Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 18.02.2010 «Дело Александр Зайченко (Aleksandr Zaichenko) против России» [англ.]

ly observed during routine road checks.
5. Quite the contrary. It transpires from the file and from the judgment that the checks were carried out on the initiative of the company's director (see paragraph 7 of the judgment). During the inspection two cans of diesel were seized from the car and the police immediately organised a full-scale interview on the spot, leading to the drawing up of a written inspection record in which it was stated that the applicant had taken the diesel from his employer's premises. The applicant had also been asked to sign this record, immediately, on the spot (see paragraph 10). It was only shortly thereafter that the applicant was apprised of the privilege against self-incrimination and that he then added that he had taken the diesel for "personal use" (see paragraph 11). The relevant steps, namely the drawing up of the inspection record and the taking of the applicant's explanation, were carried out as part of a direct sequence of events (see paragraph 47).
6. Contrary to what is said in paragraph 48 of the judgment, I cannot agree that the circumstances of the case disclose no significant curtailment of the applicant's freedom of action. I am of the opinion that those circumstances were sufficient to activate a requirement for legal assistance.
7. Nothing should have prevented the police officers from apprising the applicant immediately (that is, on 21 February and not on 2 March 2001) of his right to legal assistance and asking him to accompany them to the police station, where the interview could have been conducted in conditions complying with the requirements of Article 6 § 3 (c).

> 1 2 3 ... 11 12 13