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.
ECJ: 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 criinal evidence.
