 approach of the Asociacion Libre de Abogados and ensure the relevant authority records your protestation based on the Directive. If you are not present at the relevant time (eg. the person was denied the right to call you at all), ensure at the first opportunity that this is identified and recorded as an issue under the Directive. b. Seeking a remedy under Article 12 i. The evidence in question Article 12 is a broad provision which requires interpretation by the CJEU. For the time being, the working assumptions within LEAP are essentially as follows. First, the requirement for an effective remedy necessarily implies that the remedy be sought before a court. Though Article 12(1) does not refer specifically to a judicial remedy, Article 47 of the Charter requires an effective remedy before an impartial tribunal, and a simple prosecutorial challenge would not meet this requirement. It is true that there are areas in which the CJEU has seen non-judicial remedies as sufficient but in the context of the protection of fundamental rights, effective judicial protection is a general principle of the EU legal order and it simply cannot be asserted that such an issue could be resolved otherwise than by access to a court capable of delivering an effective remedy. In terms of the type of remedy the court must offer, Article 12(2) points clearly to the use of evidence obtained in breach of the right of access to a lawyer, showing that remedies must be applied in the context of ‘the assessment of statements’ made by the suspect or accused or of evidence obtained by the breach. The most typical context to which this refers is the decisionmaking as to the merits of the accusation (though see the comments in the Using EU Law Toolkit about pre-trial remedies). It seems relatively clear from the wording of Article 12(2) that the provision is pointing to systems of remedies which relate to the admission of evidence. Bear in mind the ECtHR’s view that the role of the lawyer is (in particular) to ensure respect for the suspect’s right not to incriminate himself. The prejudice in a breach of Article 3 of the Directive arises from the collection of evidence from the suspect without that protection. It follows that only a remedy which prevents that evidence being taken into consideration is ‘effective’ in the meaning of Article 47 of the Charter. If remedies in national law (eg. exclusion of evidence or nullity) achieve this, they will be effective. If they do not (eg. merely declaratory remedies or where the court is able to factor the evidence into its decision, notwithstanding the breach) they may not be and the court will have to use the Directive and Charter as a basis for removing the evidence from consideration. Again, these are all simply ideas emanating from the LEAP network, and you have to decide whether you agree. But we believe they are correct. On that basis only we suggest:  Claim a remedy in respect of the violation of the Directive.  Argue:  Article 12 requires an effective remedy for infringements of the rights protected by Article 3 of the Directive, an expression of the general obligation on Member States to provide effective judicial protection of EU law rights under Article 47 of the Charter. In order to be effective, such a remedy must have the effect of 15