-
the right to challenge a decision or complain about quality?
|
Austria
|
As described under (c), the suspect may challenge any decision depriving him of the right to interpretation and translation.
However, there is no procedure in place to ascertain the quality of the interpretation and translation. In practice, the quality of the interpretation is a major problem; in particular, the police tends to rely on interpreters readily available but not having a proper education. The suspect may lodge an application for another interpreter, but does usually not have the possibility to file such an application due to lack of language skills.
|
Belgium
|
Article 40 of the aforementioned Belgian law of 15 June 1935 concerning the use of the languages in judicial matters states that its provisions are prescribed under penalty of nullity of the concerned act, and that this sanction of nullity is pronounced automatically by the judge (or upon request of the parties).
The judge in question is, during the criminal investigation, 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 the decision on interpretation is granted by Article 395b of CPC pointed out above. The ruling of the investigating authority ascertaining the understanding of the language of proceedings 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 interpretation. The ruling of the court ascertaining the understanding of the language of proceedings may be appealed before the upper court. In my view, cases of challenging the decision on interpretation have not been very frequent so far. I am not able to conclude that the lack of appeals is due entirely to correct rulings on interpretation. I would rather presume that the rule granting the right to challenge the decision is comparatively new and this is why it has not been so frequently implemented.
Complaints about quality.
The only provision that could purport to transpose the provisions of the Directive regarding the complaints about quality is the new Article 395e of CPC providing for the right of the accused to challenge the “accuracy” of interpretation, whereby the respective authority may dismiss the interpreter and assign a new one or may mandate the same interpreter to do a new interpretation. This legal opportunity for the accused lacks any further details setting any criteria and methods to assess an interpreter's qualification and his/her work in order to decide whether the objection is well-grounded and should be allowed or not. Moreover, in my opinion accuracy does not always mean quality, especially in specific legal terminology.
|
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 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), suspect, accused or fugitive is entitled to make oral objection (challenge) to the competent authority about:
(a) the decision of the authority that he/she does not need interpretation in accordance with
this Law, and / or
(b) the fact that any interpretation provided in accordance with this Law, is insufficient to safeguard the fairness of the proceedings. (Article 6(1)
|
Czech Republic
|
The national legislation does not include a specific right to challenge a decision not granting the interpretation or to complain about the quality of interpretation.
All resolutions of a police authority may be challenged by complaints, but in case of resolutions of courts and public prosecutors only when a law stipulates (there is no such stipulation regarding the right to interpretation) and when the authority of a first instance is deciding. However, as mentioned above, in practice issues with not granting the interpretation do not arise as a mere proclamation is sufficient to trigger the right to interpretation. In any case, the lack of interpretation may be challenged within the standard legal remedies (in particular the appeal).
The quality of the interpretation may be challenged during the legal acts through objections or requests for change of an interpreter (this right is not specifically enacted, there is no specific legal remedy when the authority refuses to comply either) or within standard legal remedies.
|
Estonia
|
The authorities can decide to refuse to provide interpretation only for meetings between the suspect/accused and defence counsel, and it is possible when the authorities find that there is no need for interpretation for a meeting in question (§ 10(21) of CCP). Such refusal can be challenged by way of a complaint (§ 10(9) of CCP).
The main provision relating to quality of interpretation is § 162(21) of CCP which states that "A body conducting the proceedings may remove an interpreter or translator if the interpreter or translator does not perform his or her duties as required or if the quality of the interpretation or translation may impair the exercise of the right of defence of the suspect or accused". Based on this provision, a person can request to remove the interpreter, and it is up to the prosecutor (in pre-trial proceedings) or judge (in court proceedings) to decide whether to remove the interpreter or not. There are no regulations on how the prosecutor or the judge must assess the quality of interpretation.
§ 161(7) of CCP also provides that a suspect or accused or his or her counsel may file a complaint against the provision of a false translation or interpretation by a translator or interpreter pursuant to the procedure provided for in § 228 of this Code.
|
Finland
|
In practice there is no effective right to challenge a decision regarding interpretation or to complain about the quality. One may file an administrative complaint at the pre-trial stage to the supervisor or to the either of the two independent supreme guardians of law: the Chancellor of Justice of the Government, or the Parliamentary Ombudsman. If a prosecutor has been appointed already at the pre-trial investigation stage, one can also complain to him/her. When the case is at the court stage, one can appeal to the court regarding problems with the interpretation, and also during appellate proceedings.
No specific provisions exist at the pre-trial investigation stage to make a separate decision, if the suspect or his counsel for example complains about the quality and wants the interpreter to be changed. There is a possibility to ask for a decision, but it is not mandatory to give such. No appeal lies, if the investigative authority makes such a decision.
During the court phase one could theoretically ask for a procedural ruling on the interpretation, but we have no knowledge of such decisions given. If such decision is given, there is a right to appeal the decision in conjunction with the main subject matter.
In practice, if problems arise, they are usually tried to be solved so that the counsel arranges for an interpreter he/she has good experience of. However, concerning more unusual languages, the same problems arise as when the authorities arrange for the interpreter; there simply are not that many, if any in Finland. In such cases the interpreter can be arranged from abroad, even using videoconference.
|
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 233 of the Greek Code of Criminal Procedures, as replaced by Law 4236/2014 and practice, the suspect or accused person has the right to exercise objections against the decision which held that the provision of interpretation is not necessary or when the quality of interpretation is not sufficient. The competent authorities that decide on the objections are the Prosecutor, during the main questioning, the Judicial Council and the Court, during the main proceedings. Furthermore, in interpreting the provisions of criminal procedure, the non-appointment of an interpreter, as well as the insufficient interpretation, is a violation of the rights of defense of the accused person and bring about absolute invalidity under Article 171 par. 1d of the Greek Code of Criminal Procedures, which founds ground of appeal of the ruling or decision, according to Articles 484 par. 1a (preliminary procedure) and 510 par. 1A (main proceedings) of the Greek Code of Criminal Procedures.
In practice, in order for the accused person to challenge the quality of the interpretation, he/she should: 1. Be aware that a statement has been mistranslated by the interpreter and 2. Convince the authorities for the mistranslation. In practice, it is quite common, the defendants in court to claim that the facts and allegations that they supposedly testified during the preliminary proceedings, do not correspond to what they really said.
|
Hungary
|
The suspect/accused may at any time ask for the application of another interpreter.
|
Ireland
|
While a person is in custody there is no real opportunity to challenge the quality of the interpretation that is being provided. A prudent and competent defence lawyer will however have their concerns expressed on the record at that point. In pure theory a person held for questioning who requires an interpreter but who complains about the quality of the interpretation could apply for release to the High Court. The reality is that most advisers would prefer a situation where the client could remain silent on the basis that they cannot understand the questions rather than have the situation corrected in the High Court.
|
Italy
|
Only together with the appeal of the decision on innocence. If there is a clearly inappropriate translation, it depends from the discretionary decision of the judge the substitution of the interpreter/translator.
|
Latvia
|
A decision can be challenged in language that person chooses. If a person is not satisfied with the provided interpreter and he or she demands different interpreter, the interpreter can be replaced.
|
Lithuania
|
There is no particular procedure allowing complaints about the quality of the translation provided, neither there is a mechanism that could help to assess and guarantee efficient translation standards. Due to uncontrolled standards of translation, the quality can be questioned and argued through standard proceedings during the pre-trial investigation. The way of the process is rather simple. The lawyer makes a complaint to a higher-ranking prosecutor about the prosecutor’s refusal to change a translator. The decision of a higher-ranking prosecutor could be appealed to the pre-trial investigation judge. If a higher-ranking prosecutor also decline to change a translator, it is much more difficult to achieve the change of an unqualified translator by appealing to a pre-trial investigation judge or in the trial. It usually argued by a judge that according to Lithuanian law the change could not be applied. Furthermore, it becomes even more difficult to a defender to argue the quality of translation when for instance the defender does not speak the language which is translated to and from during the pre-trial investigation, the court hearing or necessary interim hearings.
|
Luxembourg
|
No information concerning a case where a problem of translation has been raised
|
Malta
|
Available
|
Poland
|
There are no special provisions in the Polish Code of Criminal Proceedings referring to the right to challenge a decision finding that there is no need for interpretation or to the possibility to complain that the quality of the interpretation is not sufficient to safeguard the fairness of the proceedings. These issues aren’t regulated expressis verbis also by general provisions concerning the right to challenge decisions in criminal proceedings, but such issues could be raise in the appeal against a judgment (as having impact on the sentence).
|
Portugal
|
The possibility to complain the quality of the interpretation is not sufficient to safeguard the fairness of the proceedings since, in practice, the claim can eventually be not attended.
|
Romania
|
|
Slovakia
|
Decision on assignment of an interpreter by a ruling includes the possibility to challenge the ruling with complaint.
Quality is presumed if the assigned interpreter/translator is registered on the official list of interpreters and translators managed by the Ministry of Justice. The Ministry is equally competent to review the complaints related to the interpreter in question. According to the case law (eg Supreme Court file no. 6 To 32/97), if the proceeding in pre-trial stage was interpreted by a person who is not on the list of interpreters, it is not to be considered a serious defect of the pre-trial stage. Different situation would arise should the person not have adequate qualification or omitted to take an oath.
Apart from criminal law aspects, right to interpreter is equally a constitutional right (Article 47 para 4 Slovak Constitution) and the accused may also file a constitutional complaint.
|
Slovenia
|
The suspect or accused has the right to challenge a decision finding that there is no need for interpretation and, when interpretation has been provided, the possibility to complain that the quality of the interpretation is not sufficient to safeguard the fairness of the proceedings or complain about quality of interpretation at any time during the proceedings.
However, during the proceedings the right to challenge or to complain is only in the form of a “notice” made by the accused or his/her lawyer.
|
Spain
|
The suspect or accused and his/her lawyer may complain about the quality, as well as the Public Prosecutor. The judge may even discharge the interpreter and appoint a new one.
|
Sweden
|
If the quality of the interpretation is insufficient, there is a possibility to exchange the interpreter. An exchange can be made upon request by the suspected person or on initiative by the leader of the interview, the prosecutor or the judge.
During the preliminary investigation a decision on interpretation can be challenged by a request to a higher prosecutor. During the court proceedings a decision can 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
|
In paragraph IV of the Sworn Court Interpreters and Translators Act contains a complaints procedure with regard to the way in which a sworn translator or interpreter has conducted himself towards the sus-pect or someone else.
Furthermore, pursuant to article 276 paragraph 4 NCCP, it is possible to challenge an interpreter in court for reasons of his own.
Finally, before the trial judge it is possible to dispute the content of the reports, for reason of a bad translation with the request to exclude the evidence due to a lack of reliability.
|
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 which the court thinks appropriate, including a direction for a different interpreter.
|
Scotland
The 2014 Regulations make provision for an accused person to ask for a review of a decision by a constable that he does not require interpretation assistance (reg 5), and to complain if he is not provided with interpretation assistance within a reasonable time or if the assistance provided “is of insufficient quality to safeguard the fairness of the police proceedings” (reg 6). Similarly, where the court determines that an accused person appearing before it does not require interpretation assistance, the Regulations make provision for the accused person to apply to the court for a review of its determination (reg 11), and where he is not provided with interpretation assistance or the assistance is of insufficient quality to safeguard the fairness of the proceedings, he may apply to the court for a direction; the court then “must give such direction as it considers necessary to safeguard the fairness of the proceedings” (reg 12).
|
Northern Ireland
In practice never seen an application refused- court obviously be concerned re abuse application if won't provide translation
|
