Upon initial arrest  No violation as the arrest warrant leading to arrest clearly stipulated the criminal charges laid against the applicant;36  Violation due to questioning at a roadside stop without the person, who was effectively under suspicion, being notified of the accusation against him;37 and  No violation as the applicant had been given a copy of an intelligence report detailing the actions she was alleged to have committed.38 At trial  Violation arising from the failure of the prosecutor to appear at trial and specify the allegations prior to the applicant’s conviction.39 There is, in addition, a further set of principles relating to the reclassification of offences at different stages of proceedings. Such reclassifications are permissible provided that the suspect is afforded an opportunity to prepare a defence: If the courts hearing the merits of the case have (…) the possibility to reclassify facts of which they are validly seised, they must ensure that accused persons have had the opportunity to exercise their rights of defence on that point in a concrete and effective manner. This implies that they should be informed, in timely manner, not only of the cause of the accusation, that is to say the material facts which are put forward against them and on which the accusation is based, but also, in a detailed manner, the legal classification given to those facts [our translation].40 The ECtHR has then made several findings applying these principles:   Violation due to a court of appeal, rehearing the case of the persons convicted for criminal bankruptcy, unpredictably convicting them of aiding and abetting that offence without giving them the opportunity to offer a defence.41 Violation arising from the decision of the Court of Cassation to reclassify the offence as a more serious one without warning or inviting debate on the reclassification, in circumstances where the applicant might have had arguments to make had this been predictable.42 As you will see from the above, the ECtHR case-law places an emphasis on ensuring the person is advised of the accusation against them in order to enable them to defend themselves. This is now protected in clear requirements in the Directive. 36 Case of Haxhia v. Albania, App. no. 29861/03 (Judgment of 8 October 2013), paragraph 131. Zaichenko v. Russia, cited above note 10, paragraphs 41-43. 38 Case of Niculescu v. Romania, App. no. 25333/03 (Judgment of 25 June 2013), paragraph 119. 39 Case of Malofeyeva v. Russia, App. no. 36673/04 (Judgment of 30 May 2013), paragraphs 113-120. 40 Case of Drassich v. Italy, Application no. 25575/04, (Judgment of 11 December 2007), paragraph 34 (French only). 41 Pélissier and Sassi v. France, cited above note 35, paragraphs 56-62. 42 Drassich v. Italy, cited above note 40, paragraphs 36, 41-43. 37 26