Mr. Lemmens was charged with driving a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol.
The question of whether an individual could rely upon the fact that the national regulation on breath-analysis apparatus which had not been notified to the Commission in accordance with Article 8 of the Directive came into consideration.
ECJ held that the failure to notify the Commission of new national rules (from legislation / executive order, etc.) did not render the national rules unlawful, nor prevent use of evidence gathered in this way.
It drew a distinction between the CIA case, which was concerned with free movement of goods, and this case which is concerned with rules of criminal evidence.
Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️
Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.
Get StartedThese product samples contain the same concepts we cover in this case.
Criminal Justice, Security, & Human Rights | Fair Trial Rights And Secret Evidence Notes (117 pages) |