-
the procedure or mechanism for ascertaining understanding of language?
|
Austria
|
There is no specific procedure to ascertain the understanding of the language. The suspect or accused may however use the same legal remedies as for any other violation of the law by the police, the prosecution and the court, i.e. objection (§ 106 StPO), complaint (§ 87 StPO) and application (§ 281(1)4 StPO). However, there is no procedure in place if the suspect does not understand the language sufficiently to take such remedies.
In practice however, when there is any doubt that the suspect or accused does not speak and understand the language, an interpreter is provided, i.e. the theoretical gap is usually not a problem.
|
Belgium
|
No specific mechanism or procedure, due to the immediate assistance of a translator which make possible to ascertain if the interrogated person understands or not the language.
|
Bulgaria
|
The above amendment of CPC introduced a new Article 395b. It stipulates that the courts and the organs of pre-trial investigation are to ascertain the fact that the accused persons do not understand the language of proceedings at any stage of procedure. Judges I had the chance to interview did not inform me about any significant practical problems in applying this rule. Neither I met such problems in my professional experience.
|
Croatia
|
The suspect or accused person has the right to appeal on quality of the interpretation, to the competent body and if the appeal is grounded, the competent body will appoint a different interpreter.
Also, according to the Article 8, Paragraph 9 of the CPC, sentence can not be based on evidences which are obtained against the rules on interpretation.
Besides all before mentioned, the suspect or accused person may use ordinary legal remedy - appeal against the sentence, based on the fact of violating the right on the interpreter.
|
Cyprus
|
According to the Law that provides for the Interpretation and Translation during the Criminal Proceedings (L. 18(I)/2014), the competent authority ensures, in any way considered appropriate, whether the suspected or accused persons speak and understand the language of the criminal proceedings and whether they need the assistance of an interpreter. (Article 4(5)). There is no specific procedure or mechanism to ascertain whether the suspected or accused persons speak and understand the language of the criminal proceedings.
|
Czech Republic
|
The national legislation does include a formal mechanism or procedure for ascertaining understanding of the Czech language. The suspect or accused may trigger their right to interpretation already by proclaiming that he does not command the Czech language (see above wording of Section 2(14) CCP).
I have not observed in practice any problems with fulfilment of this requirement, when an attorney is present during a legal act.
|
Estonia
|
§ 10(2) of CCP stipulates: "In the case of doubt, the body conducting the proceedings shall determine the proficiency in the Estonian language of both the participants in the proceedings as well as parties to the court proceeding. If it is impossible to determine the proficiency in the Estonian language or it proves to be insufficient, the assistance of an interpreter or translator shall be ensured."
There is no specific procedure for determining language proficiency, and therefore it is up to the police, prosecutor, or judge to ascertain whether the person understands Estonian or not (usually, this is done by simply asking whether one understands or not), and in case there is doubt on this issue, an interpreter must be involved.
|
Finland
|
There is no procedure or mechanism for this. In practice the ascertaining is done by observations on the spot, which obviously – especially regarding more unusual languages – is not a very safe way. However, both during the pre-trial investigation stage and the court proceedings phase, the authorities shall appoint a new interpreter if legal safeguards for the party require this. The latter provision has in practice been used very seldom, even if it in some cases would have been called for.
|
France
|
There are no special mechanism for that the non-understanding is fully let to the police or the judge, only if “a doubt exists” without précising in which mind on the ability of the accused person to understand French language (article 803-5 CPP).
|
Germany
|
|
Greece
|
Under Article 233 of the Greek Code of Criminal Procedures, as replaced by Law 4236/2014 and practice, the examiner shall verify by all appropriate means, whether the Greek language is understood and if the assistance of an interpreter is necessary.
There is no mechanism. The competent authorities ask whether he/she speaks Greek and the relevant statement is recorded. The courts show great diligence in this respect, i.e. when they have the slightest doubt, they appoint an interpreter. But this is not always the case with the police.
|
Hungary
|
The competent authority asks the suspect/accused person whether he/she understands and accepts the interpreter.
|
Ireland
|
From time to time one encounters complaints by person that they have asked for a translator but one has not been provided. In the police context this will generally be justified by the police on the basis that they believe the person had adequate English to cope with the interview situation. However the fact that interviews are audio-visually recorded, and now are conducted in the presence of a lawyer means that there will at least be objective evidence to review as to whether or not a translator ought to have been supplied. A competent defence solicitor will insist on a translator if they are unable to give their advice and be understood. The advice that is required to be given in police stations in Ireland where the right to silence is heavily qualified is very complex even for a native speaker of the English language. It would not be possible to advise competently a person who has a working knowledge of English but not a native knowledge.
In Court there are occasions when an application is made for an interpreter to be appointed which is refused. This is rare. Most judges will accept the professional assessment of the defence lawyer that an interpreter will be necessary.
An appeal Court would be highly critical of a judge who would permit a trial to proceed in the absence of interpretation where it had been requested unless there were very strong grounds for refusal.
In practice it there is very little difficulty about interpretation being provided in principle, the problem is the extent of the service and the quality of it that is provided.
|
Italy
|
None. Since there is not a list of “legal” interpreters and translators, there is not a procedure on mechanism do ascertaining the understanding even of the Italian legal terms, expecially for language not commonly spoke or studied.
|
Latvia
|
The person is entitled to point out a language he or she understands and agrees to use it as the language of communication. Person has to confirm with a signature or orally, that he or she understands the chosen language and the text that is written in it and that he or she can communicate in it.
|
Lithuania
|
There is no particular procedure or mechanism for ascertaining understanding of language. In practise, when the suspect or accused claims that he/she does not understand Lithuanian language or it is obvious from his/her behaviour, he/she is being provided with the interpreter.
|
Luxembourg
|
This stays a problem
Except a counter verification, in case a doubt of quality of translation is raised there are no direct mechanisms.
|
Malta
|
It is left up to the accused to signal if he/she has difficulties in understanding the Interpreter.
|
Poland
|
There are no special regulations in the Code of Criminal Proceedings of 1997 regarding the procedure or mechanism for ascertaining understanding of Polish language by a suspect or an accused. It’s simply declared by a suspect or an accused and verified by the observations of investigation or criminal justice officials in a concrete criminal case.
|
Portugal
|
There are many malfunctions on this concern.
|
Romania
|
|
Slovakia
|
No special procedure. Declaration of the accused is sufficient, moreover interpreter is assigned even if the suspect or accused declares to understand the language of the proceeding but the law enforcement body in question considers his/her language skills insufficient. In this case, the interpreter shall be assigned by a ruling with the possibility to challenge the ruling with complaint.
|
Slovenia
|
The suspect shall be provided with oral and written instructions about his right to interpretation. Written instructions shall be given to the suspect.
|
Spain
|
There is no specific procedure. In practise, if one asks for an interpreter, the judge grants it to prevent future defence motions contending the violation of the right of the suspect or accused.
|
Sweden
|
Generally, the leader of the interrogation or, in case of court hearings, the judge, asks the suspected or accused person whether he or she understands the interpreter.
|
The Netherlands
|
It is customary to introduce the sworn interpreter and the suspect prior to an interrogation or interview in order to check whether they understand each other. In most cases they understand each other per-fectly. Should this not be the case, this will be reported to the authority (police, court) and another inter-preter will be engaged. There is no protocol or legal provision to safeguard this.
|
UK
|
England and Wales
Although is no formal mechanism for ascertaining whether the suspect or defendant understands or speaks English, there is guidance in the Codes of Practice for determining whether a person needs an interpreter at the police station. This guidance suggests that a telephone interpreter service is used, or cue cards or other visual aids are used to determine a person’s ability to speak and understand English. The provision of such materials and assistance is a matter for individual police forces.
At the police station, the decision is made by the custody officer or the interviewing officer. At the hearing, the decision is made by the court officer, in conjunction with the judge. Ultimately it is the judge’s responsibility to determine whether the Defendant needs an interpreter and to ensure that adequate provision is made. The National Agreement on arrangements for the use of Interpreters (‘the National Agreement’) states at para. 3.2 that it is the responsibility of the judge to ascertain that the defendant speaks the language of the court adequately.
|
Scotland
This is the responsibility of the police (during the stage of police investigation) and the court (during the court proceedings).
|
Northern Ireland
In practice-ask the accused or his lawyer
|
