(c) decisions regarding partial translation of documents?
|
Austria
|
The translation may be limited to such parts of the documents which are necessary so that the suspect understands the indictment (§ 56(4) StPO). The decision may be challenged.
|
Belgium
|
(see point answer to point a)
|
Bulgaria
|
The answer is identical to the previous one. The organs of pre-trial investigation or the courts may decide that parts of certain documents are not relevant to “the exercise of the right to defence” and may refuse to provide translation.
|
Croatia
|
(see point answer to point a) and b)
|
Cyprus
|
According to Article 5(3) of the Interpretation and Translation during the Criminal Proceedings Law (L. 18(I)/2014) the competent authority is not obliged to translate passages of essential documents which are not relevant for the purposes of enabling suspected or accused persons to have knowledge of the case against them. (Article 5(3))
|
Czech Republic
|
The national legislation does not allow only partial translation.
|
Estonia
|
Our regulations do not provide the option of partial translation of documents.
|
Finland
|
See previous answer; same applies.
|
France
|
Only the judges and the prosecutor have the right to decide which part of a documents needs to be translated or not, being taken into account that oral translation are always possible. (Circulaire du 31 octobre 2013, page 4).
|
Germany
|
|
Greece
|
Under Article 236A par.1 of the Greek Code of Criminal Procedures, as replaced by Law 4236/2014 and national practice, suspects or defendants have the right to translation of passages of essential documents which are relevant for the purposes of enabling suspected or accused persons to have knowledge of the case against them.
|
Hungary
|
Only the documents as above is translated.
|
Ireland
|
The trial judge would be the final arbiter of any dispute as to whether a document ought to be translated at all, and whether if to be translated in whole or in part.
|
Italy
|
On request of the defence counsel or the accused, the Judge decide to order the translation if the listed documents are essential to prepare the defence.
|
Latvia
|
The translation is provided according to persons needs.
|
Lithuania
|
The Lithuanian law does not foresee the possibility of partial translation. Thus the whole document should be translated.
|
Luxembourg
|
No information on such documents, if a decision is translated it will be entirely translated.
|
Malta
|
Same as above.
|
Poland
|
The Polish Code of Criminal Proceedings doesn’t contain provisions in this field but there are no obstacles to make a decision regarding partial translation of documents. According to one of the judgments of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Poland, there is no requirement of translation of the whole files of the concrete criminal case but only materials in such files which are necessary to ensure a suspect or an accused a right to a fair trial (judgment of the Supreme Court of the 4th of April, 2012, III KK 133/2011).
|
Portugal
|
Yes.
|
Romania
|
|
Slovakia
|
Decision on partial translation must be recorded in the Minutes.
|
Slovenia
|
See the answer under (b) above.
|
Spain
|
The translation is, in the majority of cases, only of the essential parts of the document, decided by the authorities noted above.
|
Sweden
|
See the answer under (b) above.
|
The Netherlands
|
As described above, the suspect / defence has to give reasons why a specific part of a procedural doc-ument must necessarily be translated. It is incorporated in the law that a sentence only has to be ex-plained in parts - if indeed a right of translation exists. The question which parts of the sentence have to be considered as relevant, the legislator has followed the substantive parts that have to be included in a sentence notification (decision on the formal questions, decision with regard to the offence charged, qualification of the proven facts and punishment or measure imposed) in accordance with article 366 NCCP. See the remarks under a.
When the suspects requires a full translation (being more than already has been translated in accord-ance with article 365 paragraph 6 NCCP) of the court's sentence, he must submit a request to that effect to the court of appeal (Explanatory Memorandum, Parliamentary Papers II 2011/12, 33355, 3, p. 13).
In summary
>It is laid down by law that a sentence will only be translated in parts and upon request.
|
UK
|
England and Wales
As above.
|
Scotland
The Criminal Justice Partners have collectively agreed which parts of a document require to be translated. All sections that relate to the charges against the accused and the evidence to support those charges, will be translated. There are other parts of documents which are not considered essential in that they are not related to the liberty of the accused or to proving the charges. For example lists of productions and witnesses appended to an indictment.
|
Northern Ireland
Defence team
|
(d) challenges to the decisions made in (a), (b) and (c) above?
|
Austria
|
The same procedure for challenging of such decisions applies as for decisions on the interpretation, i.e. objection (§ 106 StPO), complaint (§ 87 StPO) and application (§ 281(1)4 StPO).
|
Belgium
|
During the criminal investigation, toward the Accusation Chamber who is legally entitled to survey the regularity of the criminal investigations, and the criminal courts on the later stage of the proceedings
|
Bulgaria
|
The right to challenge these decisions is granted by Article 395g of CPC (чл. 395г in Bulgarian). The ruling of the investigating authority refusing translation may be appealed before the respective prosecutor. The decision of the prosecutor is final and is not subject to judicial control, which, in my view, negatively affects the effective exercise of the right to translation. The ruling of the court refusing translation may be appealed before the upper court.
|
Croatia
|
See previous answer; same applies.
|
Cyprus
|
You can challenge decisions made in (a), (b) and (c). According to the Law that provides for the Interpretation and Translation during the Criminal Proceedings (L. 18(I)/2014), suspect, accused or fugitive is entitled to make oral objection to the competent authority about:
(a) the decision of the authority that he/she does not need translation of a document in accordance with this Law, and / or
(b) the fact that any translation of a document or partial translation of a document or/and interpretation provided in accordance with this Law, is insufficient to safeguard the fairness of the proceedings. (Article 6(1(α) and (β))
The competent authority decides directly on the objection made under subsection (1), recording in the minutes of the procedure both the oral objection and its own reasoned decision on the objection.
|
Czech Republic
|
As for decisions mentioned in (a) as set in Section 28(2) CCP, they have to be obligatory translated, unless requested otherwise. Should the authorities (rather theoretically) fail to comply, such failure could be challenged within standard legal remedies.
As for decisions mentioned in (b) as set in Section 28(4) CCP, the new implementing legislation specifically states in Section 28(4) that such decisions may be challenged by a complaint.
|
Estonia
|
Refusal to provide translation of other essential documents (see (b) above) can be challenged by way of submitting a complaint (§ 10(9) of CCP). Failure to provide translation in a timely manner (see (a) above) does not carry an explicit possibility to submit a complaint, but when delay occurs during pre-trial proceedings, it is possible to submit a complaint to prosecutor under § 228 of CCP. In trial proceedings, there is no separate complaint procedure, and the only option is to include the violation of right to translation into an appeal against the judgement.
|
Finland
|
See previous answer; same applies.
|
France
|
Article D. 594-2 grants the right to challenge the absence or the lack of translation during the interrogation or hearing.
|
Germany
|
|
Greece
|
Under Article 236A par.3 of the Greek Code of Criminal Procedures, as replaced by Law 4236/2014 and practice, suspects or defendants have the right to exercise objections against the decision which held that the provision of translation of documents or passages of documents is not necessary or when the quality is not sufficient. Relatively, the same provisions as the ones referred to under question 1(d) apply.
|
Hungary
|
If the documents in (a) is not translated, that will be a fundamental breach of criminal procedure. Otherwise, there is no separate right to challenge a decision made in (b) and (c) above.
|
Ireland
|
The trial judge's decision in respect of the above will stand until the conclusion of the trial. If an appeal is necessary these issues can be raised at the appeal level also.
|
Italy
|
Only with the appeal against the decision of innocence.
|
Latvia
|
There is no separate decision regarding translation and accordingly no decision to challenge, but person can lodge a complaint if the translation or interpreter is unsatisfactory. If interpreter upon request is not invited, it is possible to file a complaint about such such refusal.
|
Lithuania
|
The refusal to translate the particular document could be appealed to the prosecutor of the higher rank and the pre-trial investigation judge during the pre-trial investigation stage. The court’s decision not to provide the accused with the translation of the particular document cannot be appealed.
|
Luxembourg
|
Possibility to file an appeal
|
Malta
|
Challenges can be made orally, in writing or via Constitutional remedies.
|
Poland
|
There are no special provisions including instruments concerning the possibility to challenge translated decisions made in the criminal proceedings because of their translation. Mistakes and flaws of translation of mentioned decisions might be raised in a general mode of challenging decisions or on appeal against judgments. During the proceedings it’s also possible to lodge a motion for another interpretation or translation (such motion is submitted to records of preparatory proceedings or to minutes of a court session).
|
Portugal
|
No information.
|
Romania
|
|
Slovakia
|
According to Sec 28 para 5 CCP, if the body in charge of the proceeding does not accord the request of the accused, it decides by ruling with the possibility to challenge the ruling with complaint.
|
Slovenia
|
Challenges are possible in the form of a “notice” during the pending proceedings. The accused can challenge the decision in his appeal against a judgement as a breach of a criminal procedure under Article 371/8 of the Law on Criminal Procedure.
|
Spain
|
This decision may be challenged using the current remedies against judicial decisions. The problem is when this decision is taken by the police or by the public prosecutor, because in the Spanish system there is no possibility to challenge their decisions. The only way to do it would be an indirect way, through a habeas corpus motion.
|
Sweden
|
Decision made by the leader of investigation may be challenged by a request to a higher prosecutor. Court decisions may be challenged by an appeal to the higher court. A court decision can only be appealed in connection with the verdict or final decision of the court.
|
The Netherlands
|
See (b) above.
|
UK
|
England and Wales
At a police station, if a detainee complains about the quality of interpretation or of translation, the custody officer “or (as the case may be)” the interviewer must decide whether a new interpreter should be called or a new translation provided (paras.13.10A, 13.10C of the Codes of Practice).
At a court hearing or trial, if a defendant complains about the quality of interpretation s/he can make an application to the court. The court must give any direction that the court thinks appropriate, including a direction for a different interpreter.
|
Scotland
(a) The 2014 Regulations make provision for an accused person to seek a review of a decision taken by a police constable that he does not require translation of essential documents (reg 5), and to apply for a review of a determination made by a court that he does not require translation of essential documents (reg 11).
(b) The defence can ask the court to consider providing a translated version of any document relevant to the case. It is for the court to decide whether any additional document is “essential” and therefore requires to be translated by either the Crown or the Court service.
(c) The 2014 Regulations do not specifically provide for a means to challenge a decision (of a constable, or of a court) to translate only parts of essential documents; however it would be open to the defence to submit that the parts which were not translated were “essential” and ought to be translated (reg 10).
|
Northern Ireland
In practice I have never seen this refused. Court clearly would be concerned that defendant could make abuse application if court being told needs interpretation of documents to allow defendant to understand case and give instructions LAA have contract currently with FLEX interpreting services - refusal of funding would follow usual LAA appeal procedures, again never seen this happen in practice
|
