  ii. restoring the fairness of the proceedings and reversing the harm done by the collection of evidence in breach of the right of access to a lawyer. Accordingly, the relevant act should be declared null, or the evidence obtained as a result of the breach excluded if these remedies are available under national law. If there is no such remedy (eg. in Sweden), Article 47 requires the court to take no account of evidence obtained in breach and avoid its decision being based upon it directly or indirectly. The court is under a duty to do everything that lies within its jurisdiction to ensure the useful effect of EU law. However it achieves it, the end result must be that the evidence is not taken into consideration for a conviction. The fruit of the poisoned tree In order to ensure the full effect of the Directive, should national remedies also extend to the ‘fruit of the poisoned tree’? By that term we understand the doctrine according to which evidence obtained by virtue of a previous infringement (eg. physical evidence obtained after a confession made following a breach of the right of access to a lawyer) should be treated as if it were itself obtained in violation of defence rights. This is one of the questions that will be examined by LEAP’s Judicial Remedies Working Group led by LEAP member Vania Costa Ramos, to begin its deliberations in 2016, which will be reported on in due course. For now, our assumption is that the fruit of the poisoned tree doctrine applies: the Directive would be deprived of effect without it. So:  Argue:  The Directive would be deprived of useful effect if the fruit of the poisoned tree (that is, evidence obtained as a result of violations of Article 3) were not treated in the same manner as the contaminated evidence itself. Nullity and exclusionary rules should operate to remove this evidence from consideration too. 3. Some specific areas to explore The above is an outline sketch of how the Directive can be used when the application of national law does not yield the desired result. From that starting point, you can use the Directive in different situations that may arise in your cases. There are many situations in which you might wish to invoke the Directive. We cannot cover them all here. However, to give you some ideas, we provide some examples below of particularly interesting areas where you could explore using the Directive. a. Effective participation in questioning Following Salduz, further cases were brought which enabled the ECtHR to establish what was meant by the requirement for access to a lawyer ‘as from the first interrogation by police’. One of those is a line of case-law including Navone and Others v. Monaco,24 in which the ECtHR specified that this means assistance during questioning: The Court underlines that it has several times specified that assistance by a lawyer during police custody should be understood, in the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention, as assistance “during questioning”, and this as from the first questioning [our translation]. 24 Navone and Others v. Monaco Apps. Nos 62880/11 and others (Judgment of 24 October 2013). 16