  Of course, Article 7(4) recognises the possibility of limiting such access where this ‘could prejudice an ongoing investigation’.63 However, a decision invoking this provision has to be taken by a judge or subject to judicial review. This, combined with Article 8(2) of the Directive, creates a legal basis for judicial oversight of access to the case file at the pre-trial stage, which does not exist independently in the ECtHR case-law. The court having jurisdiction over the pre-trial phase, or over the prosecutor in charge of the pre-trial phase, should be seised on this basis. This provides a forum within which a decision should be taken about access to the case file in accordance with the Directive. You can make arguments based on the notion of the ‘exercise of defence rights’. In particular, you may wish to refer to the ‘whole range of services’ associated with legal assistance as recognised by the ECtHR, including ‘discussion of the case’ and ‘collection of evidence favourable to the accused’. These are things which the defence has an interest in doing in the pre-trial phase, which may be difficult without access to the case file. On that basis we would offer the following advice:  Make an application to the court having jurisdiction over the pre-trial phase (e.g. investigating judge, court having jurisdiction over the prosecution) seeking access to the file or challenging a refusal to provide access to the case file.  Argue: Article 7(2) provides you with a right of access to all material evidence, in principle. In accordance with Article 7(3) this has to be provided in due time to exercise defence rights. The exercise of defence rights includes responding to steps taken by investigative authorities at the pre-trial stage, including by supplying exculpatory evidence, adapting the defence strategy or even seeking the dismissal of the case if this is available under national law.  The right of access to the case file can be restricted on grounds provided for by Article 7(4), in particular relating to the needs of an ongoing investigation. However, there must be a genuine need of the investigation justifying the nondisclosure of information and the restriction on access to the case file must kept to the minimum necessary to meet that need.  This implies a requirement upon the authority to justify the refusal of access by reference to concrete and substantiated elements justifying the application of this restriction such as to enable effective judicial review, or, if the authority is a judge, for it to motivate its decision by reference to such matters.  Powers available under national law for prosecutors / the court to restrict access to the case file on certain grounds linked to the needs of the investigation (e.g. Article 302 of the Spanish code, Article 34 of the Estonian code, Article 156 of the Polish code) must be interpreted in light of this obligation.  Identify and enumerate in the request, to the extent that it is possible to do so, the possible documents or materials which may be of interest. Explain how the non-provision of these documents undermines the exercise of rights of defence, e.g. challenging the lawfulness of investigative steps.  Point out to the judge / the court when challenging a prosecutor’s decision, that it is able to make a reference to the CJEU concerning the requirements of Article 7 of the Directive. See the ‘Using EU Law’ Toolkit for more information on the process. 63 This exception is to be read restrictively: see Recital 32 of the Right to Information Directive. 41