Activites

• 2010/10/26 Final act published in Official Journal
  • Directive 2010/64
  • OJ L 280 26.10.2010, p. 0001
• 2010/10/20 Final act signed
• 2010/10/20 End of procedure in Parliament
• #3034
• 2010/10/07 Council Meeting
• 2010/10/07 Act adopted by Council after Parliament's 1st reading
• 2010/06/16 Results of vote in Parliament
  • Results of vote in Parliament
  • T7-0220/2010 summary

    The European Parliament adopted by 637 votes to 21, with 19 abstentions, a legislative resolution on the draft directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the rights to interpretation and to translation in criminal proceedings.Parliament adopted its position at first reading under the ordinary legislative procedure (formerly know as the codecision procedure). The amendments adopted in plenary are a result of a compromise reached between the European Parliament and the Council. They amend the Commission proposal as follows:Reference to the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the (ECHR): clear reference is made in the draft Directive to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) which enshrines the right to a fair trial. In this context, this draft Directive should set minimum rules. Member States should be able to extend the rights set out in this Directive in order to provide a higher level of protection also in situations not explicitly dealt with in this Directive. The level of protection should never go below the standards provided by the European Convention on Human Rights or the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights as interpreted in the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights or the European Court of Justice.Roadmap for strengthening procedural rights of suspected and accused persons in criminal proceedings: the Directive makes reference to the this Roadmap which, taking a step-by-step approach, calls for the adoption of measures regarding the right to translation and interpretation (measure A), the right to information on rights and information about the charges (measure B), the right to legal advice and legal aid (measure C), the right to communication with relatives, employers and consular authorities (measure D), and regarding special safeguards for suspected or accused persons who are vulnerable (measure E).This Directive relates to measure A of the Roadmap. It lays down common minimum standards to be applied in the fields of interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings with a view to enhancing mutual trust among Member States.Scope: new provisions are introduced as regards minor offences (such as road offences). It is stipulated that where the law of a Member State provides for the imposition of a sanction regarding  minor offences by an authority other than a court having jurisdiction in criminal matters, and that sanction may be appealed to such a court, then this Directive shall only apply to the proceedings before that court following such an appeal.  It is also stated that this Directive must not affect rules of national law concerning the presence of a legal counsel during any stage of the criminal proceedings, nor must it affect rules of national law concerning the right of access of a suspected or accused person to documents in criminal proceedings.Right to interpretation: Member States shall ensure that a procedure or mechanism is in place to ascertain whether the suspected or accused person understands and speaks the language of the criminal proceedings and needs the assistance of an interpreter. The right to interpretation includes assistance of persons with hearing or speech impediments. Member States shall ensure that, in accordance with procedures in national law, the suspected or accused person 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 ensure the fairness of the proceedings. Where appropriate, technology such as videoconferencing or communication by telephone or internet may be employed, unless the physical presence of the interpreter is required in order to safeguard the fairness of the proceedings. In proceedings for the execution of a European Arrest Warrant, the executing Member State shall ensure that its competent authorities provide any person subject to such proceedings who does not understand or speak the language of the proceedings, with interpretation. Right to translation of essential documents: it is provided that the Member States shall ensure that, within a reasonable period of time, a suspected or accused person who does not understand the language of the criminal proceedings concerned is provided with written translation of all documents which are essential to ensure that he is able to exercise the right to defend himself and to safeguard the fairness of the proceedings. Essential documents include decisions depriving a person of his liberty, the charge/indictment and any judgment. The competent authorities shall decide in any given case whether any other document is essential. The suspected or accused person or his legal counsel may submit a reasoned request to this effect. Passages of essential documents which are not relevant for the suspected or accused person to have knowledge of the case against him do not have to be translated. An oral translation or an oral summary of the essential documents may be provided instead of a written translation, on condition that such oral translation or oral summary does not affect the fairness of the proceedings. As with the interpretation, translation provided shall be of a quality sufficient to safeguard the fairness of the proceedings, in particular by ensuring that the suspected or accused person in criminal proceedings has knowledge of the case against him and is able to exercise the right to defend himself.Quality of translation: in order to promote the adequacy of interpretation and translation and efficient access to it, Member States shall endeavour to establish a register or registers of independent translators and interpreters who are appropriately qualified. Once established, such register or registers should be made available to legal counsel and relevant authorities. Member States shall ensure that interpreters and translators will be required to observe confidentiality regarding interpretation and translation provided under this Directive.Training: new provisions are laid down to allow Member States to request those responsible for the training of judges, prosecutors and judicial staff involved in criminal proceedings to give special attention to the particularities of communicating with the assistance of an interpreter so as to ensure efficient and effective communication.  Keeping of record: Member States shall also ensure that when interviews with a suspected or accused person have been conducted by an investigative or judicial authority with the aid of an interpreter, when an oral translation or oral summary of essential documents is provided in the presence of such an authority or when there is a waiver of rights, it will be noted that these events have occurred, using the recording procedure in accordance with the national law of the Member State concerned. Report and entry into force: it is provided that 4 years after the publication of this Directive in the Official Journal, the Commission shall submit a report to the European Parliament and to the Council, assessing the extent to which the Member States have taken the necessary measures in order to comply with this Directive, accompanied, if necessary, by legislative proposals. Member States shall comply with this Directive within a delay of 3 years after the publication of this Directive in the Official Journal.Territorial measures: the United Kingdom and Ireland have notified their wish to take part in the adoption and application of this Directive. Denmark, on the other hand, is not taking part in the adoption of this Directive and is not bound by it or subject to its application.

• 2010/06/14 Debate in Parliament
  • Debate in Parliament
• 2010/06/11 Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading
  • A7-0198/2010
• 2010/06/10 Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
• #3018
• 2010/06/03 Council Meeting
  • 3018 summary

    Regarding a directive on the rights to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings, the Council confirmed the agreement reached on 27 May 2010 by the Permanent Representatives Committee on a compromise text which was negotiated in recent weeks between representatives of the Council, the European Parliament and the Commission (doc. 10420/10).Ministers also welcomed that the agreement on this file was reached so quickly and that talks with the European Parliament point to a first reading agreement in the coming weeks. The directive is based on an initiative by 13 Member States (Belgium, Germany, Estonia, Spain, France, Italy, Luxembourg, Hungary, Austria, Portugal, Romania, Finland and Sweden) following an agreement that was reached unanimously by the Council in October 2009 in respect of a Commission proposal from July 2009. The text also takes account of a proposal that was submitted by the Commission in March 2010.The directive is part of a wider package of legislative and non-legislative initiatives that aim at strengthening procedural rights of suspected or accused persons in criminal proceedings. The Council unanimously agreed on this wider package, or roadmap, in October 2009.

• #2998
• 2010/02/25 Council Meeting
  • 2998
• 2010/02/08 Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
• 2010/01/22 Legislative proposal published
  • 00001/2010 summary

    PURPOSE: to lay down rules concerning the rights to interpretation and to translation in criminal proceedings and proceedings for the execution of a European Arrest Warrant.PROPOSED ACT: Initiative of Belgium, Germany, Estonia, Spain, France, Italy, Luxembourg, Hungary, Austria, Portugal, Romania, Finland and Sweden for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council. BACKGROUND: on 29 November 2000 the Council, in accordance with the Tampere Conclusions, adopted a programme of measures to implement the principle of mutual recognition of decisions in criminal matters. Mutual recognition can only operate effectively in a spirit of confidence, whereby not only judicial authorities, but all actors in the criminal process see decisions of the judicial authorities of other Member States as equivalent to their own, implying not only trust in the adequacy of one's partners' rules, but also trust that those rules are correctly applied.Although all Member States are parties to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR), experience has shown that this in itself does not always provide a sufficient degree of trust in the criminal justice systems of other Member States. Common minimum rules should lead to increased confidence in the criminal justice systems of all Member States, which in turn should lead to more efficient judicial cooperation in a climate of mutual trust. Such common minimum rules should be applied in the fields of interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings.IMPACT ASSESSMENT: in view of the step-by-step approach set out in the Roadmap, the Commission presented on 8 July 2009 a proposal for a Council Framework Decision on the right to interpretation and to translation in criminal proceedings. This proposal was accompanied by an Impact Assessment. This impact assessment is re-submitted as "detailed statement" allowing to appraise compliance with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality in accordance with the Lisbon Treaty, in view of the presentation by Member States of an initiative for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the rights to interpretation and to translation in criminal proceedings.Five options are set out as follows: ·        Option 1: status quo;·        Option 2: adoption of non-legislative measures (such as recommendations) to exchange best practices and to establish Community guidelines;·        Option 3: new instrument covering all rights;·        Option 4: legislative measures restricted to the cross-border cases;·        Option 5: step-by-step approach beginning with legislative measures on access to interpretation and translation services (withdrawing the current proposal for a Framework Decision and proposing a new Framework Decision requiring Member States to provide minimum standards only for access to interpretation and translation services).Option 5 could provide scope for a longer term action plan for the progressive approximation of laws in the area of procedural rights taking account of practical aspects either. This approach would not be as dependent on the Lisbon Treaty as option 3. This option would result in an improvement in the quality and provision of interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings. It would ensure a fairer trial in cases where the suspect does not understand the criminal proceedings, his rights or the full charges before him. The option would place an additional financial and administrative burden on Member States that currently do not offer training to legal interpreters and translators.CONTENT: the proposal lays down rules concerning the rights to interpretation and to translation in criminal proceedings and proceedings for the execution of a European Arrest Warrant (EAW). Those rights apply to any person from the time that person is made aware by the competent authorities of a Member State that he is suspected or accused of having committed a criminal offence until the conclusion of the proceedings, which is understood to mean the final determination of the question whether the suspected or accused person has committed the offence. The Directive will not apply to proceedings which may lead to sanctions being imposed by an authority other than a criminal court, as long as those proceedings are not pending before a court having jurisdiction in criminal matters.Right to interpretation: a suspected or accused person who does not understand or speak the language of the criminal proceedings concerned must be provided with interpretation into his native language or into another language that he understands, in order to safeguard his right to fair proceedings. Interpretation, including of communications between the suspected or accused person and his legal counsel, shall be provided during criminal proceedings before investigative and judicial authorities, including during police questioning, during all court hearings and during any necessary interim hearings, and may be provided in other situations. This provision will not affect rules of national law concerning the presence of a legal counsel during any stage of the criminal proceedings. A person with a hearing impediment must receive interpretation assistance, if appropriate for that person.Member States must ensure that it is verified in any appropriate manner, including by consulting the suspected or accused person, whether he understands and speaks the language of the criminal proceedings and needs the assistance of an interpreter. At some stage in the proceedings, in accordance with national law, there must be the possibility of a review of a finding that there is no need for interpretation. Such review does not entail the obligation for Member States to provide for a separate mechanism in which the sole ground for review is the challenging of such finding. In proceedings for the execution of a EAW, the executing Member State shall ensure that its competent authorities provide any person subject to such proceedings who does not understand or speak the language of the proceedings, with interpretation.Right to translation of essential documents: a suspected or accused person who does not understand the language of the criminal proceedings concerned must be provided with a translation, into his native language or into another language that he understands, of all documents which are essential in order to safeguard his right to fair proceedings, or at least the important passages of such documents, provided that the person concerned has the right of access to the documents concerned under national law. The competent authorities must decide which the essential documents to be translated are. The latter must include at least detention orders or equivalent decisions depriving the person of his liberty, the charge or indictment and any judgment, where such documents exist. The suspected person may submit a reasoned request for translation of further documents which are necessary for the effective exercise of the right of defence.There must be the possibility of a review if translation of a document referred to above is not provided. Such review does not entail the obligation for Member States to provide for a separate mechanism in which the sole ground for review is the challenging of such finding.In proceedings for the execution of an EAW, the executing Member State shall ensure that its competent authorities provide any person subject to such proceedings who does not understand the language in which the European Arrest Warrant is drawn up, or into which it has been translated by the issuing Member State, with a translation of that document. Provided that this does not affect the fairness of the proceedings, an oral translation or an oral summary of the documents may be provided instead of a written translation. A person who has a right to translation of documents may, at any time, waive this right.Costs: Member States shall cover the costs of interpretation and translation resulting from the application of the above provisions, irrespective of the outcome of the proceedings.Quality of the interpretation and translation: concrete measures must be taken to ensure that the interpretation and translation provided shall be of adequate quality so that the suspected or accused person, as well as a person subject to the execution of a EAW, is fully able to exercise his rights.Non-regression clause: it should be ensured that setting common minimum standards in accordance with this Directive does not have the effect of lowering standards in certain Member States and that the standards set in the ECHR or other relevant international agreements are maintained. Member States remain entirely at liberty to set standards higher than those agreed in this Directive.

  • DG {'url': 'http://ec.europa.eu/justice/', 'title': 'Justice'}, REDING Viviane

Documents

• Legislative proposal published: 00001/2010
• Debate in Council: 2998
• Debate in Council: 3018
• Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading: A7-0198/2010
• Debate in Parliament: Debate in Parliament
• Results of vote in Parliament: Results of vote in Parliament
• Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading: T7-0220/2010
• : Directive 2010/64
• : OJ L 280 26.10.2010, p. 0001

History

(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)