therefore very fact-specific and depending on what evidence there happens to be in the file before the ECtHR. The ‘adequacy’ standard and the requirements of ‘exercising control when put on notice’ are therefore not particularly clear standards. It is hoped the Directive, interpreted by the CJEU, may offer some clearer guidance. C. RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE DIRECTIVE 1. The right to interpretation (of sufficient quality) Within the main provision relating to the right to interpretation, the relevant parts are Article 2(1), and, in particular, (8) of the Directive, specifying: ‘1. Member States shall ensure that suspected or accused persons who do not speak or understand the language of the criminal proceedings concerned are provided, without delay, with interpretation during criminal proceedings before investigative and judicial authorities, including during police questioning, all court hearings and any necessary interim hearings. (...) 8. Interpretation provided under this Article shall be of a quality sufficient to safeguard the fairness of the proceedings, in particular by ensuring that suspected or accused persons have knowledge of the case against them and are able to exercise their right of defence.’ The points we would make about these are:  There is a clear parallel between the quality requirement in Article 2(8) and the ECtHR’s consistent requirement, discussed above, that interpretation should be ‘such as to enable the defendant to have knowledge of the case against him and to defend himself’.  The quality requirement in Article 2(8) applies to all interpretation applicable under that article, and in accordance with Article 2(1) there is just one right, applicable from the outset until the conclusion of the criminal proceedings. Thus, the quality standard applies in the same manner at the police station and at the court. 2. Provisions relating to quality control a. Case-specific response to quality issues The Directive also contains a number of provisions apparently pointing towards concrete mechanisms for controlling compliance with this standard. In particular, the Directive provides in Article 2(5) provides for the possibility of the individual complaining about quality: ‘5. Member States shall ensure that, in accordance with procedures in national law, suspected or accused persons have the right to challenge a decision finding that there is no need for interpretation and, when interpretation has been provided, the possibility to complain that the quality of the interpretation is not sufficient to safeguard the fairness of the proceedings.’ 22