EU Court rejects automatic lawyer-waiting deadlines: what the Hungary and Czech judgments mean for suspects

Two infringement judgments on October 22

In Cases C-660/24 and C-681/24 the Court of Justice held that Hungary and the Czech Republic had infringed EU law through general arrangements allowing questioning without a lawyer after specified waiting periods. The Court’s official account identifies two hours in Hungary and 48 hours in the Czech Republic; the latter arrangement also addressed an unreachable lawyer.

The Court upheld the Commission’s actions. It also addressed Hungary’s implementation of safeguards for waiving access to a lawyer. These are infringement judgments about national rules. They do not automatically determine the admissibility of every statement or the result of every individual criminal prosecution.

A clock is not the legal justification

Directive 2013/48/EU protects practical and effective access to legal assistance. The Court explains that temporary derogations must fit the grounds exhaustively set out in EU law. A general rule that time has elapsed cannot supply an additional ground of its own.

Our practical reading is that a custody record should capture more than the time a telephone call was made. It should identify requests for counsel, actual contact, arrival, opportunities for consultation and the reason relied upon for any questioning without assistance. Those facts allow a lawyer to assess which safeguard is engaged.

Presence and waiver need meaningful scrutiny

The Court states that access includes the lawyer’s presence and effective participation during questioning and, in principle, physical presence. A person’s signature on a form should be assessed in the context of the applicable waiver requirements, information supplied and actual circumstances. Mere absence of counsel does not explain whether a valid waiver occurred.

A foreign national may face additional practical barriers in understanding a process. Preserve requests for interpretation, the language of forms and any account of what was explained. The right to counsel and the ability to understand communications are related safeguards, but each needs its own legal analysis.

Implications for travellers and cross-border cases

A Georgian national detained while visiting an EU country should obtain advice in the jurisdiction handling the case. The judgment is relevant to the challenged rules and the EU framework; it should not be presented as an amendment to Georgian criminal procedure. Consular contact is also distinct from confidential defence representation.

If a statement has already been taken, a representative should review the procedure and available remedies under the relevant law. Do not assume either that every defect automatically ends the prosecution or that a fixed waiting period settles the legality. The judgment strengthens the need for a reasoned, individual assessment.

Evidence to preserve promptly

• The time and wording of requests for legal assistance.
• Attempts to contact counsel and any explanation of delay.
• Waiver documents and the language in which they were explained.
• The timing, participants and circumstances of each interview.

Legal check date

Sources and law checked on 23 October 2026. Later developments are not reflected automatically. Application of the rules depends on the individual facts.