Do you have comments on an article of the directive not covered by any of the questions above?
Austria
No comment.
Belgium
Yes, the Directive should have stipulated under article 2.2. that “the Members shall ensure that the translator interpreting the communication between the suspect and his/her lawyer, is held to a strict professional secrecy toward the investigative and judicial authorities.” or something like this, to ensure the strict and effective confidentiality of the communication between lawyer and suspect who does not speak the same language.
In Belgium, according the precedents of the high court (cour de cassation) a translator is held by a professional secrecy criminally sentenced in case of breach.
However, a clear and explicit prohibition as mentioned above would have been perhaps adequate in the Directive to ensure that this duty of secrecy in the head of the translator really exist in each member State.
Bulgaria
No, I do not think there is an article not covered by the questions above.
Here, only one remark to the Article 6 of the EU directive 2010/64 concerning trainings will be made. It’s necessary to promote by a law-maker on a larger scale the idea of continuous education and professional trainings developing skills and competencies both of the officials of investigation and criminal justice bodies (i.e. policemen, prosecutors, judges), lawyers and interpreters (translators) in their reciprocal relations during performing their work within criminal proceedings. It will be valuable for getting higher quality of interpretations (translations) and guaranteeing the fairness of criminal proceedings at its each stage.
It’s important to add that the regulations of Polish law implementing the directive 2010/64/EU on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings are also included in the Code on Proceedings on Petty Offences of the 24th of August, 2001 (consolidated text – Journal of Laws of the 26th of March 2013, item 395 with subsequent amendments). The Article 20 § 2 of CPPO states that if a person who has been charged with committing of a petty offence doesn’t speak Polish language, a motion for punishment (an indictment) or any decisions which are challengeable or which conclude proceedings shall be announced or served upon the mentioned person adequately together with interpretation or translation. In turn, the Article 20 § 3 of CPPO authorizes to the proper application of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Proceedings of the 6th of June, 1997 declaring a suspect’s or accused person’s right to free assistance of an interpreter or a translator if such person doesn’t communicate in Polish language in a sufficient degree as well as referring to situations of the mandatory participation (assistance) of an interpreter during criminal proceedings activities engaging a suspect or an accused (Article 72 § 1 and § 2 of CCP).
In the context above it’s worthy to remark that in Poland, in proceedings on petty offences, the principle is that the minutes are taken from every activity which is considered as having a great significance for the case (particularly, the minutes are taken at court trials and court sessions as well as during evidence activities undertaken apart from the trial). This principle is expressed by the Article 37 § 1 of CPPO. By the way, the Code on Proceedings on Petty Offences of 2001 provides that during the trial the minutes are taken in writing as well as the trial is documented by minutes recorded by using a device which registers the sound or both the picture and the sound (Article 37 § 2).
Portugal
No comments.
Romania
Slovakia
See answer to Q7.
Slovenia
No.
Spain
It would appropriate to establish uniform guidelines in all State regions. In addition, adequate human and material resources are needed in order to guarantee translation of relevant documents and to ensure interpreter assistance to lawyer during the criminal proceedings
Sweden
The Netherlands
Observation 1.
Under article 3 paragraph 8 of the Directive the right to translation can only be waived when the suspect or the accused had prior legal advice (or had otherwise been informed about the consequences of this waiver and this waiver has been given unequivocally). Article 7 of the Directive requires that such waiv-er is registered by the national authorities. This has not been transposed in national Dutch law.
Observation 2.
As stated, due to an omission in the legislative process, the rulings of the Supreme Court do not fall within the scope of article 365 paragraph 6 NCCP - translation of the most important decisions of the sentence or ruling. This is not in keeping with article 1 paragraph 2 of the Directive on the basis of which the right to interpretation and translation is also applicable in possible appeal proceedings.
Observation 3.
The national situation does not include a right to the presence of a lawyer during the police interrogation. Police interrogations are only recorded aurally or visually in exceptional cases. The recording of the in-terrogation is carried out by the police in the report of the interrogation.
At the end of the interrogation, the Dutch version of the interrogation report will be read to suspects through an interpreter, after which the signing by the suspect of his statement will take place. The sus-pect's signing of the report has an important evidential value. The suspect cannot determine whether the interpreter correctly translated the report as drawn up by the police, which carries the risk of signing for the correctness of the statement while the report contains inaccuracies. He will only find out when dis-cussing the report with his counsel - much - later. For lack of tapes, it cannot later be determined whether the translation was incorrect or whether the suspect alters his statement in a later phase of the proceedings.
UK
England and Wales
No.
Scotland
No.
Northern Ireland
No.
Question 8
Do you have any good practices to pass on, that you have not already mentioned? (N.B. This question is particularly important, given that one of the sections of the final report will focus on good practices.)
Austria
Even though not required by law, a very good practice in court hearings would be the constant translation of everything that’s going on in the ears of the suspect (by a whispering interpreter). This is the only means to really provide the suspect with the possibility to actively engage in the proceedings (e.g. to interrogate witnesses).
Bad practice is
- using poorly qualified interpreters;
- the replacement of written translations by oral translations;
- no translation or only summaries of what’s happening in court (e.g. witness statements)
Belgium
Bulgaria
In my view there is an example of good practice in Bulgaria going in a helpful direction beyond the requirements of the Directive itself. The example refers to the application of the provision of Article 1.3 relating to the procedures where administrative sanctions are imposed by an authority other than a court (very often these sanctions are imposed in connection with minor traffic offences). Some courts (e. g. those in the cities of Plovdiv, Balchik, Yambol), relying on the principle that the level of protection shall never go below the standards set forth by the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, have firmly held that the offenders, who did not understand the language of proceedings, should have had interpretation and translation provided for them not only before the court of appeal, which is the standard under Article 1.3 of the Directive, but in the course of the entire administrative procedure resulting in imposing the administrative sanction before appealing this sanction before a court. These courts, making their decisions on the grounds of the above principle and acting as courts of appeal, have constantly quashed the administrative sanctions that had been imposed with no interpretation or translation having been provided in the entire course of administrative proceedings.
However, this good practice is not at all prevailing. The majority of the courts (e. g. those in the cities of Dobrich, Burgas, Vidin, Stara Zagora, Karlovo) keep strictly to the wording of Article 1.3 in their practice by recognizing the right to interpretation/translation only in the course of the court proceedings of appeal.
Croatia
No.
Cyprus
In 2006 the Independent Authority for the Investigation of Allegations and Complaints Against the Police (IAIACAP) was created by the Police (Independent Authority for the Investigation of Allegations and Complaints) Law of 2006 (N. 9 (I) / 2006). The IAIACAP issues an Annual Report which records its work during the year. In their latest report (Annual Report 2013) they criticize the Police for not complying with the provisions of the Rights of Persons Arrested and Detained into Custody Law of 2005. Their observations are based on the complaints filed by Greek Cypriots, EU nationals and people from third countries. In their recommendations they suggest the amendment of the current law so that the accused has the right to communicate with the IAIACAP. I believe that this is a valid recommendation and it will add an important safeguard of the rights guaranteed by the said legislation and the rights guaranteed by the Interpretation and Translation during the Criminal Proceedings Law of 2014 (L.18(I)/2014).
I believe that the establishment of the Independent Authority for the Investigation of Allegations and Complaints Against the Police in 2006 is a good practice because even though we have more or less the legal framework demanded by the European Union in reality there are problems in complying with the law.
Furthermore an inclusion of the right to communicate with the said independent authority in the legislation and also an expansion of the current IAIACAP which will include permanent criminal investigators, translators, photographers and other personnel will increase the confidence of the Public that the Police is under constant scrutiny and they comply with all the provisions of the Law. This will improve the administration of Justice and the protection of fundamental human rights and the rights safeguarded by the said Directive.
Czech Republic
No.
Estonia
The rule that if an interpreter or translator does not participate in a procedural act where the participation of an interpreter or translator is mandatory, the act is null and void, works well as a guarantee that the right to interpretation is respected.
Introduction of sworn translators as regulated profession is also welcome.
Finland
France
One of the main risks is the commercial link of dependence between the interpreter and the appointer broadly conceived as the ministry of justice.
Therefore, interpreters have often the tendency to adopt a favourable approach towards the person or the body that appoints him or her (police, prosecutor, judge).
To cut such a link, a possibility of waiving an interpreter of the ground of being to often appointed by the police or prosecutor should ensure an independent and impartial translation.
Germany
Greece
I would recommend the establishment of direct financing from European projects to ensure the best possible interpretation of the procedural documents.
Hungary
No.
Ireland
For MS to avoid the poor quality control we have in Ireland. For an entirely separate translator to be available to the Defence. The present situation where the same translator fills dual if not multiple roles (e.g interviewing witnesses) is fraught with difficulty.
Italy
Latvia
No.
Lithuania
There are no good practises to share.
Luxembourg
A good practise consist in the impossibility for a translator to translate simultaneously for pursuant authorities and at the same time for the needs of defence and vice versa.
Malta
Periodic proficiency tests to be retained on the list of interpreters / translators
Poland
In Poland good practices in the field of interpretations (translations) – also in legal proceedings - are generally rooted in the declarative document titled ‘Code of a Sworn Translator’. Regulations of this code are hints of competent and ethical delivery of interpretation (translation) services. Unfortunately, they don’t concern the interpreters or translators who are not sworn translators (i.e. the profession regulated by statutory provisions).
It seems that interpreters or translators in criminal proceedings should always have trouble-free and facilitated contacts with authorities responsible for investigation, preparatory and judicial proceedings in criminal cases as well as with suspects or accused persons and with their lawyers. They should have quick access to files of the criminal proceedings and to all persons and additional materials helpful during preparation of an honest and of a good-quality interpretation or translation. (By the way – they should be personally responsible for the quality of an interpretation or a translation in each case they delivered their services). Interpreters (translators) should be obliged to develop their language competences and specializations in selected legal areas. All of them shall be obliged to maintain the confidentiality resulting from their services.
Portugal
No comments.
Romania
Slovakia
Everything important have been mentioned above.
Slovenia
Spain
There aren´t good practices to share.
Sweden
The following good practices can be pointed out:
- There is a practice of sending a copy of the indictment to the assigned interpreter prior to the court hearing. This practice could be improved by including also other essential documents.
- There is a practice of noting any need for translation on the indictment submitted to court, enabling a prompt assignment of an interpreter to the trial.
- When lengthy trials, the accused person is often assisted by more than one interpreter.
- In cases involving a minor accused, his or her custodians are, if needed and upon request, often provided interpretation during the trial.
The Netherlands
In the Dutch situation all police stations and detention centres have an interpreter telephone at their disposal. All this is implemented by placing a telephone in each interrogation room and where by picking up the phone a direct connection is made with an interpreter agency. In cases of emergency, such as directly upon the arrest of a suspect, this is a good alternative for the presence of an interpreter.
UK
England and Wales
See comments in main body of questionnaire.
Scotland
Collaborative working across the criminal justice system is key to ensuring there is a coordinated approach to the provision of interpreting and translation services at all stages of criminal proceedings.
Northern Ireland
Telephone interpretation at police station book in – 3-way phone allows discussion between custody sergeant, detained person and interpreter at same time- of great assistance ensuring detained person understands what is going on promptly in what is plainly a very stressful situation
