Access to a Lawyer Directive (e.g. preventing the lawyer from participating) would be to take a positive action such as to compromise the fairness of the proceedings, contrary to the objective of the Access to a Lawyer Directive. Arguments based on the Mangold doctrine  The right of access to a lawyer is an aspect of the right to a fair trial commonly recognised by all the constitutions of the Member State, and may be considered a general principle of EU law. This is confirmed by the Charter, of which Articles 47 and 48 protect the right to a fair trial and defence rights. The fact that the Access to a Lawyer Directive confers a specific set of rights for enforcing the latter does not detract from the existence of the norm of primary law itself.  The Charter right / general principle are already within the scope of EU law by virtue of the Access to a Lawyer Directive, and although specific measures have not been taken yet to implement the latter, the Charter / general principle can nevertheless be relied upon by the individual, and conflicting national legislation set aside (indeed, if it conflicts it will have to be changed in the implementation process anyway). CJEU reference?  Seek a reference to the CJEU asking about the effects of the Wallonie and Mangold case-law in the context of criminal cases, in particular as to the extent to which a ‘result’ contrary to the Access to a Lawyer Directive should be understood as including a conviction and application of penalties based on actions incompatible with that directive, even though these are taken on the basis of measures applicable prior to the adoption of legislation implementing the latter. Arguments based on ECHR effects  Depending on the status of the ECHR in your jurisdiction, you may wish to argue that national laws are inconsistent with the ECHR. The Access to a Lawyer Directive simply clarifies, articulates and makes subject to EU law enforcement mechanisms obligations which exist anyway in the ECHR, and those obligations can therefore be invoked as ECHR norms in the manner foreseen by the national constitutional arrangements. For instance, if the national law does not permit lawyers to intervene in questioning, you can say that – as clarified by the Directive – the ECHR standards clearly include a right of participation of the lawyer so the courts should attach consequences to the inconsistency with the ECHR in accordance with the applicable constitutional arrangements. E. USING JUDICIAL DECISIONS / LEGAL INFORMATION FROM OTHER COUNTRIES In proceedings relating to the European Arrest Warrant, it is frequently useful for people to invoke decisions given by courts in other countries. And indeed, there is a limited amount of judicial dialogue between the jurisdictions. Thus, the Ramoci decision of the Italian Court of Cassation,37 for instance, is cited in many jurisdictions as an example of teleological interpretation of national law in 37 Sezioni unite 30.01.2007. 19