Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Lost in Translation: Language Rights for Defendants in European Criminal Proceedings

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Human Rights in European Criminal Law

Abstract

This chapter examines the growing need for interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings and the emergence of new ideas about the communicative rights of defendants. It evaluates the case law of the European Court of Human Rights in this area, concluding that there have been significant advances in recent years in the protection of persons who are unable to speak the language of the country in which they have been arrested. Some important weaknesses remain, however, notably in respect of the translation of documents and the qualifications and independence of interpreters. The new regime under the European Union Directive 2010/64/EU on the Right to Interpretation and Translation in Criminal Proceedings is also considered. It is argued that, taken together, these two important initiatives represent a model for the establishment of more general European process rights.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    CILT, http://www.cilt.org.uk/research_and_statistics.aspx, accessed 8th September 2013.

  2. 2.

    Kaunert (2005).

  3. 3.

    Mears (2001).

  4. 4.

    The Telegraph, 13 May 2013.

  5. 5.

    World Prison Brief, at http://www.prisonstudies.org/info/worldbrief/, accessed 8th September 2013.

  6. 6.

    Honigsberg (2013), p. 16.

  7. 7.

    Gottlieb (2001).

  8. 8.

    Giridhar (2010).

  9. 9.

    Skutnabb-Kangas and Phillipson (1995).

  10. 10.

    Paulston (1997).

  11. 11.

    Lubbe (2009).

  12. 12.

    Namakula (2012).

  13. 13.

    Abayasekara (2010).

  14. 14.

    It is not just in Europe that attempts have been made to address these problems, and the American Bar Association in 2012 adopted its Standards for Language Access in Courts, available at http://www.americanbar.org/groups/legal_aid_indigent_defendants/initiatives/language_access.html (accessed on 9 September 2013), which cover much of the same ground, although not on a mandatory basis.

  15. 15.

    ECtHR, decision of 27 November 2008. Application no. 6391/02 [Grand Chamber].

  16. 16.

    ECtHR, decision of 11 December 2008. Application no. 4268/04.

  17. 17.

    Hodgson (2011), pp. 656–662.

  18. 18.

    Ibid., p. 651.

  19. 19.

    See also Article 14(3) of The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

  20. 20.

    ECtHR decision of 18 March 2008. Application no. 11036/03, § 64.

  21. 21.

    ECtHR decision of 10 September 2008. Application no. 69273/01, § 54.

  22. 22.

    ECtHR decision of 19 December 1989, Brozicek v Italy, Application no. 10964/84, § 16.

  23. 23.

    Ibid., § 41.

  24. 24.

    See Cape et al. (2010).

  25. 25.

    ECtHR decision of 24 December 2002, Cuscani v United Kingdom. Application no. 32771/96.

  26. 26.

    Ibid., § 38.

  27. 27.

    ECtHR decision of 10 April 2007, Berisha & Haljiti v. former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Application no. 18670/03.

  28. 28.

    See ECtHR decision of 8 January 2004, Sardinas Albo v Italy. Application no. 56271/00.

  29. 29.

    ECtHR decision of 28 June 2005, Hermi v Italy. Application no. 18114/02, § 72.

  30. 30.

    ECtHR decision of 27 May 2010. Application no. 21790/03, §§ 40–45.

  31. 31.

    Ibid. §§ 46–56.

  32. 32.

    Partiya Karkerên Kurdistan, Kurdish Worker’s Party, opposed to the Turkish state.

  33. 33.

    ECtHR decision of 5 April 2011, Şaman v. Turkey. Application no. 35292/05, § 30.

  34. 34.

    ECtHR decision of 5 January 2010, Diallo v. Sweden. Application no. 13205/07, § 25.

  35. 35.

    ECtHR decision of 6 July 2009, Amer v Turkey. Application no. 25720/02, § 77.

  36. 36.

    ECtHR decision of 19 December 1989, Kamasinski v Austria. Application no. 9783/82, § 74.

  37. 37.

    Ibid.

  38. 38.

    ECtHR decision of 25 September 2012. Application no. 16870/03.

  39. 39.

    ECtHR decision of 24 February 2005, Husain v Italy Application no. 18913/03.

  40. 40.

    Ibid.

  41. 41.

    Hermi v Italy, (fn. 29).

  42. 42.

    18 October 2006.

  43. 43.

    ECtHR decision of 5 February 2002. Application no. 51564/99, § 52.

  44. 44.

    Kamasinski v Austria (fn. 36), § 73.

  45. 45.

    ECtHR decision of 24 January 2002, Uçak v the United Kingdom Application no. 44234/98, § 2.

  46. 46.

    ECtHR decision of 20 February 2007. Application no. 45906/99.

  47. 47.

    ECtHR decision of 16 July 2009, Baka v Romania, Application no. 30400/02.

  48. 48.

    Kamasinski v Austria, (fn. 36).

  49. 49.

    6185/73, 29 May 1975, DR 2 § 68.

  50. 50.

    ECtHR decision of 28 November 1978, Luedicke, Belkacem and Koç v. Germany. Applications nos. 6210/73; 6877/75, § 42.

  51. 51.

    See, e.g., ECtHR decision of 18 November 2004, Akbingöl v. Germany (decision). Application no. 74235/01.

  52. 52.

    Although see the 2012 ABA Guidance (fn. 14) and Abel (2013).

  53. 53.

    Hodgson (2011), pp. 648–650.

  54. 54.

    European Commission, Green Paper from the Commission. Procedural Safeguards for Suspects and Defendants in Criminal Proceedings throughout the European Union, COM(2003) 75 final (19 February 2003, Brussels).

  55. 55.

    Ibid., para. 5.2.

  56. 56.

    98/GR/131 and 2001/GRP/015.

  57. 57.

    Hertog (2001).

  58. 58.

    Morgan (2011), p. 5.

  59. 59.

    COM(2004) 328 final. Council Doc 9318/04, inter-institutional file no 2004/0113 (CNS).

  60. 60.

    Spronken and de Vocht (2011), pp. 11 and 12.

  61. 61.

    European Commission, Proposal for a Council Framework Decision on the Right to Interpretation and to Translation in Criminal Proceedings, COM(2009) 338 final (Brussels, 8 July 2009), p. 2.

  62. 62.

    Cras and De Matteis (2010), pp. 154 and 155.

  63. 63.

    O.J. C 69, 18.3.2010, p. 1; inter-institutional file no 2010/0801 (COD).

  64. 64.

    COM(2010) 82 final.

  65. 65.

    Ibid., p. 155.

  66. 66.

    Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, Report on the Draft Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Rights to Interpretation and to Translation in Criminal Proceedings, A7-0198/2010 (Brussels, 10 June 2010) (Ludford Committee).

  67. 67.

    Council Doc. 5928/10.

  68. 68.

    Directive 2010/64/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 on the Right to Interpretation and Translation in Criminal Proceedings.

  69. 69.

    Ludford Committee (fn. 66), p. 18.

  70. 70.

    Article 1(3) of the 2010 Directive (fn. 68).

  71. 71.

    Article 1(1) Ibid.

  72. 72.

    Article 1(8) ibid.

  73. 73.

    Article 3(1) ibid.

  74. 74.

    Article 3(2) ibid.

  75. 75.

    Article 3(4) ibid.

  76. 76.

    Cras and De Matteis (2010), p. 159.

  77. 77.

    Giridhar (2010).

  78. 78.

    Article 3(5) 2010 Directive (fn. 68).

  79. 79.

    Article 5(2) ibid.

  80. 80.

    Article 4, ibid.

  81. 81.

    A failure to do so will result in infringement procedure by the Commission under Art. 258 TFEU, as well as the possible imposition of executive measures and penalties under Art. 260 TFEU. For an assessment of implementation in Romania, see Damaschin (2012).

  82. 82.

    Braun (2011), p. 265.

  83. 83.

    Haas (2006), p. 61.

  84. 84.

    Braun (2011), p. 266. See also Fowler (2013).

  85. 85.

    Giridhar (2010) and Hepburn (2012).

  86. 86.

    Braun and Taylor (2011).

References

  • Abayasekara S (2010) A dog without a bark: a critical assessment of the international law on language rights. Aust Int Law J 17:89–111

    Google Scholar 

  • Abel LK (2013) Language access in the Federal courts. Drake Law Rev 61:593–913

    Google Scholar 

  • Braun S (2011). Recommendations for the use of video-mediated interpreting in criminal proceedings. Videoconference and remote interpreting in legal proceedings, Braun S. Guildford, University of Surrey, Surrey

    Google Scholar 

  • Braun S, Taylor J (2011) Videoconference and remote interpreting in legal proceedings. Videoconference and remote interpreting in legal proceedings, University of Surrey, Guildford

    Google Scholar 

  • Cape E, Namoradze Z et al (2010) Effective criminal defence in Europe. Intersentia, Mortel

    Google Scholar 

  • Cras S, De Matteis L (2010) The directive on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings. Eucrim 4:153–162

    Google Scholar 

  • Damaschin N (2012) The right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings. The exigencies imposed by the European Union. National standards. Juridica 8:31–43

    Google Scholar 

  • Fowler Y (2013) Non-English-speaking defendants in the Magistrates court: a comparative study of face-to-face and prison video link interpreter-mediated hearings in England. Aston University, Birmingham

    Google Scholar 

  • Giridhar KR (2010) Justice for all: protecting the translation rights of defendants in international war crime tribunals. Case West Reserve J Int Law 43:799–829

    Google Scholar 

  • Gottlieb E (2001) Dystopian fiction east and west: universe of terror and trial. McGill-Queen’s Press-MQUP, Montreal

    Google Scholar 

  • Haas A (2006) Videoconferencing in immigration proceedings. Pierce Law Rev 5:59–109

    Google Scholar 

  • Hepburn P (2012) The translation of evidence at the ICTY: a ground-breaking institution. Translation Interpreting Stud 7:54–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hertog E (2001) Aequitas. Access to justice across language and culture in the EU. Lessius Hogeschool, Antwerp

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodgson JS (2011) Safeguarding suspects’ rights in Europe: a comparative perspective. New Crim Law Rev 14:611–665

    Google Scholar 

  • Honigsberg P (2013) Alone in a sea of voices: recognizing a new form of isolation by language barriers. University of San Francisco Law Research Paper 2013-11. Available at SSRN http://ssrn.com/abstract=2208749 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2208749

  • Kaunert C (2005) The area of freedom, security and justice: the construction of a ‘European public order’. Eur Secur 14:459–483

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lubbe HJ (2009) The right to language in court: a language right or a communication right? Língua e Cidadanía Global, Direito

    Google Scholar 

  • Mears DP (2001) The immigration-crime nexus: toward an analytic framework for assessing and guiding theory, research, and policy. Sociol Perspect 44:1–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan C (2011). The new European directive on the rights to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings. Videoconference and remote interpreting in legal proceedings, Braun S. Guildford, University of Surrey, Surrey

    Google Scholar 

  • Namakula CS (2012) Language rights in the minimum guarantees of fair criminal trial. Int J Speech Lang Law 19:73–93

    Google Scholar 

  • Paulston CB (1997) Language policies and language rights. Annu Rev Anthropol 26:73–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skutnabb-Kangas T, Phillipson R (1995) Linguistic human rights – overcoming linguistic discrimination. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Spronken TNBM, de Vocht DLF (2011) EU policy to guarantee procedural rights in criminal proceedings: “Step by step”. The future of the adversarial system. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Law, Chapel Hill

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sussex Law School, University of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton, BN1 9QQ, UK

    Richard Vogler

Authors
  1. Richard Vogler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard Vogler .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Law, University of Messina, Messina, Messina, Italy

    Stefano Ruggeri

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Vogler, R. (2015). Lost in Translation: Language Rights for Defendants in European Criminal Proceedings. In: Ruggeri, S. (eds) Human Rights in European Criminal Law. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12042-3_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation