication of the prosecutor’s opinion.
Legacy and subsequent case law
Salduz transformed the law on access to a lawyer across Europe and influenced European Union law, including the Directive on the right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings. The principle was later refined by the Grand Chamber in Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom and Beuze v. Belgium, which clarified when a restriction may be justified by compelling reasons and how overall trial fairness is assessed.
What this means for applicants
- You are entitled to a lawyer from the first police interrogation under Article 6, absent compelling reasons.
- Statements made without a lawyer that are used to convict will generally render a trial unfair.
- The protection is especially strong for vulnerable suspects, such as minors.
This page summarises a leading judgment and is not legal advice on any individual case.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did Salduz v. Turkey decide?
The Grand Chamber held that denying a suspect a lawyer during police custody and using his resulting statements to convict him violated Article 6, and that access to a lawyer should as a rule be available from the first police interrogation.
What is the “Salduz principle”?
It is the rule that access to a lawyer must be provided from the first interrogation of a suspect by the police, unless there are compelling reasons to restrict it, and even then without unduly prejudicing the defence.
Can access to a lawyer ever be delayed?
Only exceptionally, where there are compelling reasons; and even then the overall fairness of the trial must be preserved, as later clarified in Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom.
Convention Articles engaged
Cases against this state
Related ECHR cases
- Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden
- Del Río Prada v. Spain
- Kudła v. Poland
- Winterwerp v. the Netherlands
- Selmouni v. France
- Gäfgen v. Germany
Facing a similar case?
Our lawyers represent individuals before the European Court of Human Rights. Speak to an ECHR lawyer, learn how to apply to the ECHR, or check the admissibility criteria.