• The authority in charge of the investigation should be required to include an inventory of the contents of the case file, to make navigating a complex file easier for the defence and other persons who have access to the file. b. Modalities of access Even where the defence lawyer has access to the case file and relevant case materials in advance of the pre-trial detention hearing, the scope of access may be limited to certain documents, or access may only have been granted too late in the proceedings to enable the lawyer to effectively challenge the legality of detention. • Administrative burdens: Some lawyers (for example, in Romania) reported delaying tactics by law enforcement officials, which are possible because the legislation implementing the Access to Information Directive is too vague. • Lawyers should not be faced with bureaucratic hurdles such as a formal request procedure to study the case file, as is the case in Romania. • Elimination of administrative burdens – a proof of being the person’s lawyer should be enough. • A prior phone call or an email from the lawyer should be enough to access the case file. • Late access: Defence lawyers in most project partner countries tend to receive the file or notice of the hearing at a late stage in pre-trial proceedings. On average, a defence lawyer in Italy and Romania has around 30 minutes to prepare for the initial judicial hearing to detain, causing significant challenges to getting acquainted with the facts of the case and to preparing themselves and their clients adequately for the hearing. • Strict statutory time frames in respect of access to the case file should be set by the law. 22 • Obtaining copies of the case materials: Lawyers in Romania, for example, complained about difficulties in obtaining their own paper copies of the case file to use in consultation with their client. Photocopying the documents was identified as a practical obstacle in some Member States, including in Greece and Romania, where despite the positive example of timeframes for access to the case file, the defendant must bear the costs of all copies. An obligation to cover this cost has a discriminatory impact on defendants with restricted financial means, particularly if photocopying of files is excluded from the scope of legal aid. • Consider alternatives to traditional photocopies, such as taking photos with a phone, as proposed in Romania. Access to the case file and making photocopies (also for legal aid cases) should be free of charge. The establishment of electronic case files should be explored. • Studying the case file should be possible during the working hours of the police officer/prosecutor, based on a prior phone/email from the lawyer. • The main documents of the prosecutor’s file should be at least be included in the notice to the lawyer about hearings at which decisions about detention are made.