PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE SPIELMANN

1. I am unable to subscribe to point 2 of the operative part and to the finding of the majority that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention on account of the issue of legal assistance.

2. The applicant was convicted on the basis of the admission he made to the police without the benefit of legal advice.

3. In Salduz v. Turkey the Court held that as a rule, access to a lawyer should be provided as from the first interrogation of a suspect by the police (see Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no. 36391/02, § 55 , ECHR 2008 -...). The Court also held that the lack of legal assistance during a suspect ' s interrogation would constitute a restriction of his defence rights and that these rights would in principle be irretrievably prejudiced when incriminating statements, made during police interrogation without access to a lawyer, were used for a conviction. The Court took a similar approach in the equally important judgment in Panovits ( Panovits v. Cyprus , no. 4268/04, §§ 66 and 70-73 , 11 December 2008 ).

4 . In the present case the applicant was not initially informed of any suspicion or accusation against him. Admittedly, the applicant was not formally arrested or interrogated in police custody. However, the interview on 21 February 2001 took place in circumstances that can in no way be compared to those normally observed during routine road checks.

5 . Quite the contrary. It transpires from the file and from the jud g ment 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 immediat e ly 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 activat e a requirement for legal assistance.

7. Nothing should have prevented the police officers from appris ing the applicant immediately ( that is, on 21 February and not on 2 March 2001) of his right to legal assistance and ask ing 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).