b. The ‘Using EU Law in Practice’ Tool kit This Toolkit should be used alongside the ‘Using EU Law in Practice’ Toolkit which contains explanations of the assumptions made about the legal effects of the Directives. It also contains a general introduction to the concept of ‘invoking the Directive’ through reliance upon remedial mechanisms such as invalidity of procedural acts, exclusion / disregarding of evidence and so on. When make a ‘Fair Trials’ advice’ suggestion in a triple-bordered blue-shaded box, we are relying upon this approach to the Directives in general so you are encouraged to cross-refer to the ‘Using EU Law in Practice’ Toolkit in that regard. There are, however, some specific points about how to rely on this Directive in particular. They concern, notably the issue of challenging the poor quality of interpretation before the courts in accordance with the principle of ‘exercising control when put on notice’ derived from the case-law of the ECtHR. c. ‘Interpretation’ and ‘translation’ In this Toolkit, when we refer to ‘interpretation’, we are talking about oral interpretation of oral communication. When we refer to ‘translation’, we are talking about written translation of written documents. The Directive draws a clear distinction between the two, and we will follow this. We will also use the term ‘language assistance’, a generic term referring to assistance (both interpretation and translation) provided to someone who does not speak or understand the language of the proceedings. The distinction between interpretation and translation is not insignificant given that, in the case-law of the ECtHR, the two are largely conflated as Article 6(3)(e) of the European Convention on Human Rights (‘ECHR’) refers only to ‘interpretation’ and, although the ECtHR has tried its best to establish a requirement for translations of certain documents (notably the indictment) in its case-law, the principles are hard to pin down so the distinction operated by the Directive is a useful one to follow. d. A word of caution This Toolkit is drafted based on certain assumptions. As mentioned above, we have endeavoured to identify these clearly in the body of the text. This is both in acknowledgment of the fact that there may be other points of view, and in order to ensure you are aware that these are inferences which you will need to be happy to stand by if you are going to rely on them in court. The Toolkit is also drafted with lawyers from all EU Member States in mind. Necessarily, it cannot cater for all individual variations in criminal procedure in the different EU Member States (though it does use occasional national-level examples to put matters in context). In addition, it cannot take account of existing professional traditions and deontological (ethics) rules established by national or regional bars. So you will need to adapt our suggestions to work within your own local context. e. Keep in touch With those qualifications, we encourage you to follow the steps in this Toolkit, try out the arguments we propose and to let us know how you get on by contacting us via the contacts in the preface. We expect there to be a learning process in the first year or two following the implementation deadlines of the Directives, and will be keen to hear from you about your experience and share lessons. 7