3. The right of access to a lawyer shall entail the following: (a) Member States shall ensure that suspects or accused persons have the right to meet in private and communicate with the lawyer representing them, including prior to questioning by the police or by another law enforcement or judicial authority; (b) Member States shall ensure that suspects or accused persons have the right for their lawyer to be present and participate effectively when questioned (…) (…) There is more to say about each of these specific provisions and the content of the obligations they impose but it is clear that the Directive is imposing a requirement for access to a lawyer prior to and during police questioning – effectively, ‘access to a lawyer as from the first interrogation by police’ as required under the Salduz principle mentioned above. Accordingly, the failure to provide access to a lawyer at that stage will be a violation of Article 3. In that case, Article 12 applies: 1. Member States shall ensure that suspects or accused persons in criminal proceedings, as well as requested persons in European arrest warrant proceedings, have an effective remedy under national law in the event of a breach of the rights under this Directive. 2. Without prejudice to national rules and systems on the admissibility of evidence, Member States shall ensure that, in criminal proceedings, in the assessment of statements made by suspects or accused persons or of evidence obtained in breach of their right to a lawyer (…), the rights of the defence and the fairness of the proceedings are respected. The rule in Article 12(1) is a standard expression of general EU law. It is incumbent upon EU Member States to ensure an effective remedy for infringement of rights protected by EU law, as reflected in Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. However, the concept of remedies is a broad one, and might typically include compensatory remedies before the civil courts. Article 12(2) provides a little more detail as to what is required in criminal proceedings specifically. It refers to the assessment of statements made or of evidence obtained in breach of the right to a lawyer, pointing clearly to a specific remedy in the criminal proceedings which ensures such evidence is the focus of the remedy. As we will set out below, this is the ‘hook’ or mechanism by which to enforce the Directive when it is not complied with at the earlier stage. D. USING THE DIRECTIVE IN PRACTICE 1. Assumption: direct effect of Article 3 and Article 12 It is possible that violation of the Directive will happen because national law prescribes this. Suppose, for instance, that national law grants a suspect the right to consult with a lawyer, but excludes the lawyer from the questioning itself (as was the situation in the Netherlands until March 2016). In that situation, you will not be able to establish a violation of national law so as to claim any sanctions available under national law. So, in order to enforce your right, you need to rely directly on 13