‘provided that the reasons which led that authority to examine the merits of the application under such a procedure can in fact be subject to judicial review in the action which may be brought against the final decision rejecting the application.’24 In short, judicial review of preliminary procedural decisions, if it does not exist independently, is ensured in the context of judicial review of the final decision. This hints at the sort of answer you may be looking for here: if there is no specific ‘challenge’ available, you have to find judicial protection elsewhere, in particular by relying on the court seised of the criminal proceedings to ensure the effectiveness of the right to interpretation provided by the Directive, and to ‘safeguard the fairness of the proceedings’ as required by the Directive; in Fair Trials’ view, this includes being able to scrutinise the reasons for a decision not to provide interpretation and take appropriate remedial action if it was not in accordance with the Directive. To summarise:  There is no separate complaint mechanism: what to do?  Ensure a record is created at the time the decision is taken, including the basis for the decision finding there is no need for interpretation; if the detail is not recorded in the minutes / protocol of the proceedings;  Use this later on when making arguments to the courts, in the context of any pretrial hearings, discussions about the admissibility of evidence, or the discussion as to whether any regard can be had to or weight attached to the evidence in question.  Argue: the principle of effective judicial protection means that the court making a decision on criminal proceedings must be able to review the grounds on which the decision not to provide interpretation was based, and take remedial action in order to safeguard the fairness of the proceedings if the decision was not in accordance with the Directive (see, by analogy, the decision Samba Diouf). In substance, there is a presumption that interpretation is needed if requested (cf. the ECtHR’s decision in Brozicek v. Italy) and regard must be had to the specific suspect’s ability to speak and understand the language to the level required in light of the specifics of the case. The police decision not to provide interpretation did not demonstrate that the suspect could speak the language on this basis and was not, therefore, in accordance with the Directive. The court must, accordingly, ensure the effectiveness of the Directive by ensuring its own decision is not contaminated by this infringement of the Directive. It should use means at its disposal such as issuing an order to repeat pre-trial actions done in the absence of interpretation or pronounce their invalidity, refuse to rely on their results etc. 24 Case C-69/10 Samba Diouf ECLI:EU:C:2011:524, paragraph 56. 19