‘What is, however, clear to the Court is that the applicant’s lawyer had not been allowed to examine the investigation file at that point (…), which would seriously hamper her ability to provide any sort of meaningful legal advice to the applicant.’49 To date, this view has not been shared by senior courts. Decisions of constitutional instances in France and Belgium, where these points have been widely canvassed, have suggested that the initial questioning phase is an investigative one, and that the full panoply of equality of arms guarantees do not apply until the contested judicial phase. 2. Access to the case file to prepare for trial The ECtHR has given a number of judgments under Article 6(3)(b) in relation to complaints that the failure to provide access to the case file in a timely manner before trial has deprived the applicants of the ‘time and facilities to prepare a defence’. The ECtHR states: ‘[T]he “facilities” to be provided to everyone charged with an offence include the possibility of being informed, for the purposes of preparing his defence, of the result of the investigations carried out throughout the proceedings. The Court reiterates that it has already found that unrestricted access to the case file and unrestricted use of any notes, including, if necessary, the possibility of obtaining copies of relevant documents, are important guarantees of a fair trial. The failure to afford such access has weighed, in the Court’s assessment, in favour of the finding that the principle of equality of arms had been breached’.50 However, the ECtHR accepts that access need not necessarily be given to the accused himself: Restriction of the right to inspect the court file to an accused’s lawyer is not incompatible with the rights of the defence under Article 6.51 Nevertheless, there are various examples of situations where restrictions on access to the case file, have been sufficient to establish a breach of Article 6(3)(b):      Inability to obtain access to the case file until a late stage;52 Trial preparation time limited to just a few hours;53 Failure to provide a copy of a judgment for the purposes of preparing an appeal;54 Being given 20 days to review a file of 17 000 pages, of which one week was spent photocopying the file,55 By contrast, 21 days to review 49 pages resulted in no violation;56 Restrictions on the ability of lawyers to communicate documents in the file to the suspect or involve him in analysis of those documents, in circumstances where the applicant may have had comments to make on their contents;57 and 49 Sapan v. Turkey, cited above note 17, paragraph 21. Case of Beraru v. Romania, App. no. 40107/04 (Judgement of 18 March 2014), paragraphs 69-70. 51 Case of Kremzow v. Austria, App. no. 12350/86 (Judgment of 21 September 1993), paragraph 52. 52 Beraru v. Romania, cited above note 50, paragraph 70. 53 Vyerentsov v. Ukraine, cited above note 16, paragraphs 73-76. 54 Case of Chorniy v. Ukraine, App. no. 35227/06 (Judgment of 16 May 2013), paragraph 43. 55 Öcalan v. Turkey, cited above note 16, paragraph 142. 56 Kremzow v. Austria, cited above note 51, paragraph 48. 50 34