the Directive, relying on its ‘direct effect’ as a measure of EU law. Article 3 imposes requirements which, in our opinion, are sufficiently clear and precise to have direct effect. They are obviously intended to create enforceable rights for individuals. Article 12, likewise, should be assumed to have direct effect as it is an expression of the general right to an effective remedy protected by Article 47 of the Charter, which is directly applicable. See the Using EU Law Toolkit for more on direct effect of directives. In any case, the Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (right to a fair trial and rights of the defence) are directly applicable and there is no doubt you can invoke that.  Take as your starting point that the relevant provision of Article 3 of the Directive (eg. entitlement to a private conversation with the lawyer) has direct effect. If need be, contact Fair Trials for further assistance.  Take as your starting point that Article 12 has direct effect. It can be invoked together with Article 47 of the Charter as a basis for claiming a remedy for the violation of Article 3 of the Directive. 2. The core device: Article 3 violation – Article 12 remedy Below we will consider different possible kinds of violations of the right of access to a lawyer (eg. outright absence of a lawyer; restriction of possibilities to consult effectively; restrictions on the lawyer’s participation in questioning). But in order to challenge these sorts of violations we need to consider the key tool you can use where you believe a violation is taking place. In the case of a violation of the right of access to a lawyer protected by Article 3 of the Directive, Article 12 requires a remedy. Accordingly, in order to use the Directive, you need to (a) establish that the violation has taken place; and (b) seek a remedy before the trial court (or another forum). a. Establishing a violation of Article 3 There are manifold ways in which a violation of Article 3 might occur. National law may provide for access to a lawyer but this may not have been followed in the case. National law may not provide access to a lawyer in a certain context. National law may define the lawyer’s intervention in a way which you see as narrower than the content of the right in the Directive. We will consider these below in their own sections but the point is that, whatever the violation at issue, you need to establish that it has taken place, and ideally establish it as early as possible as an issue under the Directive. Members of the collective Asociacion Libre de Abogados in Spain, for instance, made a point of referring explicitly to the Directive when attending police questioning and disputing the limits Spanish police sought to impose upon them.23 We would suggest:  Establish how you say the Directive has been infringed.  Identify the issue in terms of the Directive (eg. refusal to provide access to a lawyer in a customs interview because the procedure there does not foresee it).  If you are present at the time of the questioning (eg. you are not able to consult privately with the client before questioning), you should ensure this is identified as an issue in terms of the Directive at the point at which it arises. Take the 23 The police, somewhat surprisingly, complained to the Madrid Bar Assocation about this, which dismissed the complaint without further action: see http://web.icam.es/bucket/ACUERDO%20I_P_%20277-14%281%29.pdf. 14