‘Everyone whose rights and freedoms guaranteed by the law of the Union are violated has the right to an effective remedy before a tribunal ...’ Essentially, the idea here is that the ‘challenge’ you are entitled to make under Article 3(5) of the Directive needs to be before a court. There is much more to say about effective judicial protection and you should contact us if you would like further assistance with this in a particular case. a. Insist upon judicial review In this situation, even if the criminal procedure code does not provide for a right of challenge against a prosecutor’s decision, you should challenge this before the most appropriate court of general jurisdiction (e.g. administrative court, investigating judge, etc.) claiming a right to do so under the Directive. Their refusal of jurisdiction might be appealable and that might allow you to raise the issue before a higher court which would be more receptive to arguments about EU law.  Try any means available to bring a challenge:  Is there a general remedy such as administrative challenge available?  Even if there is no mechanism available, make the application to the criminal court / investigating judge responsible for the case. b. Grounds of challenge i. Unreasoned refusals are not acceptable Practitioners often report to us that procedural decisions, in all areas (e.g. pre-trial detention), lack adequate reasoning. If this manifests itself in this context, you should make an issue of it:   ii. Either contact the same authority which made its decision or challenge it directly. Argue: the authority is implicitly required by the Directive to give reasons. The suspect has submitted a ‘reasoned request’ under Article 3(3) and in order to ‘challenge’ this decision as provided for by Article 3(5), he needs to have the reasons for it. The authority must therefore reconsider its decisions. 42 The decision relies on the possibility of ‘oral translat ion’ This seems likely to be one of the major grounds on which written translations are refused: the argument is that the function of the translation is to enable the person to understand the case against them, and that this can be achieved through an oral explanation. Arguments about this will fall within the scope of Article 3(7) of the Directive, which, as explained above, establishes an exception to the rule in favour of written translations. Bear in mind also the provisions of Article 52 of the Charter: ‘Any limitation on the exercise of the rights and freedoms recognised by this Charter must be provided for by law and respect the essence of those rights and freedoms. Subject to the principle of proportionality, limitations may be made only if they are necessary and genuinely meet objectives of general interest recognised by the Union or the need to respect rights and freedoms of others’. 42 See, in this regard, Joined Cases C-584/10 P, C-593/10 P and C-595/10 P Kadi v Commission ECLI:EU:C:2013:518. 43