The implementation of the Right to Information Directive brought along positive changes for the access to case files in the investigation phase of the criminal procedure. This was enhanced by the New CCP, according to which the defence is, by default, entitled to access all the case materials. Access must be provided at a time and in a manner that enables the defence to prepare, but in any case, at least an hour before the pre-trial detention hearing starts.112 The performance of appointed defence counsels needs to be monitored, along with the practical implementation and execution of the appointment process itself. The most prominent aim of the reform was to ensure that defendants receive more effective defence and substantive assistance from their lawyers during the procedure. With the New CCP, selecting the appointed defence counsels became a task of the bar associations, so the task of supervising and improving the system falls primarily on them. However, the reform was introduced by the legislation, hence the task of examining the implementation also falls upon the Ministry of Justice, but the cooperation with other criminal justice actors (such as courts, prosecution and police) in the supervision of the new system is necessary. Appointment system: • The new system for the appointment of defence lawyers should be monitored and improved to assess the performance of lawyers, including case file review and interviews (with defendants, lawyers and other criminal justice actors). • Training and experience sharing should be strengthened to increase criminal justice actors’ application of international standards. Improving their knowledge and approach in pre-trial criminal procedure is required to ensure that the procedure complies with the spirit of the domestic law and with the international standards. Awareness-raising: • Criminal justice actors are not sufficiently aware of the aim of pre-trial detention and of gaps in practice when compared to the international standards. • Lawyers require training about seeking remedies in the European regional courts. Recommendations In the meetings of the national working group113 and at subsequent roundtable events,110 the following recommendations to the challenges identified above were elaborated upon: Assessment of implementation: • As the legal framework has changed recently and practical experience with its application and implementation is lacking, it is important to focus on developing improved practices that are compliant with the standards of the EU and the ECtHR. The national and regional bar associations play a prominent role in institutionalised discussions in which members of different legal professions assess the practice and submit recommendations to the legislator, providing feedback on their practical experiences with the new legal framework. Their members will carry out advocacy activities. 112 In detail, see: András Kristóf Kádár – Nóra Novoszádek – Dóra Szegő: Inside Police Custody 2 – Country report for Hungary. Hungarian Helsinki Committee, December 2018, https://www.helsinki.hu/wp-content/uploads/IPC_Country_Report_Hungary_Eng_fin.pdf, pp. 59–71. 113 The national working group was comprised primarily of defence lawyers, public prosecutors and NGO representatives. They were provided with the research report and the first draft of the action plan. Subsequently, at a meeting held on 11 July 2018, the experts involved in the national working group discussed and commented on the two documents. The action plan was revised on the basis of their recommendations. 114 Roundtable events were held on 28 November 2018, 30 January and 6 May 2019. 38