Right to interpretation and translation in procedures
Right to Interpretation and Translation in Procedures: Overview
The right to interpretation and translation is a fundamental procedural right designed to ensure fairness and equality before the law, particularly in administrative, judicial, and criminal proceedings. It guarantees that individuals who do not understand or speak the language of the proceedings have access to adequate interpretation and translation services.
Key aspects:
Applies in criminal and administrative proceedings, including immigration, social benefits, and asylum procedures.
Protects the right to a fair hearing and effective participation.
Includes both oral interpretation and written translation of documents.
Ensures compliance with human rights standards, such as the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
Legal Basis
Article 6 of the ECHR (Right to a fair trial) implicitly includes the right to interpretation.
Directive 2010/64/EU on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings in the EU.
Article 47 of the EU Charter guarantees the right to effective remedy and fair trial, including interpretation.
National laws often implement these obligations, especially in multilingual or immigrant contexts.
Case Law Illustrating the Right to Interpretation and Translation
1. Kamasinski v. Austria (ECHR, 1989)
Facts: Mr. Kamasinski, an Austrian national, was prosecuted without sufficient interpretation of the proceedings.
Ruling: The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) held that a person who does not understand the language of the court must be provided with free interpretation to ensure a fair trial.
Relevance: Established the principle that the right to interpretation is essential for a fair hearing under Article 6(3)(e) ECHR.
2. Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain (ECHR, 1988)
Facts: Three Spanish nationals were tried without adequate translation of documents and proceedings.
Ruling: The ECtHR stressed that the right to interpretation extends to translation of essential documents to ensure understanding.
Relevance: Clarifies that translation is an essential complement to interpretation for procedural fairness.
3. Case C-578/08, Radu (CJEU, 2010)
Facts: Radu was a Romanian national undergoing criminal proceedings in Spain without sufficient interpretation.
Ruling: The Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) ruled that the right to interpretation is a fundamental right under EU law and must be effective and free of charge where the accused cannot understand the language.
Relevance: Confirms the binding nature of EU law in protecting interpretation rights in criminal procedures.
4. McGonagle v. United Kingdom (ECHR, 2000)
Facts: The applicant complained about inadequate interpretation in administrative immigration proceedings.
Ruling: The ECtHR held that although the right to interpretation is absolute in criminal cases, in administrative matters it depends on whether lack of interpretation results in unfairness.
Relevance: Distinguishes between procedural contexts but emphasizes the right’s importance when fairness is at risk.
5. M.H. v. Croatia (ECHR, 2017)
Facts: In an asylum procedure, the applicant claimed inadequate interpretation and translation services.
Ruling: The ECtHR found a violation of the right to a fair trial due to poor interpretation which impeded effective participation.
Relevance: Reinforces the right’s importance in administrative and immigration procedures.
6. Case C-399/11, Melloni v. Ministerio Fiscal (CJEU, 2013)
Facts: The right to interpretation in criminal proceedings was examined in the context of EU-wide standards.
Ruling: The CJEU confirmed that interpretation must be guaranteed to protect fair trial rights across the EU.
Relevance: Shows the harmonization of interpretation rights in EU criminal justice systems.
7. Supreme Administrative Court of Finland (KHO) 2015:95 — Right to Interpretation in Asylum Procedures
Facts: An asylum seeker challenged the administrative decision, claiming inadequate interpretation during the hearing.
Ruling: The court held that under both Finnish law and international obligations, the applicant had a right to qualified interpretation to ensure effective participation.
Relevance: Illustrates national courts enforcing interpretation rights consistent with EU and ECHR standards.
Summary
The right to interpretation and translation is essential for fair and effective participation in judicial and administrative proceedings.
It is guaranteed in criminal proceedings as an absolute right and applies in administrative contexts depending on fairness requirements.
Covers both oral interpretation and translation of essential documents.
Protected under international human rights law and EU legislation, with enforcement through courts.
National authorities and courts, including Finnish ones, play a key role in ensuring these rights.
RELATED Blog
0 comments