Misunderstanding the case for interpretation

The case for EU legislation on the rights to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings has been made clearly and in detail.

I was surprised to read in your editorial “Time to make the case for better justice” (11-17 March) the analysis that, in making its case for EU legislation on the rights to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings, the European Commission has failed so far “to show clearly that the current situation is unsatisfactory”. 

I would like to refer you to research funded by the Commission and carried out by academics from the universities of Maastricht and Ghent, entitled “EU procedural rights in criminal proceedings” and published in 2009. Based on the replies by representatives of justice ministries in 26 member states to a questionnaire, this 744-page report analyses the state of play in the different member states and how it conforms with the European Convention of Human Rights.

The report finds, inter alia, that the right to written translation of important documents in criminal proceedings is not provided in all member states; and that, in the member states where there is a right to translation of documents, there is considerable variation as to how far this right applies to certain documents – for example, approximately half of these member states do not provide for a translation of the detention order, the reasons for detention or the final judgment, and only a small number provide for a translation of the letter of rights.

In many of these member states, there is no legal obligation to inform the suspect of the right to translation, and in those where such an obligation exists, providing the information on this right in a language the suspect understands is not always compulsory.

As regards interpretation, the presence of an interpreter at the consultation between suspect and lawyer is not always guaranteed, and there is not always a legal obligation to inform the suspect of the right to interpretation.

Is more evidence needed? That 13 member states have tabled an initiative for commonly defined rights to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings is in itself a sign that they recognised that it was necessary. However, their text is below the standards of the European Convention on Human Rights.

At least the Commission is ensuring – as required by the Treaty of Lisbon, which has made the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights legally binding – that proposals for EU legislation are in conformity with fundamental rights as interpreted by the European courts.

 

From:

José-María Davó-Fernández

President

Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe

Brussels

Click Here: Fjallraven Kanken Art Spring Landscape Backpacks