application of the Pupino principle.38 Fair Trials, working with members of the LEAP network, has itself made submissions to courts in the Czech Republic39 and Belgium40 detailing decisions from France, Germany, Ireland and the United Kingdom. With the Directives, there is at least some possibility that decisions from some other courts may become relevant. We have already seen that members of the LEAP network are able to rely upon decisions emanating from comparable jurisdictions (e.g. using French and Belgian decisions in Luxembourg). We certainly believe that there is some value in informing courts of the approach taken by their peers elsewhere when faced with similar issues arising under the Directives. This is the first time that there has been binding legislation on defence rights, so this is a fairly untested subject. We encourage you to use Fair Trials as forum for exchanging decisions: let us know if you receive decisions, so that we can share them with others like you looking for inspiration elsewhere. You may also find it helpful to put comparative law information in the hands of the courts. For instance, Fair Trials has gathered a significant amount of information from LEAP on the substantive rules and modalities relating to access to case materials, which it has compiled in a report41 and a submission to a Swedish court.42 These matters may help show courts that there are different approaches, create doubt as to the requirements of the relevant directive, and motivate them to refer important questions to the CJEU. F. CJEU REFERENCES When issues of interpretation of the Directives arise, it is not for criminal courts alone to resolve them. The interpretation of the Directives, Charter and other relevant principles, will be for the CJEU to resolve, via preliminary rulings on questions referred by courts in the Member States in accordance with Article 267 TFEU. You should be familiarise yourself with other materials made available by Fair Trials and, when you think it appropriate, be ready to request a reference. So:  Consult Fair Trials’ Guide to the CJEU.43  Consult Fair Trials’ online training module on the CJEU.44  Establish whether provision is made in the procedural code for a reference to be made by the criminal court to the CJEU At various points in this Toolkit, we will suggest that it might be necessary to seek a reference to the CJEU to clarify the exactly meaning of the Directives. The above materials provide some basic answers as to the challenges to obtaining a reference and some tactics / arguments you can use in response. For present purposes, we would underline some points to bear in mind. 38 Cited above note 14. Available here. 40 Available here. 41 LEAP, Survey report: Access to the Case File, available at http://www.fairtrials.org/wpcontent/uploads/Access-to-file-report.pdf 42 See ‘Fair Trials intervenes over access to the case file’, http://www.fairtrials.org/press/fair-trials-intervenesover-access-to-case-file/ (the submission is available at the bottom of the page). 43 Available at: http://www.fairtrials.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/CJEU-Guide-final1.pdf. 44 Available at: http://www.fairtrials.org/fair-trials-defenders/legal-training/online-training/. 39 20