Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2017:366
Date: 2017-05-11
Language of the case: German
Subject matter: Justice and home affairs;Approximation of laws
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Germany

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 12 October 2017 1. Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings — Directive 2010/64 — Scope — Objection against a non-final penalty order made under a simplified procedure — Included (European Parliament and Council Directive 2010/64, Art. 1) 2. Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings — Directive 2010/64 — Right to translation of essential documents — Meaning of an essential document — Penalty order for minor offences delivered following a simplified unilateral procedure — Included (European Parliament and Council Directive 2010/64, Art. 3) 1. See the text of the decision. (see para. 27) 2. Article 3 of 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 must be interpreted as meaning that a measure, such as an order provided for in national law for imposing sanctions in relation to minor offences and delivered by a judge following a simplified unilateral procedure, constitutes a ‘document which is essential’, within the meaning of Article 3(1) of that directive, of which a written translation must, in accordance with the formal requirements laid down in that provision, be provided to suspected or accused persons who do not understand the language of the proceedings in question, for the purposes of enabling them to exercise their rights of defence and thus of safeguarding the fairness of the proceedings. (see para. 34, operative part)