1) This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 8(2) of Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings (OJ 2012 L 142, p. 1); Article 12 of Directive 2013/48/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 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 (OJ 2013 L 294, p. 1); Article 3 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 the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings (OJ 2016 L 65, p. 1); and Article 6, Article 21(1) and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’).

...

28) The referring court has doubts as to whether the national provisions governing the compulsory admission of mentally ill persons to a medical facility are in conformity with the rights guaranteed by Directives 2012/13, 2013/48 and 2016/343 and by the Charter. Those doubts principally concern Article 427 et seq. of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the special criminal procedure they establish, which may result in the committal to a psychiatric hospital of a person representing a danger to society. Those doubts also relate to the provisions of the Health Law, in that the procedure provided for therein also allows for the compulsory committal of a person, as a preventive measure, where there are grounds to believe that, in view of his state of health, he is likely to commit a criminal offence.

...

30) Furthermore, the referring court considers that, in relation to the procedure for the adoption of compulsory medical measures under Article 427 et seq. of the Code of Criminal Procedure, national law does not enable a court to verify whether, during the initial investigation, the person considered to be the perpetrator of the acts was granted the minimum procedural guarantees for the exercise of his rights of defence. In the present case, EP has alleged an infringement of his rights to be informed of the charge brought against him, to remain silent and to have access to a lawyer. The referring court seeks clarification, inter alia, on whether such legislation is compatible with Article 47 and Article 48(2) of the Charter.

...

32) It is in those circumstances that the Rayonen sad Lukovit (District Court, Lukovit) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling:

‘(1) Do the present proceedings for an order for the adoption of compulsory medical measures, constituting a form of State compulsion in relation to persons who, according to the findings of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, have committed an act representing a danger to society, fall within the scope of Directive [2012/13] and Directive [2013/48]?

(2) Do the Bulgarian procedural provisions governing the special procedure for an order for the adoption of compulsory medical measures provided for in Article 427 et seq. of the Code of Criminal Procedure, under which a court is not empowered to refer the proceedings back to the Public Prosecutor’s Office with the instruction to rectify the procedural errors committed in the course of the pre-trial procedure, but can either grant the application for an order for the adoption of compulsory medical measures or reject it, constitute an effective remedy, within the meaning of Article 12 of Directive 2013/48 and Article 8 of Directive 2012/13 read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter, which confers on the person concerned the right to challenge before a court any infringements of their rights which may have been committed in the course of the pre-trial procedure?

(3) Are Directive 2012/13 and Directive 2013/48 applicable to (pre-trial) criminal proceedings in the case where the national law, that is to say the Code of Criminal Procedure, does not recognise the legal concept of “suspect” and the Public Prosecutor’s Office does not formally regard the person in question as a defendant during the pre-trial procedure, since, on the assumption that the homicide forming the subject of the investigations was committed by that person in a state of mental disorder such as to exclude criminal responsibility, it closes criminal proceedings without informing the person concerned and applies to the court for an order for the adoption of compulsory medical measures against that person?

(4) Is a person in relation to whom compulsory medical treatment has been applied for to be regarded as being “suspected” within the meaning of Article 2(1) of Directive 2012/13 and Article 2(3) of Directive 2013/48 in the case where, in the course of the first inspection of the crime scene and the initial investigative measures at the home of the victim and her son, a police officer, after identifying traces of blood on the son’s body, questioned him about his reasons for killing his mother and taking her body out into the street and, after the son had answered those questions, handcuffed him? If so, must the person in question be provided with information pursuant to Article 3(1) in conjunction with (2) of Directive 2012/13 even at that stage, and how are the particular needs of that person to be taken into account, pursuant to paragraph 2, when information is provided to him in such circumstances, that is to say where the police officer was aware that the person in question suffered from a psychiatric disorder?

(5) Are national rules such as those at issue, which effectively allow a person to be deprived of his liberty by being committed to a psychiatric hospital under a procedure provided for in the Health Law (a precautionary compulsory measure ordered where there is evidence that the person concerned suffers from a mental illness and is at risk of committing a criminal offence, but not where an offence has already been committed), compatible with Article 3 of Directive 2016/343 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence, in the case where the real reason for initiating the procedure is the offence on account of which criminal proceedings have been brought against the person committed for treatment, and does this circumvent the right, on arrest, to a fair trial which must satisfy the conditions laid down in Article 5(4) of the [ECHR], that is to say a trial in which the court is empowered to review not only compliance with the rules of procedure but also the suspicion justifying the arrest and the lawfulness of the objective pursued by that measure, the court being obliged to carry out such a review in the case where the person in question was arrested under the procedure laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure?

(6) Does the concept of the presumption of innocence in Article 3 of Directive 2016/343 also include the presumption that persons lacking criminal responsibility by reason of mental disorder did not commit the offence representing a danger to society of which they are accused by the Public Prosecutor’s Office, until such time as proof to the contrary is established in accordance with the rules of procedure (in criminal proceedings, with due regard for the rights of the defence)?

(7) Do national rules which confer on the adjudicating court different powers in relation to the examination as to the lawfulness of the pre-trial procedure which it must carry out ex officio, depending on whether:

(a) the court examines an indictment from the Public Prosecutor’s Office in which the latter maintains that a particular person of unsound mind has committed homicide (Article 249(1) in conjunction with (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure), or

(b) the court examines an application from the Public Prosecutor’s Office in which the latter maintains that the person concerned has committed homicide but that act does not constitute a criminal offence because the perpetrator suffers from a psychiatric disorder, and by which it seeks a court order for the imposition by the State of compulsory treatment,

afford vulnerable persons an effective remedy as stipulated in Article 13 in conjunction with Article 12 of Directive 2013/48 and Article 8(2) in conjunction with Article 3(2) of Directive 2012/13, and are the various powers available to the court depending on the nature of the procedure, the latter being itself dictated by whether the mental health of the person identified as the perpetrator is such as to render him criminally responsible, compatible with the principle of non-discrimination laid down in Article 21(1) of the Charter?’

...

37) Furthermore, it is clear from the recitals of those directives that they are based to that end on the rights set out in, inter alia, in Articles 6, 47 and 48 of the Charter and seek to promote those rights with regard to suspects or accused persons in criminal proceedings.

...

42) Since Article 6 of the Charter, concerning the right to liberty and security, guarantees rights corresponding to those guaranteed by Article 5 ECHR, which concerns the same right, Article 52(3) of the Charter requires that Article 6 be given the same meaning and scope as that given to Article 5 ECHR, as interpreted by the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. Account must therefore be taken of Article 5(1) ECHR for the purpose of interpreting Article 6 of the Charter (see, to that effect, judgment of 12 February 2019, TC, C‑492/18 PPU, EU:C:2019:108, paragraph 57).

...

45) It follows that measures involving a deprivation of liberty, such as the psychiatric or medical care measures at issue in the main proceedings, are covered by Article 5 ECHR and, consequently, by Article 6 of the Charter.

46) Accordingly, in the light of the right to liberty and security guaranteed by Article 6 of the Charter, Directives 2012/13 and 2013/48 cannot be interpreted as excluding from their scope judicial proceedings in which an order may be made for the committal to a psychiatric hospital of a person who, at the conclusion of earlier criminal proceedings, was found to be the perpetrator of acts constituting a criminal offence.

...

55) By its second and seventh questions, which it is appropriate to examine together, the referring court asks, in essence, whether the right to an effective remedy guaranteed by Article 47 of the Charter, and by Article 8(2) of Directive 2012/13 and Article 12 of Directive 2013/48, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for a procedure authorising, on therapeutic and safety grounds, the committal to a psychiatric hospital of persons who, in a state of insanity, have committed acts representing a danger to society, on the ground that that legislation does not enable the court with jurisdiction to verify that the procedural rights covered by those directives were respected in proceedings prior to those before the court, which were not subject to such judicial review.

...

57) Having regard to the importance of the right to an effective remedy, protected by Article 47 of the Charter, and to the clear, unconditional and precise wording of Article 8(2) of Directive 2012/13, the latter provision precludes any national measure which impedes the exercise of effective remedies in the event of a breach of the rights protected by that directive.

...

63) It follows that Article 47 of the Charter, Article 8(2) of Directive 2012/13 and Article 12 of Directive 2013/48 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for judicial proceedings authorising, on therapeutic and safety grounds, the committal to a psychiatric hospital of persons who, in a state of insanity, have committed acts representing a danger to society, in so far as that legislation does not enable the court with jurisdiction to verify that the procedural rights covered by those directives were respected in proceedings prior to those before the court, which were not subject to such judicial review.

...

64) By its fifth question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether the protection of the right to liberty and security, referred to in Article 6 of the Charter, first, and the right to be presumed innocent, as set out in Article 3 of Directive 2016/343, second, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that set out in Article 155 et seq. of the Health Law, at issue in the main proceedings, which authorises the committal to a psychiatric hospital of a person on the ground that there is a risk that, in view of his state of health, he represents a danger to himself or others, in so far as that legislation does not enable the court hearing such an application for committal to verify that that person has been afforded procedural safeguards in parallel criminal proceedings to which he is subject.

...

67) Moreover, there is nothing in the file submitted to the Court to suggest that a procedure for compulsory committal to a psychiatric hospital for therapeutic purposes, such as that established by the Health Law, constitutes an application of EU law and that, in accordance with Article 51(1) of the Charter, the fundamental rights guaranteed by that article must be respected by the Member State in question when such a procedure is implemented.

68) The answer to the fifth question is therefore that Directive 2016/343 and Article 51(1) of the Charter must be interpreted as meaning that neither that directive nor that provision of the Charter apply to judicial proceedings for the committal to a psychiatric hospital for therapeutic purposes, such as those provided for in Article 155 et seq. of the Health Law, at issue in the main proceedings, on the ground that there is a risk that, in view of his state of health, the person concerned represents a danger to himself or others.

...

76) Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable.

On those grounds, the Court (Third Chamber) hereby rules:

1. Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings, and Directive 2013/48/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 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, must be interpreted as applying to judicial proceedings, such as those provided for by the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings, which authorise, on therapeutic and safety grounds, the committal to a psychiatric hospital of persons who, in a state of insanity, have committed acts representing a danger to society. Directive 2012/13 must be interpreted as meaning that persons suspected of having committed a criminal offence must be informed as soon as possible of their rights from the moment when they are subject to suspicions which justify, in circumstances other than an emergency, the restriction of their liberty by the competent authorities by means of coercive measures and, at the latest, before they are first officially questioned by the police.
2. Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 8(2) of Directive 2012/13 and Article 12 of Directive 2013/48 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for judicial proceedings authorising, on therapeutic and safety grounds, the committal to a psychiatric hospital of persons who, in a state of insanity, have committed acts representing a danger to society, where that legislation does not enable the court with jurisdiction to verify that the procedural rights covered by those directives were respected in proceedings prior to those before that court, which were not subject to such judicial review.
3. 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, and Article 51(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights must be interpreted as meaning that neither that directive nor that provision of the Charter of Fundamental Rights applies to judicial proceedings for the committal to a psychiatric hospital for therapeutic purposes, such as those provided for in Article 155 et seq. of the Zakon za zdraveto (Health Law), at issue in the main proceedings, on the ground that there is a risk that, in view of his state of health, the person concerned represents a danger to himself or others.
4. The principle of the presumption of innocence referred to in Article 3 of Directive 2016/343 must be interpreted as requiring, in judicial proceedings for the committal to a psychiatric hospital, on therapeutic and safety grounds, of persons who, in a state of insanity, have committed acts representing a danger to society, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, that the Public Prosecutor’s Office provides proof that the person whose committal is sought is the perpetrator of acts deemed to constitute such a danger.