EN    EN EN 
 
EN    EN  COMMISSION OF THE E UROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 8.7.2009 
SEC(2009) 915 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
Proposal for a Council Framework Decision on  
the right to interpretation and tran slation in crimin al proceedings  
Accompanying the 
Proposal for a  
 
FRAMEWORK DECISION 
 
on the right to interpretation and to translation in criminal proceedings 
  
IMPACT ASSESSMENT  
   
{COM(2009) 338 final} 
{SEC(2009) 916}
 
EN 2   EN COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
Proposal for a Council Framework Decision on  
the right to interpretation and tran slation in crimin al proceedings  
SECTION  1: INTRODUCTION  
1. The right of accused persons and suspects to a fair trial is a fundamental right 
which the European Union respects as a ge neral principle under Article 6 (2) TEU. 
This right is specifically mentioned in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the 
European Union (Article 47 - 'Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial'). European citizens' confidence in other Me mber States' criminal justice systems 
could improve if fundamental rights were  respected and seen  to be respected 
throughout the EU. Legal practi tioners and Member States agree that a prerequisite 
for mutual trust is that Member States' national criminal justice systems guarantee 
suspects and accused persons, whatever th eir nationality, minimum safeguards for 
a fair trial. This is particularly importan t in cross-border proceedings, in particular 
those covered by mutual recognition instru ments, such as the European Arrest 
Warrant (EAW), through which a Member Stat e is expected to surrender suspects 
or convicted persons, includi ng its nationals, rapidly an d without examination of 
the case file, for trial or to serve a cust odial sentence in another Member State.  
2. On 28 April 2004 the Commission presente d a proposal for a Framework Decision 
on certain procedural right s in criminal proceedings throughout the European 
Union
1 ("the 2004 proposal"). After 3 years of  discussion and despite widespread 
support, this proposal was not adopted. Six Member States opposed the measure 
on various grounds, including that  the TEU did not provide a sufficient legal basis, 
that the EU's mandate was limited to cross border cases and that the European Convention on Human Rights offered adequate  protection to those facing criminal 
charges throughout the EU (see further details belo w under "Political mandate"). 
However, action in this area remains a priority under the Hague Programme and a new proposal is envisaged by the Commi ssion's Legislative Work Programme for 
2009. This impact assessment evaluate s the options for this proposal.  
SECTION
 2: POLITICAL  MANDATE,  LEGAL  BASIS,  AND  CONSULTATION  OF 
INTERESTED  PARTIES 
2.1 Political mandate and legislative history 
Political mandate  
                                                 
1 Framework Decision on certain procedural rights applying in proceedings in criminal matters 
throughout the European Union COM (2004) 328 of 28.04.2004 
 
EN 3   EN 3. A proposal on procedural ri ghts is one of the priority  initiatives of the CLWP 
2009, but the context in which a legislative proposal is brought forward needs to 
be considered carefully, given in particular the dossier's history. 
4. The rights of the defence were explicitly mentioned in the Tampere European 
Council Conclusions2 and have always been an inte gral part of the EU's mutual 
recognition agenda. The introductory s ection of the 2001 Mutual Recognition 
Programme3 points out that “ mutual recognition is very much dependent on a 
number of parameters which de termine its effectiveness ”. These parameters 
include “ mechanisms for safeguarding th e rights of […] suspects ” (parameter 3) 
and “ the definition of common minimum stand ards necessary to facilitate the 
application of the principle of mutual recognition ” (parameter 4).  
5. The Hague Programme, adopted on 5 November 2004, stated: 
"The further realisation of mutual recognition as the cornerstone of judicial cooperation implies the development of equi valent standards for procedural rights 
in criminal proceedings, based on studies of the existing level of safeguards in Member States and with due respect for their legal traditions. In this context, the draft Framework Decision on certain proced ural rights in criminal proceedings 
throughout the European Union should be adopted by the end of 2005."  
6. The Hague Programme seeks to strike a fa ir balance between a more effective and 
faster scheme of cross-border judicial cooperation in the European Union and the 
protection of fundamental rights affected by such proceedings . Clearly, judicial 
cooperation, as envisaged under Article 31, must not have the e ffect of eroding the 
rights of suspects and accused persons. Since 2002, numerous instruments have 
been adopted to facilitate and expedite  investigation and pr osecution of cross 
border cases
4. For example, judicial cooper ation between investigating and 
prosecuting authorities has been greatly e nhanced by the creation of the European 
Judicial Network and of Eurojust, by the adoption of the 2000 Convention on 
Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters a nd, most importantly, by the extension of 
the principle of mutual recognition to criminal proceedings.  
7. As a result of these measures, judicial  cooperation in criminal matters in the 
European Union has already become less fo rmal and more standardised. Yet, to 
date no instrument exists to improve th e legal position of those subject to cross-
border proceedings and guarantee that they  benefit from the same minimum rights 
to a fair trial in all EU jurisdictions. Th is lack of balance has a negative impact on 
mutual trust among the member States, whic h in turn calls for action by the EU. 
The EU should seek to enhance that trus t and ensure that the rights of persons 
                                                 
2 Tampere European Council Conc lusion 30 (October 1999) invites the Council “to establish 
minimum standards ensuring an adequate level of legal aid in cross- border cases”, Tampere 
Conclusion 31 refers to “multilingual forms or docum ents to be used in cross-border court cases” – 
the basis of Com's proposed “Letter of Rights”. Tampere Conclusion 33 mentions facilitating “the 
judicial protection of individual rights”. Tampere Conc lusion 35 points out that the principle of a fair 
trial should not be prejudiced by fast track ex tradition procedures. Tamper e Conclusion 40 seeks to 
develop measures against crime “while protecting the freedoms and legal rights of individuals” 
3 OJ C12-15.01.2001 
4 E.g. Framework Decisions on the European Arre st Warrant, freezing orders, confiscation orders, 
financial penalties and the European Evidence Warrant. 
 
EN 4   EN suspected and/or accused in criminal proceedings are safeguarded throughout the 
European Union.  
Legislative history  
8. In February 2003, the Commission adopt ed a Green Paper on procedural 
safeguards for suspects and defendants in  criminal proceedings throughout the 
European Union. The Commission's suggested approach was not to create new rights but to give a higher profile to the specific fair trial rights laid down in the European Convention on Human Rights and other international conventions (e.g. 
ICCPR
5), in order to promote better and more consistent compliance with that 
convention, and thus increase mutual trust.  
9. Following the Green Paper, in April 2004 the Commission adopted a proposal for 
a Framework Decision on cer tain procedural rights a pplying in proceedings in 
criminal matters throughout  the European Union, focusing on “basic rights” 
identified in the Green Paper. The Co mmission relied on Article 31 (1) (c) TEU6 
as the legal base. The proposal was base d on the assumption that having common 
minimum standards of procedural rights will increase mutual trust and thus 
improve mutual recognition. The original  proposal for a Framework Decision 
covered rights in the following 6 areas: 1) access to legal representation, both 
before the trial and at trial; 2) access to interpretation and translation; 3) ensuring 
that vulnerable suspects and defendants in  particular were pr operly protected; 4) 
consular assistance to foreign detainees; 5) the right to communicate to a family 
member the fact of being in detention;  6) notifying suspects and defendants in 
writing of their rights in a documen t called the “Letter of Rights”. 
10. Discussions in the DROIPEN Working Group started in September 2004. At the 
outset, some Member States raised the question whether Article 31 (c) TEU 
provided an adequate legal base. The Council Legal Service was asked for an 
Opinion on the question; it gave a positive Opinion endorsing the Commission's approach (see details below under 'Legal Basis'). 
11. While most Member States supported th e proposal, and indeed had declared 
themselves in favour of an EU instrument during the Green Paper consultation, one Member State declared firm opposition at an early stage and opposed the proposal on two grounds, that there was no legal base – it did not accept the CLS 
Opinion - and that there was no need for such a proposal since all Member States were signatories to the ECHR so standard s for criminal proceedings were already 
protected within the EU. Some other aspects of the proposal were deemed 
unworkable by certain Member States . This included th e evaluation and 
monitoring requirement which was deleted at an early stage. Other deletions 
                                                
 
5 Article 9, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted and opened for signature, 
ratification and accession by Gene ral Assembly resolution 2200A (X XI) of 16 December 1966; entry 
into force 23 March 1976   
6 Art 31(1):“Common action on judicial cooperation in criminal matters shall include: 
[…]  
(c) ensuring compatibility in rules a pplicable in the Member States, as may be necessary to improve such 
cooperation; 
 
EN 5   EN included the obligation to record (by audio or video means) the interviews between 
the police and the suspect. The provisions on protection for vulnerable suspects, consular assistance and the right to comm unicate with a family member to inform 
them of the fact of bei ng in detention were also subject to difficulties.  
12. Despite the above difficulties, substan tial progress was made by end December 
2005 (The Hague Programme deadline) a nd the relevant Council Working Group 
seemed close to reaching an agreement. However during the first half of 2006 another Member State announced its opposition to the text and, shortly thereafter, 
4 further Member States declared that th ey could not support the proposal either. 
While negotiations continued, the group of - by then - 6 Member States announced 
in May 2006 that they did not want a bind ing text at all and put forward a draft 
(non-binding) Resolution. The Commissi on, in agreement with the majority, 
argued that a binding instrument was essent ial since for rights to be meaningful, 
they have to be enforceable in court.  
13. In 2007 every effort was made to accommodate the 6 Member States. The 
Presidency drafted a new text, reducing the rights covered to: 1) legal advice; 2) 
interpretation (and a limited right to translation of essential procedural 
documents); and the right to information about rights (to be transmitted orally 
rather than through a Letter of Rights) . One of the opposing Member States 
announced that it could only support a proposal limited to EAW cases, and an 
alternative text reflecting this limited scope was drafted by the Presidency but this was also rejected by another Member  State. The option of a non-binding 
Resolution was also discussed, but the majo rity of Member States still favoured a 
binding instrument. Discussions continued until June 2007 including the possibility of using the enhanced co operation mechanism (Art 40 TEU).  
14. The revised text was presented to the J une 2007 Justice and Home Affairs Council, 
with its variations and also two draft articles with the possibility of an opt-out, or an opt-in (a limited "cross-border" text with the possibility for those Member 
States wishing it to extend to all cases).  Agreement could not be reached and the 
text was shelved.  
15. In view of the failure to reach agreem ent on the Commission's 2004 proposal, it is 
clear that a new approach is needed.  
2.2 Legal basis and existing instruments 
16. The power to act and, where necessary, propose EU legislation in the area of 
criminal law is conferred, inter alia , by two articles of the TEU. First, Article 29 
TEU provides a general legal base: “…the Union's objective shall be to provide  citizens with a high level of safety 
within an area of freedom, security and justice by developing common action among the Member States in the fields of police and judicial cooperation in 
criminal matters and by preventing and combating racism and xenophobia. That 
objective shall be achieved through: … 
- approximation
, where necessary, of rules on criminal matters in the Member 
States, in accordance with the provisions of Article 31(e).”  
 
EN 6   EN 17. In addition, Article 31 provide s a more specific legal base: 
“Common action on judicial cooperation in criminal matters shall include: 
(c) ensuring compatibility in rules applicable in the Member States, as may be 
necessary to improve such cooperation;  
18. The Commission's proposal was based on Article 31(1)(c) TEU. As during the 
negotiations on the Commission's 2004 propo sal at least one Member State 
expressly challenged the legal base c hosen for that proposal, on 30 September 
2004 the Legal Service of the Council of the European Union issued an opinion7 
on the matter. In this opinion8 the Council's Legal Service confirmed that Article 
31(1)(c) was the appropriate legal base. Specifically, the opinion stated that "The Legal Service considers th at the Commission proposal is correctly based on 
Article 31(1)(c) of the TEU and that the Council can adopt the proposed measures 
if, in compliance with the principle of s ubsidiarity, it considers that they do not go 
beyond what is necessary to improve judici al cooperation in criminal matters." 
2.3 Organisation and timing  
19. The Commission hosted an experts' m eeting on procedural rights on 26 and 27 
March 2009 involving practitioners and repr esentatives of Member States (the 
Report is in Annex 2) to discuss whether a nd if so what action was needed in this 
area at EU level, particularly on the question whether such action should be 
limited to cross-border cases only. Most responses favour ed legislative action, to 
be accompanied by non-legislative measures, as necessary in addressing the lack of progress in the area of mutual trust a nd mutual recognition. As far as the scope 
is concerned, the overwhelming majority  of participants' opposed limiting the 
proposal to cross border cases (only 1 dele gate spoke in favour of this idea). See 
below at paragraphs 79-87 for a di scussion of cross border cases. 
20. The planned proposal should be adopted  by the Commission in July 2009. The 
reasons why it is not desirable to wait until it is known whether the Lisbon Treaty 
will come into force are set out in paragr aph 101 in the section below on Options. 
Several recent studies (ULB MR study, s ee paragraph 24 below and footnote 11) 
and conclusions of meetings (Justice Fo rum, experts' meeting on procedural 
rights), confirm that further progress with the EU's common area of justice, based 
on the mutual recognition of judicial deci sions, require s that work on procedural 
rights resumes - urgently - in the Council. The incoming SE presidency has made 
procedural rights one of their priorities. At  this stage, given the constraints, only a 
step-by-step approach is realistic a nd feasible. Nothing would prevent the 
Commission from accelerating work on the remaining rights after the Lisbon 
Treaty enters into force. 
2.4 Consultation and expertise 
Regarding the original 2004 proposal
 
                                                 
7 COPEN 117  
8 See Annex 1 
 
EN 7   EN 21. For the original 2004 proposal, extensiv e consultation was carried out using 
various methods. Since the factors which indi cated that EU legislation in this area 
was necessary still apply, we reiterate briefly the findings of the research and consultation carried out in or der to prepare that earlier proposal. The first step was 
the posting of a Consultation Paper on DG-JLS (then DG-JHA)'s website in 
January 2002 to which about 100 responses  were received. A questionnaire was 
sent to the Ministries of Justice of the Me mber States and an experts' meeting held 
in October 2002. A Green Paper was publishe d in February 2003 and all interested 
parties were invited to submit their comme nts in writing and to attend a public 
hearing held in June 2003. Each of thes e consultation exercises showed a high 
level of support for EU legislation in this area. 
22. In 2006, during the discussions on the Commission's 2004 proposal, the Council of 
Europe, and in particular the secretariat of the European Court of Human Rights, 
was consulted about its possible support for an  EU instrument in the area of rights. 
In its opinion
9 the Council of Europe broadly s upported EU action in this field 
stating "The Council of Europe fully re cognises the importance of common 
minimum standards in procedural rights as a necessary precondition for mutual 
trust in the legal systems of EU member States. […]  The Council of Europe is 
ready to cooperate with the EU institutions  and member States to ensure that the 
framework decision will enhance fundamenta l rights protection in Europe, which, 
as stated, is a common goal of the Eur opean Union and of the Council of Europe."  
It also stated that it " would welcome practical measures to improve compliance 
with ECHR standards which w ould strengthen mutual trust, thereby enhancing the 
operation of mutual recognition and judici al cooperation in criminal matters, not 
only within the European Union, but all over Europe."  
Regarding the revised 2009 proposal  
23. In preparing this Impact Assessment,  the Commission has drawn on a number of 
additional sources of informati on, including the following 5 studies: 
 (1) The study 'Status Quaestionis'
10: Questionnaire on the Provision of Legal 
Interpreting and Tran slation in the EU was carried out by means of an EU wide 
questionnaire. The questionnaire was sent both to governmental  bodies (Ministries 
of Justice) and to practitioners (Bar associations, interpre ters, translators, 
academics teaching interpretation and tr anslation) with questions about, inter alia , 
training, cost of provision of  the service, sta ndards of provision and mechanisms in 
place to ensure quality control. Gove rnment bodies from 13 Member States 
replied. For 13 other Member States data were obtained only from non-governmental sources. No responses were received at all from 1 Member State. 
The results were analysed on the basis of certain indicators in order to assess the 
provision of legal interpretation and transl ation, starting with training offered and 
including frequency of provision of inte rpretation and translation in criminal 
proceedings. Other indicators were whether there is a system of quality control and 
any regulation of the profession. The study includes statistics on the number of 
                                                
 
9 DROIPEN 62 of 10/10/2006 
10 Status Quaestionis : Questionnaire on the Provision of Legal Interpreting and Translation in the EU, 
AGIS project JLS/2006/AGIS/052 – by Erik Hertog and Jan Van Gucht 
 
EN 8   EN cases dealt with by the public prosecutor  per 100,000 inhabitants. The findings of 
this study are summarised in tables in Annex 5.  
(2) The 'Analysis of the future of mutu al recognition in criminal matters in 
the European Union'11, carried out by the Université  Libre de Bruxelles (ULB) 
and finalised in November 2008, followed a two-stream approach. National correspondents of ULB's European Crim inal Law Academics Network (ECLAN) 
carried out research in their home Memb er State and drafted a national report 
based on in-depth research and interviews  with experts and pr actitioners (after 
completing a questionnaire). The researchers then carried out a horizontal analysis 
comparing with the Member State anal ysis to identify common themes. The 
findings were examined further in inte rviews with more than 150 experts and 
practitioners, including civil se rvants of ministries of justice responsible for the 
negotiation and transposition of mutual recognition instruments, judges, defence 
lawyers, liaison magistrates, prosecutors and others.  
(3) The Final Report of the Reflection Forum on Multilingualism and 
Interpreter Training , published by DG Interpretation in March 2009
12 made 
recommendations for best practice and qua lity improvement in legal interpreting. 
DG JLS participated in the work of the Reflection Forum which met several times 
during 2008 and 2009. The Report is comprehens ive, with a section setting out the 
present situation, background and relevant  developments (including DG-JLS's 
2003 Green Paper on Procedural Safeguards13 and 2004 proposal for a Framework 
Decision on certain procedural rights applying in proceedings in criminal matters throughout the European Union). The repor t has sections on training, on adopting 
a professional Code of Conduct and guidelines for good practice, working 
arrangements, implementing an efficien t structure of legal interpreting and 
concluding recommendations.  
(4) The Study by the Maastricht University on existing safeguards in all 
Member States
14, published in December 2005, show ed a wide discrepancy in 
standards and differing levels of complia nce with the European Convention on 
Human Rights (ECHR), was. In 2008, th e Commission issued an invitation to 
tender for a study updating the 2005 Maas tricht study. Maastricht and Ghent 
Universities submitted a successful joint te nder and are currently carrying out the 
updating study, the results of which will be available in July 2009. 
(5) Effective Criminal Defe nce Rights in Europe , a study funded in part under 
the Criminal Justice Programme is a joint in itiative of JUSTICE, the University of 
the West of England, the Open Soci ety Justice Initiative and Maastricht 
University. It will be carried out over  a 2 year period (2 008-2010) and provide 
                                                 
11 "Analysis of the future of mutual recognition in criminal matters in the European Union" by Gisèle 
Vernimmen-Van Tiggelen and Laura Surano ( Call for tenders JLS/D3/2007/03 European 
Commission ) – 20 November 2008 
12 http://ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/orban/docs/FinalL_Reflection_Forum_Report_en.pdf  
13 COM(2003) 75 final of 19.2.2003 
14 The study, "Procedural Rights in Criminal Proceedings: Existing level of safeguards in the European 
Union" was carried out for DG-JLS by Taru Spronken and Marelle Attinger (Faculty of Law, 
Department of Criminal Law and Criminology, Un iversity of Maastricht) on 12 December 2005. 
 
EN 9   EN empirical information on the extent to  which procedural  rights that are 
indispensable for an effective defence, such  as the right to info rmation, the right of 
access to a lawyer and the right to an inte rpreter, are provided in practice in 8 EU 
Member States and one accession country (Turkey)15. The reports for Belgium, 
England and Wales and Hungary have been completed. 
Consultation of stakeholders  
24. Prior to the 2004 proposal's adoption, extens ive consultation was carried out (see 
paragraph 22 above). The position of stak eholders has not changed since that 
consultation exercise (we have regular and frequent contact with our major 
stakeholders :European Criminal Bar Association, CCBE – Council of Bars and 
Law Societies of Europe -, national Bar associations, academics working in the 
field, NGOs such as JUSTICE, Amnest y International and Fair Trials 
International, the European Parliament a nd international networ ks of translators 
and interpreters). At  a Justice Forum meeting in Ju ly 2008 at which ULB's study 
on mutual recognition was discussed, the ove rwhelming majority of participants 
expressed their continuing wi sh to see legislation at  EU level on procedural 
safeguards. The Justice Forum was constitu ted with the aim of providing an arena 
in which the Commission could consult its  stakeholders. In relation to this 
initiative, general principles and minimum standards for consultation of interested 
parties have been followed.  
Impact Assessment Board 
25. The Impact assessment was examined by the Impact Assessment Board on 27 May 
2009. Further to the IAB's recommendations , additional information and data was 
provided. At the IAB's request, more detail s about timing in relation to the Lisbon 
Treaty were given (paragraph 21), further co sts estimates were added (Table 6 in 
Annexe 4 was added and paragraphs 74- 76 were developed)  and the problem 
definition was refined (paragraphs 32-35) to show why mutual trust is so important, what factors affect it and how to  enhance it. The IAB asked for a better 
explanation about cross border cases a nd why these are difficult to define. 
Therefore, the section on Option 4, a proposal limited to cross border cases (paragraphs 82-91), was amplified in orde r to clarify the problem.  The Options 
table (Section 8) was refined to indicate be tter the effectiveness, efficiency and 
consistency of the options with defined policy objectives, and the political feasibility of each option was assesse d. Finally, more information about 
consultation of stakeholders was added (p aragraph 25) to show how extensive the 
consultation had been and that the exercise  fully complied with general principles 
and standards for consultation. 
SECTION
 3: PROBLEM  DEFINITION   
26. The problem, which has various legal and social aspects, can be summarised as 
follows: 
                                                 
15 The research project will cover nine countries: Poland, Hungary, Belgium, France, Italy, Germany, 
England and Wales and Finland and an accession state (Turkey).  
 
EN 10   EN • Increased movement within the EU, outdated provisions and inconsistent 
application of existing international standa rds (ECHR) at MS level result in an 
increasing number of cases where the accused are not fully aware of their 
rights, the charges against them, and th e procedures which are to be applied. 
• In turn, there is a perception among ci tizens and practitione rs that justice 
systems in Member States other than their own are unfair, that they cannot 
obtain remedy at international level as the European Court of Human Rights is swamped with complaints. 
• Ultimately, this problem hinders the development of a European area of justice 
as the implementation of the mutual r ecognition principle presupposes that MS 
have trust in each others' criminal justice systems.  
• Under the mutual recognition principle,  Member States are expected to 
surrender their nationals for trial or to serve custodial sentences in prisons in 
another Member State. Judi cial authorities are expect ed to recognise a foreign 
judicial decision as being "equivalent" to one taken in  their own Member State. 
This can only work effectively if they ar e convinced that judicial decisions are 
taken fairly in other Member States, a ssuming that the relevant standards for 
fair trial rights were respected. Currently, this is not always the case and this harms mutual trust. In some cases lack  of trust reaches a level where Member 
States refuse to execute foreign judici al decisions based on various grounds for 
refusal, including some not foreseen in  European legislation. If there were 
common minimum safeguards, judicial au thorities would be more comfortable 
executing a foreign judicial decision in the knowledge that the person affected 
by the decision had access to interpreta tion, translation, legal advice, a 
reasonable time to prepare their defence and other rights to be guaranteed at a 
minimum level throughout the EU. 
• Practitioners point to an imbalance in the acquis between the numerous 
measures to facilitate and expedite th e prosecution of criminals (EAW, judicial 
and police cooperation) and th e absence of measures to protect the rights of the 
accused.  
• The most pressing aspect of this pr oblem, according to practitioners and 
stakeholders, is the fact that the accuse d is not guaranteed access to appropriate 
translation and interpretation services. The extent of the problem is still unclear as Member States do not monitor the numbers of persons accused in other EU jurisdictions and who do no understand the official language[s] of the MS in 
question. No statistics are available; therefore the problem in most Member 
States remains latent. Case studies  are however available. Studies
16 confirm the 
widespread view among practitioners17 that the current situation hinders the 
                                                 
16 See Procedural Rights in Criminal Proceedings: Existing Level of Safeguards in the European Union, 
by Taru Spronken and Marelle Attinger, Faculty of Law, Department of Criminal Law and 
Criminology University of Maastricht, pages 35 - 52 
17 See submissions by practitioners to the Experts' Meeting organised by the European Commission on 
26 – 27 March 2009, in particular a joint submission by Open Society, Amnesty International and 
Justice (available at 
 
EN 11   EN development of mutual trust, a prerequi site for the mutual recognition which is 
the cornerstone of the Eur opean area of justice.  
27. Minimum standards for implementing the ECHR come not just from the ECHR 
itself but also from the case law of the European Court of Human Rights 
(ECtHR).There are now 47 states bound by the ECHR. They joined the ECHR 
mechanism at different times and in differe nt circumstances. It is possible that 
different States understand ECHR obligati ons differently. Violations would seem 
to occur in part because States do not have sufficient mechanisms in place to ensure that the ECHR is observed in pr actice and in part because States do not 
always comply with judgments finding that they have committed violations by changing their system. 
28. The ECHR was drafted in 1950 and came into force in 1953, at which time only 3 
Contracting States recognised the compet ence of the ECtHR to hear applications 
from individuals (rather than interstate  applications). It was only in 1998, when 
Protocol 11 to the Convention, came in to force that it became compulsory to 
recognise the right of individual pet ition. The obligation to recognise the 
competence of the ECtHR is therefore a fa irly recent development. The fact that 
there are no agreed minimum standards, that the obligation to recognise the 
ECtHR is a recent one and that States have joined at different times may explain to 
a certain extent the continue d violations of the ECHR. 
Why not include the rights of victims?
 
29. The rights of victims are clearly connected  with the rights of suspects/accused, as 
these two categories of persons are key play ers in any criminal proceedings (unless 
the crime is "victimless"). A fair trial implies fair treatment of both categories. Yet, their rights are quite different in substance (Article 6 ECHR only protects 
defendants) and legislation on the rights of victims al ready exists under EU law 
(Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA on the standing of victims in criminal 
proceedings as well as Council Direc tive 2004/80/EC on compensation to crime 
victims). While the implementation of th ese two EU instruments is far from 
adequate in the Member States (see imple mentation reports of 20 April 2009), they 
already provide a degree of prot ection for victims in the EU.  
Problem 1 – Absence of minimum standards hampers mutual trust 30. Mutual trust is presumed in the EU's strategic intention to  create a European 
judicial area. Experts acr oss the EU report however that this trust has not 
developed in the absence of common trad itions and procedures, and of legal 
remedies for the person affected by exis ting mutual recognition measures. Where 
however, cultural and historic ties are strong, such as in the Nordic countries, trust 
and cooperation between jurisd ictions is more advanced
18. As the ULB study 
                                                                                                                                                     
http://www.ecba.org/extdocserv/projects/ps/Submislegalbasisprocrightsframework.pdf ) as well as 
the minutes of the meeting (see Annex 2) 
18 See http://www.eu2009.cz/fr/media-service/video/in formal-meeting-of-ministers-for-justice-and-
home-affairs-press-conference;-ministers-of-justice--6574/  
 
EN 12   EN demonstrates, the lack of balance betw een the interests of the prosecution and 
those of the defence acts as a further barrier to trust19. 
31. The point made about lack of trust among the Member States and this being 
related directly or indirectly to the l ack of harmonisation of minimum procedural 
rights is regularly made in various fora, including in the JHA Council. 
32. When the ECHR was drawn up in 1950, cross-border communication, travel, 
crime and judicial cooperation and mutual  recognition were rare . Article 6 of the 
ECHR, which lays down fair trial guarantees , was not designed with present levels 
of cross border crime in mind. Mutual rec ognition measures, su ch as the EAW or 
the European Freezing Order, have change d the nature of cross border criminal 
proceedings but the concomitant rights have not been specifically addressed and the rights set out in Article 6 ECHR were not designed to offer safeguards in this 
type of proceedings. Case-law of the EC tHR shows that viola tions of Article 6 
rights occur in all Member States. 
33. The high number of cases
20 alone before the ECtHR relating to Article 6 suggests 
that these rights are not always respected (in 2008, there were 8172 judgments 
finding that a violation had o ccurred of which 6000 related to violations of Article 
6)21. There is currently a backlog of 104,100 cases at the European Court of 
Human Rights of which 25,100 related to Article 622. Furthermore, the ECtHR can 
provide a remedy for violations of Article 6 only after the event.  
Problem 2 -- Not understanding the proceedings may raise an issue of fair trial  
34. The absence of a specific EU instrument  providing minimum standards applicable 
to suspects in cross-border proceedings c ould lead to a percep tion that the EU does 
not sufficiently promote minimum standards of justice across the Member States. 
The ECHR provides that a person facing a cr iminal charge must be informed in a 
language which he understands of the na ture and cause of the accusation against 
him and must have the free a ssistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or 
                                                 
19 ULB Mutual Recognition Study, page 15 
20 "This system is a victim of its own success. Not on ly does the Court receive a steady stream of cases, 
the rising tide of applications now threatens to overwhelm the Court. A brief survey of annual rates of activity in this area is re vealing. The European Commissi on of Human Rights received 49 
individual applications in the decade of the 60’s, 163 in the 70’s, and 455 in the 80’s. With the 
enlargement and entr y into force of Protocol no. 11, the numbers have exploded. In 1998, the 
Registry of the Court received 18,2 00 individual applicati ons, a figure that has increased every year 
thereafter, to 50,500 in 2006. Although some 98%  of all applications will be determined to be 
inadmissible for one reason or another, the Court is  nonetheless overloaded. Today there are nearly 
100,000 applications, in the post-admissibility phase, pending before the organs of the Court. The 
delay between application and a decision on the merits, has now reached more than five years 
(though only 5% of applications j udged admissible will reach the meri ts stage). The annual rate of 
judgments on the merits rendered by the Court shows a similar pattern. Through 1982, the Court had 
rendered, in its history, only 61 such rulings pursuant to applications by individuals. It issued 72 such 
rulings in 1995; 695 in 2000; 1,105 in 2005; and 1,560 in 2006
." Introduction: The Reception of the 
ECHR in National Legal Orders by Alec Stone Sweet and Helen Keller 
21 ECtHR annual report for 2008: http://www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonly res/FF6B92F9-44FA-402F-8D86-
A2507A1C3BC2/0/Rapport_annuel_2008.pdf  
22 Figure provided by the Council of Europe liaison office in Brussels. 
 
EN 13   EN speak the language spoken in the court. Ther e are also similar provisions in Article 
14 (3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Poli tical Rights. These rights 
apply to citizens as much as to non-citi zens. Article 5(2) provides that everyone 
who is arrested must be informed promp tly in a language which he understands of 
the reasons for his arrest a nd the charges against him. 
35. Yet, as the Status Quaestionis  study concluded, "… [the survey] shows that 
sufficient legal interpreting and tran slation skills and structures are not yet  in place 
to meet the goals that al l individuals, irrespective of  language and culture, have 
their procedural rights respected in each Member State"23. This conclusion is based 
on an assessment using various indicator s by the project and ranking 14 Member 
States' performance on a scale from 0 to 100, i.e. from low to high. In half of the Member States, the survey concluded, comp liance with the rights to interpretation 
and translation is low. 
36. The existing standards under internati onal law are unevenly complied with, even 
in the European Union
24. If someone is subject to cr iminal proceedings in another 
Member State, there is risk that that person will not be treated in the same manner as nationals would be. Hence the growing perception, as evinced by articles in the 
press (e.g. the "Pla nespotters" case
25 or the Michael Shields case26), that foreign 
suspects will not receive justice.  
37. Over the years, many similar cases have  been brought to light by organisations 
such as Fair Trials International ( http://www.fairtrials.net ) and by the national 
reports of the Committee for the Prevention of Torture27 (http://www.cpt.coe.int ). 
This perception of unfair treatment can be  for a variety of reasons such as not 
having the cultural and legal knowledge of another country to understand what is 
going on and to assert one's rights, and not understanding th e language of the 
proceedings28. The following cases, both investigat ed recently by Fair Trials 
International, illustrate the difficulties faced by suspects involved in criminal 
                                                 
23 Status Quaestionis : Questionnaire on the Provision of Legal Interpreting and Translation in the EU, 
AGIS project JLS/2006/AGIS/052 – by Erik Hertog and Jan Van Gucht, pages 2 and 189 
  
24 See applicable national provisions and practices at pages 35-52 of the Study Procedural Rights 
25 See case description at http://www.guardian.co.uk/ world/2001/nov/18/greece  and follow-up at 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/balkanhr/message/4810  ; 
26 See case description at http://www.freemichaelshields.com/  
27 For example, the 2007 CPT report on Greece states (paragraph 42): "As was the case in 2005, many 
persons in police detention complained that they had not been informed about their rights. In the 
holding centres for aliens, similar allegations were made; where information sheets had been 
distributed, detainees stated that they were in a language they could not understand and their content had not been explained to them." As a result, the CPT noted in general that "Rights for persons 
deprived of their liberty will be of little value if th e persons concerned are unaware of their existence. 
Consequently, it is imperative that persons taken into police custody are expressly informed of their rights without delay and in a language which they understand. In order to ensure that this is done, a 
form setting out those rights in a straightforward manner should be systematically given to persons 
detained by the police at the very outset of their custody. Further, the persons concerned should be 
asked to sign a statement attesting that they ha ve been informed of their rights", see The CPT 
standards, "Substantive" sections of the CPT's General Reports, CPT/Inf/E (2002) 1, Rev. 2006 
28 See references to FTA cases also in UK's Parliament enquiry into Procedural Rights at : 
http://www.parliament.the-stati onery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200607/c mselect/cmhaff/76/7606.htm#n149 
 
 
EN 14   EN proceedings abroad. Here, we have dele ted the names and the Member States 
concerned since the aim is to illustrate the problem rather than to draw attention to 
any Member States in particular.  
Case 1 – RD 
RD is a national of Member State A who wa s arrested in Octobe r 2005 by the Tourist 
Police in Member State B. He is a semi -retired computer programmer and computer 
programming teacher. He also works as a consultant, developer and teacher. He has been 
disabled since contracting West Nile Virus two years ago. He move d to Member State B 
with his wife in January 2005. 
In October 2005, the tourist police came to his house and questioned him about some 
emails advertising pharmaceuticals. They suspected him of having sent them. The 
policemen would not identify themselves, refused to advise him of his rights or show any 
search warrant. They did show him three email printouts which did not include enough 
information to trace them. Two of the emails appeared to come from  one of the world's 
leading marketing information companies, based in the US. The email was clearly not 
actually sent by them and in any event, RD has no connection to this company. The other 
email was from RD to a lady who is a nationa l of Member State B. There was no mention 
of any pharmaceuticals. 
The police arrested RD and took his computer . He did not have to go to prison on account 
of his poor health. The next da y he read in the local paper "national of Member State A 
arrested for drug trafficking" (RD is the only national of Member State A in the area) and 
that the tourist police had arrested a key figure in an in ternational drug trafficking ring. It 
has become apparent that the person who compla ined to the police did so after meeting RD 
, as she and two of her friends then began to  receive 'spam' emails offering pharmaceutical 
drugs. The emails do not appear to come from  or lead to RD, his websites or his email 
address. They bear no relation to RD's enterprises. This case has to be seen in connection 
with strict law enforcement in Member State B concerning technology. In 2002, the 
authorities of Member State B passed a law bann ing all electronic games, in an attempt to 
stamp out illegal gambling. The law resulted in internet cafes being closed down and 
people playing games on their mobile phones been sent to jail for a year. 
Fair trial issues 
1. When RD was interviewed, no lawyer was present. He was told that he did not 
need a lawyer and that the polic e had not come to arrest him. 
2. RD was forced, under threats of being im prisoned, to sign a document which 
he did not understand as it was not in his language. 
3. More than a month after taking his comput er, the authorities s till had not requested 
any information regarding the administrato r password, which they would need to 
access all the information on the computer. 
FTA Case 2 – MW 
 
EN 15   EN MW is a 48-year-old citizen of Member Stat e A. He is a self-employed carpenter. On 10 
November 2003, he was arrested in Member State B on a st opover on his way home from a 
holiday in Brazil and was charged with tra fficking cocaine. On 22 April 2004 he was found 
guilty and sentenced to 6 years in prison. MW ha d checked his bags in at Sao Paulo airport 
and did not expect to have any contact with them until arriving at his destination in Member 
State A. He had no hand luggage and car ried only a book to read on the flight. 
When MW was arrested, he was taken into an  interrogation room and shown one of his 
bags, which lay on a table with all identificat ion tags missing. He was asked to open the 
bag and when he did so, he f ound that his clothes were in di sarray but nothing was actually 
missing. In the bag was a folder  containing many forms of id entification (c redit cards, 
cheque books etc.). Then he was shown a large package which had allegedly been in his 
bag. He refused to hold or touch this package to avoid leaving his fi ngerprints on it. Police 
later claimed that they had found two sm aller packages in his bag as well. 
While being interrogated, MW informed the officers of his other checked-in baggage, 
which they retrieved. This bag st ill had all its security tags an d labels attached and no drugs 
were found in it. Both the drugs and the ba g, in which they had supposedly been found, 
were said to have been destr oyed before the case came to tr ial. Only photographs of the 
packages allegedly containing drugs and the ba g itself were produced in court. A witness 
claimed that he had found the bag abandoned in the airport. 
During the trial, the prosecutor portrayed MW as a "career criminal", which is entirely 
untrue. The judge was presented with an Inte rpol record stating that MW is a valued 
member of the community, however he chose not to  take accept this le tter as evidence. MW 
was offered a reduced 5 year sentence if he admitted his guilt, which he refused. He was 
found guilty and appealed; however the sentence was not changed. A further appeal has 
been submitted to the Supreme Court. If this  fails, there will be an application to the 
European Court of Human Rights. 
Fair trial issues 
1. MW was denied access to both a lawyer a nd to consular officials despite several 
requests in the days following his arrest.  
2. His request to have the c ontents of his two suitcases  weighed, in order to be 
compared with the weight of the suitcases when they were checked in Sao Paolo, 
was refused without explanation.  
3. At his first court appearance, he had not slept for over 50 hours. He was only 
allowed five minutes with his court-a ppointed lawyer, who did not speak his 
native language . At this hearing the prosecuti on told the court that MW was 
found in possession of 3 plastic packages  containing cocaine, hidden inside his 
suitcase. MW was not able to refute this  statement because nothing was 
translated for him . The translator told him that as she was employed by the court, 
she was only allowed to speak on the court’s instructions.  
4. The judges allowed the prosecutor to  guide his two witn esses through their 
statements. Both witnesses had been in the courtroom from the beginning, and 
again no part of their statements or the evidence they gave was translated for MW, 
 
EN 16   EN making it impossible for him to instruct his lawyer for cro ss-examination. The 
judge also refused to admit statements MW submitted because they were in his 
native lanagueg. No-one was available to translate them into the language of the 
court. The judge did not suspend the tria l in order to have them translated.  
5. There was no forensic evidence to conf irm that the packages contained drugs.  
6. Defence counsel did not attend the se ntencing hearing on 29 April 2004. MW took 
the opportunity to submit his own statements, which he ha d had translated into the 
language of the court. The judges refused to admit these statements, deeming them 
to have been submitted too late.  
38. Insufficient provision of interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings is 
one of the immediate problems faced by citizens who find themselves arrested, and possibly charged, with a criminal offen ce, in a country in which they do not 
understand the language. They are at a disadva ntage in relation to a national of that 
country. As the above cases illustrate, the right to understand the proceedings, in 
particular the right to interpretation and translation is a fundamental right for any 
suspect involved in criminal proceedings and may influence the extent to which other rights to a fair trial may be effectively exercised by the suspect.  
39. Preliminary findings of the Maastricht/Ghe nt study also show that suspects who do 
not speak or understand the language of the proceedings are at a clear 
disadvantage. The scope of th e right to interpretation and translation extends to all 
parts of criminal proceedings. The interpre tation must be sufficient in quality and 
scope as outlined by the ECtHR in the Kamasinksi case (A168) 76-77 (19 
December 1989). Although not explicitly me ntioned in the ECHR, the right to free 
translation of documents which the defendant needs to understand in order to have a fair trial is established in ECtHR case law.  
40. The Effective Criminal Defence Rights in Europe Project
29 finds that as regards 
translation and interpretati on of the proceedings, none of the countries studied so 
far (Belgium, Hungary, England and Wales) have specific regulations or standards 
for persons acting as interpreters and tr anslators in criminal proceedings or 
mechanisms to safeguard quality of interpretation. In Belgium, the defendant must sign to certify that the translation wa s adequate but cannot know whether it was 
adequate or not. In Belgium and in England and Wales there are no sanctions if interpretation or translation is not provided. Owing to a restrictive interpretation of the law by the Supreme Court, in Belgium the right to translation of procedural documents applies only to mono- or bilingua l Belgians or to those whose native 
language is one of the three official Be lgian languages. In England and Wales, 
there is no procedure for determining whether translation is necessary, for 
arranging translation or for de termining who bears the cost.  
41. As no standards exist, Member States do not keep statistics about cases in which 
suspects were unable fully to understand the proceedings. It is therefore difficult to 
assess the proportion of cases in which the ri ght to interpretation and translation is 
                                                
 
29 http://www.unimaas.nl/default.as p?template=werkveld.htm&id=TTMXXC75LEDL3C10XH3X&taal=en  
 
EN 17   EN not respected. People who are prosecuted in proceedings in which they do not 
understand the language and are not given the help of a translator or interpreter are 
in a vulnerable situation and may not be aware of their right to bring an action 
before the European Court of Human Rights. Complaints received by the 
European Commission from citizens su bjected to cross-border criminal 
proceedings seem to confirm that many of the cases where interpretation was not 
provided were not referred to the ECHR. In  cases where an application is made to 
the ECHR on the ground that translation or  interpretation was insufficient, it is 
often rejected by the Court if on balance the ensuing proceedi ngs were not unfair 
as such. For example, the European Court of Human Rights has rejected MW's application. 
Problem 3 - Individuals surrendered under the EAW are excluded from rights under Article 
6 ECHR  
42. The EAW raises a specific problem. Th e generally held view by human rights 
practitioners is that extrad ition cases within the EU are excluded from the ambit of 
Article 6 of the ECHR30. This is because Article 6 EC HR confers rights that apply 
during "criminal proceedings"; the extradition proceedings are not part of the ordinary criminal proceedings. Thus a person surrendered under a EAW who has 
not had the benefit of legal ad vice and/or interpretation in  respect of the hearing in 
the executing State does not have a remedy at the ECtHR, but is left with the sole option of pursuing a domestic  remedy in the country where he or she was arrested 
(and generally he no longer finds himself there since he has been surrendered to 
another country for the criminal pr oceedings proper). The following chart 
illustrates the number of cases that are potentially affected: 
EAWs 2005 2006
31 200732 
Issued 6900 6750 11.000 
Persons traced and/or 
arrested 1770 2040 4200 
Surrendered 1530 1890 3400 
Nationals surrendered for 
prosecution in another 20% 25%  
                                                 
30 d) Expulsion and extradition  
25. Procedures for expulsion of aliens do not belong to  the criminal sphere of Ar ticle 6, notwithstanding the 
fact that they may be brought in th e context of criminal proceedings (M aaouia v. France [GC], no. 39652/98, 
§ 39, ECHR 2000 X). The same exclusive approach applies to extradition proceedings (Peñafiel Salgado v. 
Spain (dec.), no. 65964/01, 16 April 2002). See ECHR, Key case-law issues, COMPATIBILITY RATIONE 
MATERIAE, ARTICLE 6, (NOTION OF “CRIMINAL CHARGE”): 
 
31 11371/4/07 rev 4; BE, DE, IT et SE n'ont pas fourni leurs données  
 
32 10330/3/08 rev 3; BE, BG et IT n'ont pas fourni leurs données.  
 
EN 18   EN Member State 
Breach of 90 days time limit 
(number of cases) 80 122  
43. Problems in the area of interpretation and translation are highli ghted by the mutual 
evaluation reports33 adopted by the Council of the European Union on the EAW. 
Several reports stress the difficulty to comply with the short deadlines imposed by the legislation transposing the Fram ework Decision on the EAW and surrender 
procedures34. 
SECTION
 4: THE  NEED  FOR  ACTION  AT EU LEVEL   
How would the problem evolve all things being equal?  
44. The ULB study (see paragraph 24(2) and f ootnote 11) found that the efficiency of 
mutual recognition measures was being hamp ered by inadequate levels of mutual 
trust. As further mutual recognition inst ruments come into force, this may be 
exacerbated. Current EU initiatives which could have a positive impact on the situation centre largely on the promotion of networks of legal professionals and 
funded projects to help crea te trust. The Commission give s grants to the European 
Judicial Training Network, to the Europ ean Judicial Networ k, to the European 
Network of Councils of the Judiciary, to the European Criminal Bar Association 
and to Victim Support Europe. These ne tworks all bring legal professionals 
together. Contacts of this type can pr omote trust since once judges and lawyers 
have met their counterparts from other EU  Member States and learned about their 
criminal justice systems, they may have  more faith in the operation of their 
systems, despite the differences. These netw orks do not have a direct impact on the 
experience of citizens who find themselves charged with crimes in Member States other than their own, nor do they in themselves give Member States the incentive to prioritise rights
35.  
45. Without appropriate standards to prot ect the rights of su spects to understand 
proceedings and receive translation in cross- border proceedings there is a risk that 
the previously identified imbalance between prosecution and the accused could be further aggravated and ultimately run contra ry to the interests of justice in the 
European Union. This problem has become  significant with the increasing number 
of people involved in such  proceedings. The overall trend indicates continued 
                                                
 
33 Most reports can be found at: http://www.ulb.ac.be/iee/penal/ mutualrecognition/national.htm  or at 
http://www.eurowarrant.net/index.asp?c_nr=7  
 
34 See Evaluation report on the Fourth round of mutual evaluations "the practical application of the European 
arrest warrant and corresponding surr ender procedures between member states", Report on Denmark, COPEN 
106, page 14;  and Report on Lithuania, COPEN 121, page 29.   
 
35 Articles 47-50 of the CFREU provide for fair trial rights but what is meant by these rights is not set out 
anywhere. 
 
EN 19   EN increases in the number of non-nationals char ged with criminal offences in the EU 
(see Annex 5). 
46. The Lisbon Treaty would bring about a substantial change in this area, in 
particular by creating a specific legal base  for EU legislation on procedural rights. 
Article 82(2)c of the Lisbon Treaty provides a legal base for the approximation of 
laws, i.e. establishing minimum rules, in th e area of "the rights of individuals in 
criminal procedure" by means of dire ctives adopted in accordance with the 
ordinary legislative proce dure. This means that the possibility of a blocking 
minority is much reduced. One or more of the Member States which led the 
opposition to the proposal, would be able to opt out of any new proposal under the Lisbon Treaty. 
EU right to act /subsidiarity 
47. The subsidiarity principle is intended to ensure that decisions are taken as closely 
as possible to the citizen. The principle of s ubsidiarity is defined in Article 5 of the 
Treaty establishing the European Comm unity. Specifically, it is the principle 
whereby the Union does not take action (except in the areas which fall within its exclusive competence) unless it is more effective than action taken at national, 
regional or local level. It is closely bound up with the pr inciples of proportionality 
and necessity, which require that any action by the Union should not go beyond 
what is necessary to achieve the obj ectives of the Treaty. The Treaty of 
Amsterdam incorporated the Protocol that requires a systematic analysis of the 
impact of legislative proposals on the principle of subsidiarity and proportionality. 
48. To date, the Member States have comp lied, to differing degrees , with their fair 
trial obligations deriving principally from national la w and the ECHR, which has 
led to discrepancies in the le vels of safeguards. It has also led to speculation about 
standards in other Member States and on occasion there have been accusations of 
deficiencies in the criminal justice syst em of one Member State in the media of 
another. EU action in this area would th erefore be required a nd could include the 
adoption of common minimum standards as  an accompanying measure in an area 
of free movement of persons.  
49. The right to a fair trial constitutes a fundamental righ t which the European Union 
respects as a general principle under Article 6 (2) TEU
36. Member States must 
respect fundamental rights when they ar e acting within the scope of Community 
and Union law. This requirement is not only explicitly provided for in all 'third pillar' legal instruments, but  is also recognised by the case-law of the ECJ. The EU 
by way of legislation could clarify the legal obligation of MS to comply with Article 5 ECHR (informing arrested pers ons in a language th ey understand of the 
reasons for the arrest and the charges against them) and to guarantee the right to a 
                                                
 
36 Case C-308/07 P  Koldo Gorostiaga Atxalandabaso , 19 February 2009, para. 41 with further reference to 
Case C-305/05 Ordre des barreaux francophone et germanophone and Others [2007] ECR I-5305, 
paragraph 29, and Joined Cases C-341/06 P and C-342/06 P Chronopost and La Poste v UFEX and 
Others  [2008] ECR I-0000, paragraph 44.  
 
 
EN 20   EN fair trial in the context of  EU criminal law. Such a measure could make these 
rights and obligations more visible for EU citizens and public authorities. 
SECTION  5: OBJECTIVES  
50. The general objective is to increase mutual  trust to allow better application of the 
mutual recognition principle, which is the cornerstone of the EU judicial area.  Through increased mutual trust, existing European Union instruments on mutual 
recognition in criminal matters can be exp ected to work better and to have a real 
added value compared to the tradi tional inter-governmental cooperation 
instruments of extradition a nd mutual legal assistance. 
51. The above general objective can be translated into the following specific 
objectives: 1) to provide common minimu m standards for procedural rights in all criminal 
proceedings, including extradition (which is very rare within the EU now) and the EAW; and 2) to ensure that suspects, whether EU ci tizens or not, are informed of how they 
can benefit from these common minimum st andards wherever they are within the 
European Union.  
SECTION
 6: DESCRIPTION OF POLICY OPTIONS  
52. The five options for addressing th ese objectives are set out below. 
Option 1: Status quo  
53. If no further EU action is taken, the situati on could be expected to evolve as set out 
above (see Section 4 above). This option is based on the assumption that Member 
States are at any rate expected to co mply with the ECHR and provide minimum 
safeguards at least in domestic legal pr oceedings. That obligation remains whether 
the EU takes action or not. 
Option 2:  Promotion of non-legisl ative measures (best practices) 
54. The 2004 proposal for a Framework Decision would be withdrawn and measures 
would be taken to promote the sharing of  national best practices and developing 
EU guidelines on various aspects of pro cedural rights (tra ining, provision of 
information about rights, dissemination of ECtHR case-law and obligations stemming from the case-law, exchange of re gisters for interpreters and translators 
competent to work in another EU Member State, electronic networking for defence 
lawyers). This option is based on the recognition that compliance with ECHR 
standards on fair trial rights is not fully  achieved by all EU member States. This 
option would seek a better awareness of  the ECHR standards by disseminating and 
recommending practices which help complia nce with the ECHR. As such, it would 
not achieve any further approximation of legal standards. Should this option be 
taken, the following recommendations could be included in a document on best practices: 
 
EN 21   EN • Member States should provide informa tion to citizens and practitioners on 
judgments of the European Court of Ju stice and of the European Court of 
Human Rights in Strasbourg concerni ng minimum standards of procedural 
rights in criminal proceedings, including th e translation of suitable into official 
languages and their subsequent publicatio n and dissemination, in particular on 
Internet homepages of the police and judicial authori ties, to increase awareness 
of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 
• Member States should have available, a nd use, in their polic e stations, a Letter 
of Rights drafted in all the languages  of the European Union, listing the 
essential rights of a person concerned.  
• Member States should develop suitabl e, effective national standards for 
interpretation services (including sign language interpretation) in criminal proceedings; organise training for lega l interpreters and translators in 
appropriate institutions.  
• Member States should have a syst em of accreditation/ certification for 
translators and interpreters employed in criminal proceedings and ensure that 
only accredited or certified translators a nd interpreters are used in criminal 
proceedings.  
• Member States should operate a registra tion scheme for accredited or certified 
translators and interpreters whereby registration is reviewed [every 5 years] so 
as to encourage professionals to keep their language skills and knowledge of 
court procedures up to date in or der to renew their registration. 
• Member States should institute a system of Continuous Professional 
Development, so that legal translators and interpreters can keep their skills up 
to date. 
• Member States should adopt a Code of Ethics or Conduct and Guidelines for 
Good Practice, which should be the same or very substantially similar throughout the European Union. 
• Member States should ensure that a mechanism is in place to ensure quality 
control of the translation and interpre tation used in criminal proceedings.  
• Member States should ensure that a mech anism is in place to ensure that there 
is a minimum standard of remuneration for translation and interpretation in 
criminal proceedings. 
Option 3: New instrument covering all rights 
55. Withdrawing the failed proposal for a Framework Decision and reintroducing a 
proposal for a new instrument requiring Member States to provide minimum 
standards of procedural rights in a co mprehensive manner, including standards on 
the right to information about  one's rights (Letter of righ ts), access to legal advice 
and legal aid, access to interpretation and translation, protection for vulnerable 
 
EN 22   EN suspects and communication wi th consular authorities and with family or 
employers. This option is based on the assumption that the 2004 proposal was the 
appropriate instrument to approximate lega l provisions in the Member States and 
that this legislation is still necessary with regard to the various aspects of 
procedural rights it had covere d. It further assumes that th e factors that have led to 
the failure of the 2004 propos al are no longer there. 
56. For this option to succeed, a new treaty w ith an explicit legal base and a different 
(ordinary community law) legislative pr ocedure would be required. While a new 
treaty would not resolve the problem of mutual trust in itself, it would facilitate the 
legislative process in the area of procedural  rights. If legislation is successfully 
adopted, its subsequent implementation by Member States and monitoring by the 
European Commission – as well as, ultimat ely, by the European Court of Justice – 
will help overcome the differences in  compliance with the ECHR. Practical 
measures, including those referred to pr eviously (see section 4) may still be 
necessary to enhance mutual trust at practical level. 
Option 4: Legislative measures rest ricted to the cross-border cases  
57. As option 3, provision of the same range of rights but restricted to cross-border 
cases only. It is based on a gradual step-by-step approach, tackling what some 
consider to be the most important situati on to address, namely cross-border cases, 
and in particular EAW cases. Proceeding w ith this option would clearly constitute 
a first step only but, if succe ssful, it would contribute to enhancing mutual trust 
and help overcome resistance to further le gislation. However, it will need careful 
consideration so that any potential issu e of discrimination between categories of 
suspects involved in cross-border versus  domestic proceedings is addressed 
appropriately. 
58. There is no internationally recognised legal definition of "cross-border cases". 
Cases would generally involve  several countries. This w ould be usually related to 
the fact that the national of one country is suspected of committing an office in another country, a situation which could give  rise to investigation, prosecution and 
trial in at least one of those countries and the use of cooperation instruments and 
procedures, such as an EAW. The arrest  and subsequent su rrender of a person 
following an EAW from one EU member St ate to another would clearly qualify as 
a cross-border case. 
Option 5: Step-by-step approach beginning with legislative measures on access to 
interpretation and translation services 
59. Withdrawing the current proposal for a Framework Decision and proposing a new 
Framework Decision requiring Member Stat es to provide minimum standards only 
for access to interpretation and translati on services. The 2004 proposal contained a 
number of rights some of which were more controversial than others. More 
controversial rights, such as the right to legal advice, have been discarded at this 
stage because of concerns as to their politic al feasibility and uncertainty as to their 
costs to Member States.  
 
EN 23   EN 60. This option would confirm that the right of access to a competent interpreter and 
translation of the key documents is f undamental so that the accused knows the 
charges against him and understands the pro cedure. The suspect or defendant must 
be in a position to understand of what he  is accused. For that purpose, Member 
States must ensure that there are eno ugh competent and qualified translators and 
interpreters to safeguard the full applica tion of this right w ithin their criminal 
justice systems. There should be traini ng, not only linguistic but the necessary 
legal training, available to these professionals.  
61. The legislative proposal – a Framework Decision - to be pu t forward under this 
option would contain th e following provisions: 
• Scope of application: The proposal would lay down ru les concerning  the rights 
to translation and interpretation in criminal and European Arrest Warrant 
proceedings. It would also include a ny appeal from these proceedings. The 
rights should apply to any person susp ected or accused of having committed a 
criminal offence from the time when he is informed by the competent authorities of a Member State that he is suspected of having committed a criminal offence until finally judged.  
• The right to interpretation: Member States would be required to ensure that a 
suspected person who does not understand the language of the proceedings is 
provided with interpretation in order to safeguard the fairness of the proceedings. Further, Member States would need to ensure that, where 
necessary, legal advice received thr oughout the criminal proceedings is 
interpreted for the benefit of the su spected or accused person receives. 
• Member States to meet the costs of  interpretation and translation: Member 
States would be required to cover the costs of interpretation during any police 
questioning, during all necessary meetin gs between the suspected or accused 
person and his lawyer, during all cour t hearings and dur ing any necessary 
interim hearings. Similarly, they would ha ve covered the costs of translation of 
the relevant documents. 
• The right to translation of relevant documents: Member States would be 
required to ensure that a suspected or accused person who does not understand the language of the proceedings is provide d with translations  of all relevant 
documents in order to safeguard the fairness of the proceedings. The documents to be translated should include the dete ntion order depriving the person of his 
liberty, the charge/indictment, essen tial documentary evidence on which the 
prosecution case is based and the j udgment. Any decision about further 
translation should be taken by the comp etent authorities. The suspected or 
accused person’s lawyer could ask for tr anslation of further documents. Where 
documents put forward in evidence ar e not in a language understood by the 
suspected or accused person, translations of such documents will be made 
available to the suspected or accused person. 
• Member States to ensure training: Member States woul d be required to 
ensure adequate training.  
 
EN 24   EN 62. This option could vary in its scope and pr ovide for these two rights to apply either 
a) in cross-border cases only (see possible definition above) 
b) in all cases (see pos sible definition above) 
63. At a later date, and once the first propos al on interpretation and translation was 
adopted, further individual proposals could be put forw ard to cover the following 
rights: the right to information on right s and to information about the charges 
(Letter of Rights), the right to legal ai d and legal advice, the right for a person 
deprived of his/her liberty to communicat e with relatives, employers and with 
consular authorities and special safegua rds for vulnerable persons. A Green Paper 
on the Right to Review of the Grounds fo r Detention would also be part of the 
package.  
SECTION  7: ANALYSIS  OF IMPACTS  OF POLICY  OPTIONS 
Option 1 - Status quo: 64. There are no discernible or measurable economic or environmental impacts of the 
status quo option. There is no expected pos itive impact under this option. Rather 
the contrary: lack of action by the EU in this area may ultimately contribute to slowing down the progress achieved in the ar ea of judicial coope ration in criminal 
matters and thus the construction of a common area of freedom, security and 
justice. 
65. In terms of social impact s, the status quo option could, over time, lead to greater 
lack of trust between Member States sin ce it is foreseeable that an increasing 
number of their nationals will be invol ved in criminal pr oceedings in other 
Member States. When there are cases that are perceived in one country as a failure 
of justice in another (such as the recent Michael Shie lds case between the UK and 
Bulgaria) this affects the trust between not only the judicial authorities of the relevant countries, but also ordinary c itizens who read about these cases in the 
press. Failure to take action at EU le vel could also undermine the positive example 
it has provided to third countries. Fo r example when the Commission's 2004 
proposal was adopted by the Commissi on, Turkey was amending its Code of 
Criminal Procedure. It included in th e new version a provision for a Letter of 
Rights, which was a right set out in  the Commission proposal as Turkey 
understood this to be "the EU standard", even though the Letter of  Rights, as part 
of the 2004 Framework Decision, was never adopted in the Council.  
66. This option would mean that barriers to a fair trial because of lack of interpretation 
and translation remain. There would con tinue to be unfair access to justice for 
accused persons who do not understand the la nguage of the criminal proceedings. 
In addition, this option could in entail  continued supplementary costs for the 
citizens involved in cross-border criminal  proceedings who require the assistance 
of defence lawyers specialising in such cases , in particular where such assistance is 
not automatically provided by member Stat es or not throughout the proceedings.  
Option 2 - Best practice: 
 
EN 25   EN 67. There are no discernible or measurable economic or environmental impacts of the 
best practice option. Socially, the best practice option could have some impact 
since there would be some improvement in  practice in the provision and training of 
interpreters and translators which shoul d eventually contri bute to improving 
mutual trust. 
68. Positive impacts: recommendations for best practice could result in some 
improvements if Member States chose to follow the recommendations. It could also have a filter through effect on third countries emulating EU standards. Over time, this could be expected to have a greater impact if more Member States (and 
third countries) choose to adopt the r ecommended practices. The social groups 
most affected would be legal professionals  (judges, prosecutors and lawyers), legal 
interpreters and translators and other auxiliary staff in these two professions and 
accused persons themselves. If Member St ates followed the recommendations it 
would enhance access to justice for citizen s. Such a non-legislative instrument 
would allow scope for provisions on trai ning, accreditation and certification, 
keeping a register and laying down a code of ethics. These have all been recommended by the Reflection Forum on Multilingualism and Interpreter Training.  
69. Negative impacts: much of this proposal  echoes what the Council of Europe 
includes in Recommendations and what other experts ha ve advised, but which has 
not been carried out. There will therefore be  a risk that this further guidance will 
not be implemented. This option may also  disappoint the EP, stakeholders and a 
number of Member States who have long called for a binding instrument in this 
area which Member States must implemen t and is subject to the Commission's 
scrutiny.  The cost of implementing the guidance cannot be anticipated with any 
accuracy, because it will depend entirely on the methods adopted by individual 
Member States. However, such figures as ar e available could be useful to give an 
order of magnitude. See table 6 in Annex 5 – which is a summary of the Status 
Quaestionis study. For those Member States  that do not run any courses for 
interpreters and translators in order to enable them to specialise in legal interpreting (or even any courses at all fo r people wanting to become interpreters 
and translators), the first costs to take into  account will be the costs of establishing 
courses. The report of the Reflection Forum on Multilingualism and Interpreter Training recommends that Me mber States "provide appropriate training in legal 
interpreting, both for new a nd already practising legal in terpreters. Such training 
should lead to a nationally recognised pr ofessional certificat ion and be accredited 
by a recognised authority. Efforts should be  made to develop equivalent training 
throughout the EU, making a quality label of  the establishments offering training, 
the exchange of materials, trainers and best practices, and a compatible register 
possible". 
70. According to the Status Quaestioni s study, 3 Member States provided 
interpretation and transl ation of a higher than av erage standard. When the 
Commission asked Ministries of Justice for information on these costs, four 
Member States were able to provide ve ry rough costs. One was the UK. Since the 
UK is said to provide a quality service, UK costs will be set out here as a very 
crude indicator. The UK Home Office (Better Trials Unit) is responsible for overseeing provision of tran slation and interpretation. No  figures were given for 
 
EN 26   EN translation costs (and in fact no Member  State provided these costs). In London, 7 
colleges run courses leading to the appropr iate qualification. One college received 
a one-off £5,000 grant to enable it to de velop the course. Students (already 
qualified interpreters) have to pay £200 tui tion fees to take the course. The first 
cost to take into accoun t will therefore be of r unning a sufficient number of 
courses in each Member States. For comparison, the figure provided by IE was 
€4.4 million for both interpretation and translation last year. 
71. The cost will vary from one Member State to another, depending on how many 
colleges already offer suitable course or ha ve departments that could offer suitable 
courses if asked to do so. It could be that around £5,000 would be enough to help 
these colleges develop suitable courses (but this figure seems very small). 
72. The Council of Europe has issued gu idance on how to implement the ECHR, but 
the number of findings of violations in th e ECtHR suggests that these are not fully 
adhered to by Member States. The object ive of improving mutual trust would 
therefore not be achieve d by this option alone. 
Option 3. New instrument covering all rights. 
73. This option would involve proposing a Fr amework Decision along the lines of the 
Commission's 2004 proposal in it s original form, that is  to say covering several 
procedural rights in criminal proceedings  e.g. legal assistan ce, access to legal 
advice, legal aid, interpreta tion and translation, Letter of  Rights as set out above. 
74. Positive Impacts: a Framework Decision of this sort would increase the level of 
legal certainty among Member States. It would be a binding in strument improving 
compliance with ECHR standards to ensure  a fair trial. It  would be a broad 
instrument encompassing many procedural ri ghts and would mean  that EU citizens 
could be sure that they w ould have the same rights in  other Member States in 
criminal proceedings as they do in thei r own Member State (if it was adopted and 
implemented in all Member States). This would also have a si gnificant impact on 
the level of mutual trust among Member St ates as practitioners would be reassured 
that the procedural rights covered by this legislation apply throughout the 
European Union, no matter where the proceedings are taking place. In turn, this could change the public's perception that ju stice abroad works differently than in 
one's own country. Ultimately, such legisl ation could benefit traditional freedoms 
in the European Union, such as the freedom to move to and settle in other EU countries, whether for private residence or business purposes. 
75. Negative impacts: The discussions of the 2004 proposal showed that Member 
States tended to have problems with one or  other right that formed part of the 2004 
package, and this was true even of those Member States that agreed with the proposal in principle. This led to a lesser degree of support overall, and to a 
watering down of provisions to suit one  or two Member States on each right. 
Tackling rights together as pa rt of a package means that there is less time to devote 
to each individual right and that watering down occurs with trade-offs whereby one Member State will agree to a wateri ng down in exchange for another Member 
State supporting their own suggestions for watering down a different part. This can 
 
EN 27   EN lead to a lower standard for the whole package than if each right is negotiated 
individually as part  of a single proposal. 
76. If the Lisbon Treaty comes into force,  unanimity will no l onger be required in 
order to adopt legislation in the Council a nd the European Parlia ment would play a 
role in co-decision. Since 21 Member St ates supported the 2004 proposal and the 
European Parliament has been calling for a measure of this type for some time, 
both these factors make it more likely that  a broader instrument could be adopted. 
Yet, a treaty change in itself would not  solve the problem of mutual trust among 
the Member States. Trust is based on expe rience, not treaties. In that, it requires 
that Member States, practitioners and ci tizens have, over a longer period of time, 
positive experience with each other's criminal justice systems and acquire the belief that criminal proceedings in ot her member States do not entail any 
additional risk for their citizen s' procedural rights to a fair trial. This mutual trust 
will need legislation and practical measures alike.   
Option 4 - Framework Decision on cross border cases only: 
77. There is no established de finition of a "cross border" case. If the accused is a 
foreigner, there is an obvious cross borde r element, but a case which seems purely 
domestic can become a cross border case if , for example, evidence or a witness is 
required from another country, if assets  or proceeds of crime are in another 
country or if it transpires during the pr oceedings that part of the offence was 
committed abroad (e.g. drug trafficking). Since these unforeseen developments can occur at any stage of the proceedings, even during the trial (as a result of 
unexpected witness testimony), any "purel y domestic" case can become a cross 
border case. For this reason there is reluct ance on the part of Member States to 
define a cross border case or to adopt legi slation which necessitates a definition of 
cross border cases. 
78. An accused person who doesn't understand th e language of the proceedings is at a 
disadvantage and therefore respect for fair trial safeguards are relevant especially 
those concerning interpretation and transl ation. However, this is not only a 
linguistic problem; there are also cultura l aspects since a foreigner will be 
unfamiliar with not only the language but al so customs, traditions and the way in 
which legal proceedings are conducted. Ther e are various rights to be respected, 
but an additional, and necessary first "layer" of rights for the foreign accused 
person is that interpretation and translati on is provided so that he can access his 
other rights (such as legal advi ce, being informed about what he is accused of etc.). 
Therefore fair trial rights should be respected for all accused persons by all 
Member States but without the first step, in certain Member States in particular, 
fair trial rights are not being accessed by foreigners owing to a lack of 
interpretation and translation. 
79. There is no specific research on the num ber of cases in which the accused is a 
foreigner. DG-JLS's survey of ECtH R case-law suggests that at least 10%
37 of 
cases before the ECtHR involve a forei gn national. Given th at Article 6 ECHR 
                                                 
37 See section 2, question 1(a) below. 
 
EN 28   EN produces considerably more cas es and findings of violatio n than any other article, 
it is clear that breaches of  the ECHR are occurring in all Member States. These 
cases involve domestic as we ll as cross border cases. 
80. However, the Commission's focus at the moment is on the right to interpretation 
and translation. The majority of cases wher e a suspect or accused person will be in 
need of interpretation and translation will be cross border cases since those are the ones in which it is most likely that the accused person will not understand the 
language of the proceedings, by vi rtue of being a foreigner. 
81. The economic impact of this option would be twofold: (1) the cost of services 
(lawyers, cost of State-funded lawyers, cost  of translators and interpreters, cost of 
running a scheme to provide the services of interpreters and translators) and (2) the 
gain in reduced costs of appeals (incl uding appeals to the ECtHR for failure to 
meet ECHR standards). These costs and benefits would vary so much from 
Member State to Member State that it is not possible to quantify
38 accurately for 
any one Member State, since this woul d depend on the starting point. However, 
the expected economic impact would be cl early less important fo r this option than 
for option 3, since the obligation to provide  interpretation and translation services 
would be limited to a fraction of the cases dealt with by national judicial 
authorities39. The Status Quaestionis study for ex ample shows that a few Member 
States are already implementing the type of training and provis ion envisaged here. 
Likewise for legal aid schemes, some Me mber States (UK, NL) have fully funded 
schemes whereas others (e.g. BE, ES) do not  have a developed state-funded legal 
aid scheme in place (in BE, criminal legal aid is provided by trainee lawyers in the 
final stages of their traini ng as part of the requirements to qualify, in Spain a limit 
is placed on state funded legal aid of 250 euro per case which means that people who would be eligible for state funded legal aid in other Member States are 
required to pay for their defence or represent themselves). 
82. The possible risk of this  option could be a reduction in mutual trust since the 
impression could be given that there is a two-tier system of justice – one for 
national cases and one for cross border cas es. In countries where there could be a 
                                                
 
38  An example of the difficulty is provide d, in the area of civil law, in the "Study on the transparency of costs 
of civil judicial proceedings in the European Union", Final Report: "Costs relating to those resulting from the 
intervention of an interpreter, translator or an expert ar e follow closely lawyers’ fees in the level of regulation 
that pertains to them. In nearly half of the Member States (twel ve), experts’ fees are freely determined by 
the experts. The same applies to translation and interpretation fees.  It is thus possible to draw a parallel 
between this observation and the results obtained for tr ansparency. Indeed, the least regulated sources of fees 
are those which appear to be the least transparent.  (Page 54); Although the acces s to law and courts by 
anyone, even if they canno t speak the language of the Forum State, is a principl e recognized by national 
legislation, the costs of interpreters and translators are not usually regulated. In most countries, the fees are 
freely determined by both interpreters and translators. The criteria used to justify the differences in fees are 
usually the same". (page 196) 
 
39 See Annex 3 for more detailed figures on the costs of translation in civil proceedings (excerpt from Study 
on the transparency of costs of civil judicial proceedings in the European Union", Final Report pages 
198 – 201). 
 
EN 29   EN purely national case involving need for legal aid or inte rpretation and translation, 
there could be dissatisfaction on the part of a national who needs legal aid and/or 
interpretation but was not provided with it, if a foreigner in the equivalent situation would receive such assistance. An instrument conferring rights on a limited category of suspects and defendants, name ly those involved in cross border cases, 
could therefore lead to a dual standard. Th is would have the opposite of the desired 
effect since certain accused persons would have more rights than others within a 
single Member State. 
83. Positive impact: this would satisfy the Me mber States that have been asking for a 
measure limited to cross border cases or argu ing that this is the limit of the EU's 
competence. 
84. Negative impact: a measure which attempte d to restrict its sc ope to cross border 
cases could lead to confusion since the same case can be described or classified as cross-border or as domestic by different Me mber States. There are no fixed criteria 
for defining a "cross border" case. The resu lting differences in classification could 
possibly increase mistrust.  
85. Compliance: Member States could have di fficulty in practice in  classifying cases 
as "cross border" or "domestic" so mi stakes/disputes woul d occur naturally.  
Option 5: Step-by-step approach beginning with legislative measures on access to 
interpretation and translation services 
86. During the negotiations on the 2004 propos al, it has become cl ear that Member 
States have very different regimes both in relation to access to legal advice and of access to state-financed legal aid. While negotiations failed on the text, one area 
that proved to be less problematic was that of access to interpretation and translation during criminal proceedings. Th is would indicate that new legislation 
could be more successful if a different,  step-by-step, approach was followed, 
starting from an area of rights which is less controversial and progressing towards 
the more controversial ones. 
87. The economic impacts of this option w ould be twofold as above for the cross 
border option. The social imp acts of this option could be  an increase in mutual 
trust since the judicial authorities of  each Member States would be more 
comfortable surrendering nationals or transmitting evidence if they knew that their nationals would be assisted by an interprete r and a translator in  the proceedings in 
the other Member State.  
88. At the national level, trust would be in creased, as the justice systems would be 
fairer and be perceived as more ECHR compliant. In ad dition, if a proposal on the 
right to interpretation and translation we re perceived as a first step towards 
building mutual trust with a commitment to examine the desirability of addressing other rights at a later stage, this would send out a positive messa ge that the EU was 
addressing the problems encountered when  the 2004 proposal failed in a realistic 
and measured way. It would be a positive step at EU level which respects the 
position of those Member States who had difficulties with a broader instrument 
covering more rights. An additional advant age of tackling each right separately is 
 
EN 30   EN that more through can be put into the disc ussions in Council with the very precise 
details of how each right would work being given attention. 
89. Positive impacts: a measure of this type would be in line with Tampere 
commitments. It would result in an impr ovement in the quality and provision of 
interpretation and translation in criminal  proceedings. As stat ed above, the effect 
could be felt beyond the EU amongst those countries that seek to emulate the EU standard. The effects would be greater ove r time. Experience shows that Member 
States can be slow to implement third pill ar legislation as can be seen from the 
Commission's implementation reports on Fr amework Decisions which show that 
Member States have not always fulfilled th eir obligations by the date agreed in the 
Framework Decision itself. Usually, if the Commission waits and gives Member 
States a year or two longer, more will ha ve submitted their transposing legislation. 
(Examples: FD on financial penalties, fr eezing orders, confiscation orders. Even 
with the European Arrest Warrant, a popular  measure, only 8 out of the then 15 
Member States had completed the im plementation process by 1 January 2004). 
This staggered implementation means the effects would start to be felt 
exponentially as more Member States tran sposed and implemented the instrument. 
This would be all the more so for those Me mber States that currently fall below the 
ECHR and other international standards (identified in the Status Quaestionis 
study). The social groups most affected  would be legal professionals (judges, 
prosecutors and lawyers), legal interpreters  and translators and other auxiliary staff 
in these two professions and accused persons themselves.  
90. It would contribute to the development of mutual trust. It would ensure a fair trial 
in cases where the suspect does not understa nd the criminal proceedings, his rights 
or the full charges before him. The pr ocedure would be explained in a language 
that the accused understands, which is essent ial for a fair trial. It would ensure a 
more level playing field where citizens would understand the nature of the 
criminal proceedings against them and th eir rights. It would allow for greater 
access to justice as it would strengthen the accused's ability to make informed choices. 
91. Negative impacts: it would place a financial and administrative burden on Member 
States that currently do not offer training to legal interpreters and translators (see below for costs considerations). Evalua tion/monitoring of compliance would be 
required which would also be burdensom e whether it was carried out by the 
Commission, by academics or other stakeholders or by the Member States themselves. 
92. It is not possible to esta blish with precision the costs of option 5. There are several 
reasons for this: figures relating to costs of having quality lega l interpretation and 
translation services are not available from Member States . Member States are all at 
very different stages in the process of establishing such serv ices so individual 
calculations would have to be made for each Member State and the necessary information is not available. Some Member  States already use trained interpreters 
systematically, some do not. The costs w ould vary according to the number of 
proceedings involving interpretation and tr anslation and the costs include not only 
the cost of providing interpretation and tran slation in criminal proceedings but also 
in many Member States the cost of traini ng interpreters and translators since some 
 
EN 31   EN Member States do not use set proficiency tests or use trained professionals but 
simply people who profess an adequate  knowledge of the relevant foreign 
languages. See tables 5 and 6 in annexe  4 for estimates of the number of 
proceedings involving non-nationals in all Member States and costs of providing 
interpretation and translation in these proceedings. Most Memb er States do not 
collect and disseminate data about number s of criminal proceedings per year. The 
Commission has made its "best guess" as to the number of crimin al proceedings in 
each Member State (see table 5, annexe 4 and explanatory notes). From this figure, a figure for number of proceedings invol ving non-nationals was estimated. In 
some cases, we have the exact figure and where this is so, this is set out in the explanatory notes. For other Member Stat es, we have taken the population as a 
whole, then applied an EU average to estimate the number of  foreign nationals 
living in that Member State, and from th at figure, we have provided an assessment 
of how many proceedings will involve non-nationals. Owing to their speculative 
nature, these figures are for rough guida nce only but will nonetheless provide 
Member States with some assistance in working out the likely costs of 
interpretation and translation per year (tab le 6, annexe 4). For those Member States 
that already provide interpretation and tr anslation in accordance with the ECHR, 
the costs of implementing this proposal will not be much higher than current costs. 
For those that do not or those that will need to train interpreters and translators in order to fulfil their obligati ons, the costs will be higher. 
93. In terms of paying interpreters. Fo r the year 2007-8, the UK provides "rough" 
figures of £22 million for the costs of ha ving interpretation in police stations and 
£15.4 million for the costs of having interp reters in courts. The UK's budget is 
dramatically higher than thos e of all other Member Stat es. The UK is one of the 3 
Member States whose provision is said to be of above average quality and it could 
therefore be that this woul d be the standard to aim fo r other Member States, with 
attendant costs. SE also pr ovided a figure of €3.15m for costs of interpretation in 
2008 and NL a figure of €27m in 2008 (including telephone interception 
interpretation and interpretation during police questioning). See Table 6, annexe 4 
for Commission estimates of the costs of interpretation per Member State with the 
envisaged provisions in force. 
94. No figures are available for translation costs. Translation costs are usually on the 
basis of per word or per page rates. Th ey vary across the EU. Private translators 
specialising in legal translation can ask for rates of between 100 and 150 euro per 
1,000 words but the Commission does not ha ve any figures fo r rates paid to 
translators employed by cour ts. Also, the size of documentation varies according 
to judicial tradition and the complexity of cases in question (see annex 3). Table 6 
in annexe 4 sets out Commission estimates of  the cost of providing translation with 
the envisaged provisions in force. For each Member State a range is given. The 
explanatory notes set out how this figur e, and the range given, was reached. 
95. At the March 2009 experts' meeting, the suggestion of working on this right alone 
as a starting point was greeted with en thusiasm by many part icipants, including 
delegates from Member States. Additiona lly, the Commission has considerable 
knowledge in-house about this right. In March 2009 a Report was published by 
 
EN 32   EN DG Interpretation: the Final Report of the Reflection Forum on Multilingualism 
and Interpreter Training40. This Report was the fruit of meetings of the Reflection 
Forum during 2008 and 2009 to identify whethe r there is a need for action and if 
so, what action could be taken. The Forum concluded that there was a need and set out Recommendations as to how to im prove the provision of competent and 
qualified interpreters in criminal pro ceedings. The Recommendations included 
having a Curriculum in Legal Interpreti ng, and a system of accreditation, 
certification and registra tion for legal interprete rs. A Commission proposal 
providing for the right to interpretation a nd translation in cases where the accused 
does not have the nationality of the country holding the proceedings would cover almost all cases where the accused does not understand the language of the proceedings except proceedings held in bilingual countries. 
                                                
 
40 See paragraph 22 above and footnote 12. 
 
EN 33   EN SECTION  8: COMPARING  THE  OPTIONS 
+++ Indicates high positive impact 
0 Indicates zero impact ---- Indicates high negative impact 
Effectiveness against the objectives and 
coherence with other EU policies in place 
Option Provide minimum 
standards for 
procedural rights in 
criminal proceedings Ensure citizens are 
informed of how they 
can benefit from 
minimum standards Impact on society and 
fundamental rights Efficiency Political feasibility 
1. Status Quo 
– no further action at EU level 0 
None of the objectives w ould be met without any 
EU action  0 
Continuing imbalance 
between rights and judicial cooperation may damage justice and mutual trust in EU. 0 
No cost to MS  EP and most MS expect 
EU action.  
2. Non-
binding/non legislative 
measure setting 
out 'EU best practice' 
 + 
Dependent on MS 
willingness to implement. 
Will not harmonise 
standards. ++ 
A well-organised Europe-
wide information campaign 
may raise awareness of 
ECHR rights and what can be done if people feel they 
have not been upheld. + 
If Member States follow 
guidance consistently then 
rights of the accused would 
be upheld. - 
Dependent on how 
implemented. Main cost will 
be training which could be 
borne by students. For large MS (source UK) grants of 
about €5000 to each college All MS agree on need for 
some non-legislative measures.  Experience 
suggests non-binding 
guidance will not be followed consistently. 
 
EN 34   EN Effectiveness against the objectives and 
coherence with other EU policies in place 
Option Provide minimum 
standards for 
procedural rights in 
criminal proceedings Ensure citizens are 
informed of how they 
can benefit from 
minimum standards Impact on society and 
fundamental rights Efficiency Political feasibility 
envisaged.   
3. Reintroduce 
2004 instrument 
covering all 
rights +++  
Sets down comprehensive 
common standards.  + 
A comprehensive 
Instrument in itself without 
flanking measures would not raise public awareness, 
but it would draw the 
attention of national media to more controversial 
elements.  +++ 
All accused persons would 
be guaranteed rights under 
ECHR. Would provide basis for mutual trust across the 
EU. Perception of standards 
of justice could help encourage more citizens to 
exercise right to freedom of 
movement.   --- 
Costs expected to be very 
considerable, especially for 
legal aid in those MS which do not currently provide it. Would be rejected again by 
the 6 MS who opposed the 
proposal in 2006. 
Lisbon Treaty may enable 
current (2004) proposal to 
be passed by QMV with 
possibility for opt-outs. 
4. Instrument on 
all rights but 
limited to cross-border cases 
 ++ 
Would provide limited 
common standards but not for all citizens who are 
accused of an offence.  - 
Again, without flanking 
measures this would not raise public awareness. 
Attention of national media, 
possibly hostile to guaranteeing of rights for 
only those involved in cross-
border cases, whose reports could be misleading. - 
Accused persons would be 
guaranteed same rights wherever in EU they are 
arrested.  
Risk of creation of 2 tiers of 
accused – those in cross 
border and those in domestic 
cases – leading to discrimination which may 
outweigh benefits. -- 
Will depend on the 
proportion of cases which will be deemed 'cross-
border' and will vary 
between MS – for which statistics are not available. 
But costs still expected to be 
high. Definition of 'cross-border 
case' likely to be disputed, 
especially as it may lead to fundamental rights concerns 
of positive discrimination. 
Unlikely to be any more 
acceptable than option 3.  
 
EN 35   EN Effectiveness against the objectives and 
coherence with other EU policies in place 
Option Provide minimum 
standards for 
procedural rights in 
criminal proceedings Ensure citizens are 
informed of how they 
can benefit from 
minimum standards Impact on society and 
fundamental rights Efficiency Political feasibility 
5a.  Framework 
Decision limited 
to the right to 
translation and 
interpretation in cross border 
cases only  + 
Limited common standards 
in the area where considered 
to be most urgent but not for 
all citizens who are accused of an offence. Would 
demonstrate progress and 
incremental approach. - 
As above, hostile media 
interest could be misleading. -  
Accused persons would be 
guaranteed same rights to 
translation and interpretation 
wherever in EU they are arrested.  
Risk of creation of 2 tiers of 
accused – those in cross border and those in domestic 
cases – leading to 
discrimination which may outweigh benefits. -  
Costs will depend on the 
proportion of cases which 
will be deemed 'cross-
border' and will vary between MS. Statistics are 
not available (but see Table 
6 at Annex 5). Most or all MS expected to 
support if definition of 
'cross-border' agreed.  It 
would meet the 
proportionality test, as action would not go beyond 
what is necessary to meet 
the objectives of the Treaty. It would also observe the 
subsidiarity principle, as it 
would not interfere with purely domestic cases. 
5b.  Framework 
Decision limited to the right to 
translation and 
interpretation in all cases ++ 
Limited common standards 
in the area where considered 
to be most urgent. 0 
Unlikely to have any effect 
on awareness without 
flanking measures.  + 
Would provide greater 
equality of access to justice 
by enshrining the right to 
understand the charge and proceedings.  -- 
Large member state (source 
UK) cost of access to 
adequate interpretation 
estimated about €40m per year. Cost of translation 
varies according to the price 
scheme prevalent in individual member states. Most MS would support 
action in this area.  
 
EN 36   EN SECTION  9. THE  STEP-BY  STEP  APPROACH  IN MORE  DETAIL:  COMBINING  
OPTION  2 AND  OPTION  5 
96. Combining options 2 and 5 would maximise  the synergies between legislative and 
non-legislative action. A binding legislativ e instrument would lay down the basic 
minimum requirements that Member States  should meet, while recommendations 
for best practice could go into greater details on how to organise training, 
accreditation for translators and interpre ters, a registration scheme, possible 
guidance on rates of pay and more de tail about how much provision would be 
desirable. Some of these issues relate to the organisation of the interpreters' and translator's professions and as such are not third pillar issues, but rather regulation of a profession. Consequently these reco mmendations could not  be covered by a 
legislative instrument but they are im portant nonetheless for the provision of 
interpretation and translati on in criminal proceedings.  
97. This option would be to en able a progressive, step-by- step, approach, which would 
satisfy both those Member States which ar e calling for legislation and those who 
want soft-law instruments. It could provide scope for a longer term action plan for 
the progressive approximation of laws in the area of procedur al rights taking 
account of practical aspects either.   This  approach would not be as dependent on 
the Lisbon Treaty as option 3.  An action pl an could be agreed at political level 
and require that all institutions, including the Council, continue work on procedural rights over a longer period of ti me. Further specific  rights, including 
the rights which the 2004 proposal had suggested, would be examined again 
individually and, if appropriate, some or  all could be addr essed by legislation 
and/or best practice guidance to Member States.  
98. This option would result in an improvement in the quality and provision of 
interpretation and translation in criminal  proceedings. The effect could be felt 
beyond the EU amongst those countries that seek to emulate the EU standard. The 
effects would be greater over time. Experi ence shows that Member States can be 
slow to implement third pill ar legislation so the eff ects would start to be felt 
exponentially as more Member States tran sposed and implemented the instrument. 
This would be all the more so for those Me mber States that currently fall below the 
ECHR and other international standards (identified in the Status Quaestionis 
study). The social groups most affected  would be legal professionals (judges, 
prosecutors and lawyers), legal interpreters  and translators and other auxiliary staff 
in these two professions and accused persons themselves.  
99. This approach would contribute to bu ilding mutual trust by using a long-term 
commonly agreed working method and recogni sing that certain issues need to be 
addressed at EU level, either through le gislation or soft-law , or both. It would 
ensure a fairer trial in cases where the suspect does not understand the criminal 
proceedings, his rights or the full charge s before him. The procedure would be 
explained in a language that the accused understands which is essential for a fair 
trial. It would ensure a more level pl aying field where citizens would understand 
the nature of the criminal proceedings agai nst them and their rights. It would allow 
for greater access to justice as it would st rengthen the accused's ability to make 
informed choices. The addition of an instru ment setting out best practice would be 
 
EN 37   EN that Member States would have a clearer idea of how to achieve the standards set 
in the Framework Decision and how to provide the training, accreditation and 
registration aspects  
100. The option would place an additional financial and admini strative burden on 
Member States that currently do not o ffer training to legal interpreters and 
translators. Evaluation and monitoring of  compliance would be required which 
would be an additional burden. 
101. Furthermore, this option is politically f easible and accepted as a legitimate area of 
interest for the EU since it will affect cr oss border cases only.  It is clear from the 
fate of the Commission's 2004 proposal th at an instrument covering the same 
rights will not meet with agreement in Council, but a proposa l for action focused 
on a single issue such as this could be  received much more favourably. During 
discussions on the 2004 proposal, the right to interpretation and translation were 
viewed as less controversial, in particular  by those Member States that opposed the 
full proposal. There is therefore a greater chance that these two rights could form 
the subject of agreement in Council than a broader instrument. Having both a 
legislative proposal and a 'Best Practice' proposal on the table would enable greater 
flexibility to move provisions from one to  the other according to Member States' 
wishes and existing systems, making adopti on more feasible.  The preferred option 
goes beyond the 2004 proposal in that it sets out in  detail these specific rights to be 
covered in a legislative instrument a nd with flanking best practice guidance. 
102. The Commission has experience of trying to  put forward a broad scope instrument 
covering a number of rights.  This was not achievable. It  is now important to put 
forward an instrument that is going to succeed in achieving agreement. The Commission must therefore be realistic and start with a small step such as the one 
described in the Impact Assessment. If th is proposal was agr eed without too many 
problems, and the climate suggested that  other proposals covering other rights 
might also succeed, the plan would be to introduce all the rights that were set out in the Commission's 2004 proposal one at a time (1. the right to legal advice, both 
before the trial and at trial, 2. the right to interpretation and translation, 3. specific 
attention for persons who cannot unders tand or follow the proceedings and 
protection for minors, 4. communication wi th family and consular authorities 
while in detention  and 5. Letter of Rights).  
103. The step-by-step approach would address these issues separately, in the following 
order: 
• Right to Translation and In terpretation : a measure on the right to translation 
and interpretation as well as a docume nt on best practice on the right to 
translation and interpretation 
• Right to Information on Rights : a measur e on the right to information on rights 
and to information about the charges as  well as a document on best practice 
regarding the right to information on rights and to information about the charges 
 
EN 38   EN • Right to Legal Aid and Legal Advice: a measure on the right to legal aid and 
legal advice as well as document on best pr actice regarding the right to legal aid 
and legal advice 
• Right to Communication with Relatives : a measure on the right for a person 
deprived of his/her liberty to communi cate with relatives, employers and with 
consular authorities 
• Special Safeguards for Vulnerable Pers ons: a measure on special safeguards for 
vulnerable persons 
• Length of Detention: a Green Paper on length of detention. 
How the obligation to provide interpretati on and translation would enhance mutual 
trust 
104. Respect for the right to tran slation and interpretation is e ssential, but not sufficient, 
for mutual trust. The obligation to provide  interpretation and translation is only a 
first step towards enhancing the position of the suspect/accused. It is, however, an essential right in that in enables exercisi ng other rights, such as  the right to legal 
aid or the right to receive information about one's own rights. Understanding the 
proceedings is a pre-condition for asserting one's other rights to a fair trial. As such,  this right will contribute to ensuri ng that the suspect/accused is in a position 
to communicate with the authorities, in part icular to ask and answ er questions or to 
exercise the right to keep silent.  
105. Once the defendant is in a position to  communicate with the authorities and 
understand why proceedings are brought against him, he will be able to clarify his 
other rights and ask whether he is entitled to have a lawyer. The authorities will 
have to provide this information in acco rdance with Article 6 ECHR and national 
law. While having access to an interpreter/lawyer will not per se  achieve a better 
protection of other rights, e.g. th e right to have a lawyer, without 
interpretation/translation the suspect/accused would possibly not even know that 
he has other rights. Thus, the right to in terpretation and translation is a first but 
essential guarantee for the suspect/accuse d to obtain a fair trial and may in a 
number of cases prevent a further miscarriage of justice.  
106. The step-by-step approach, once approve d by the JHA Council, will be based on 
the political undertaking of the Member States to work with the Commission - and 
possibly with the European Parliament s oon – to complete the catalogue of fair 
trial rights over the next 5 years.  
Summary of the step-by-step option 
Relevance to 
objectives Impact on society 
and fundamental 
rights Costs Political feasibility 
and stakeholder 
views  
Fully meets 
objectives if MS Limited common 
standards in the area 
where considered to Costs will depend on 
the proportion of 
cases which will be As above – most MS 
expect legislative 
action with flanking 
 
EN 39   EN implement guidance be most urgent. 
Would demonstrate progress and incremental approach.  deemed 'cross-
border' and will vary between MS.  
Cost of access to 
adequate interpretation for large MS (UK) is about €40m per year. Cost of translation varies according to the price scheme prevalent in individual member states. 
Cost of flanking 
measures will depend on how implemented. Main 
cost will be training 
which could be borne by students. UK Govt provided grants of about €5000 to each college.  measures.  
S
ECTION 10: MONITORING AND EVALUATION  
107. Any Commission proposal would lay down an obligation for Member States to 
communicate implementing legislation a nd a correlation table to the Commission 
within a specified time (2-3 years is usual). The Commission would then prepare 
an implementation report recording which Member States had complied with their 
obligations to transpose the Framework Deci sion. Indicators whic h can be used to 
assess compliance would be whether trai ning courses were on offer for potential 
legal interpreters and translators, whet her a register was in place and whether 
numbers of certified interpreters a nd translators could be provided.  
108. At the 26 and 27 March experts' meeting, the Committee for the Prevention of 
Torture (CPT, a Council of Europe body) offered spontaneously to assist in 
monitoring and evaluation in  the context of CPT visi ts to Council of Europe 
Member States.  Other possible sources of information on compliance would be 
the Justice Forum, national and European Bar Associations and academic institutions (such as ECLAN at ULB). 
109. On a practical level, in  November 2009, the European Legal Interpreters and 
Translators' Association (EULITA) will be launched. The establishment of this 
association has been possible owing to  a Criminal Justice Programme grant 
 
EN 40   EN (JLS/2007/JPEN/249). The existence of this association will assist the 
Commission which has hitherto not had an  official interlocutor within the 
professions of legal interpreter and tr anslator (although there have been long-
standing links with Professor Erik Hert og of Lessius Hoogeschool in Antwerp, the 
author of , inter alia , the 'Status Quaestionis' study). This will make it easier to 
receive input and feedback from, and to communicate with, the profession, and to 
monitor implementation of any EU measures (be they legislation or best practice 
recommendations).  
110. A Eurobarometer survey could be used to monitor improvement in public 
opinion's assessment of the fairness of justice in the EU. 
 
EN 41   EN ANNEX 1  
 
COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION  Brussels, 30 September 2004 (06.10) 
(OR. fr) 
  12902/04 
  LIMITE 
  JUR 399 
COPEN 117 
OPINION OF THE LEGAL SERVICE 
Subject : Proposal for a Council Framework Decision on certain pr ocedural rights i
n
criminal proceedings throughout the European Union 
9318/04 COPEN 61 COM(2004) 328 final 
I. INTRODUCTION 1. The Commission has submitted to the Council the above proposal, which is based 
on Article 31(1)(c) of the Treaty on European Union (hereinafter TEU). The question is whether that Article is the correct basis for the competence of the 
European Union to adopt a framework decisi on in this area.  This note seeks to 
answer that question. 
2. According to settled case -law the choice of the lega l basis for a Community act 
must rest on objective factors which are am enable to judicial review, including, in 
particular, the aim and content of the act 
41. 
In substance, this case-law applies likewise to acts based on the TEU. It is therefore 
necessary to analyse the aim a nd content of the above proposal. 
II. AIM AND CONTENT OF THE PROPOSAL 3. This proposal seeks to define mini mum common standards regarding certain 
procedural rights in criminal proceedings  in the European Union, in order to 
enhance the protection of the rights of  the individual. Th e granting of an 
                                                
 
41  See in particular Judgment of 4 April 2000, Commission v. Council, C-269/97, ECR I-2257, of 29 
April 2004, Commission v. Council, C-338/01, not yet published in the ECR. 
 
EN 42   EN equivalent level of protection to suspect s and defendants  throughout the European 
Union should facilitate the application of the principle of mutual recognition of 
decisions in criminal matters in the fram ework of judicial cooperation between the 
Member States. 
4. The preamble to the proposal states that  the implementation of the latter principle 
presupposes that Member States have trust in  each other's criminal justice systems. 
This spirit of confidence can only be esta blished if the judicial authorities see 
decisions of the judicial authorities of ot her Member States as equivalent to their 
own and do not call into question thei r professional competence and respect for 
fair trial rights. 
5. In the preamble it is noted that there is not always sufficient trust in the criminal 
justice systems of the other Member States  and this notwithsta nding the fact that 
they are all parties to th e European Convention for th e Protection of Human Rights 
and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter ECHR). In order to enhance this confidence, the proposal provides for cer tain minimum safeguards to protect 
fundamental rights that are to be observed  in all criminal proceedings, whether or 
not the case in question has trans-border implications, depending on whether or not 
the cooperation of the judi cial authorities of anothe r Member States is sought 
during the proceedings. 
6. Five areas have been identified by the Commission as appropriate ones in which 
common standards may be applied. These are: access to legal representation, 
access to interpretation and translation, ensu ring that persons in need of specific 
attention because they are unable to follo w the proceedings receive it, consular 
assistance to foreign detain ees and notifying suspects and defendants of their rights 
in writing. 
7. The right to legal assistan ce and the right to linguistic  assistance for foreigners 
and, where necessary, for those suffering from  hearing or speech impairments, are 
enshrined in Article 6 of the ECHR. Th e provisions of the proposal impose on 
Member States obligations identical to  those imposed by the ECHR and set out 
common ways of complying with that Article. 
8. The right to consular assi stance exists by virtue of Ar ticle 36 of the 1963 Vienna 
Convention on Consular Relations where it is  a right conferred on States to have 
access to their nationals detained abroad if they so wish. The provisions of the 
proposal confer this right with regard to  European citizens detained in a Member 
State other than their State of origin. 
9. The other provisions of the proposal cons titute ways of improving fairness in 
proceedings and ensuring that those concerned are aware of their rights. 
10. Finally, the proposal establishes a mechan ism to assess its implementation. To that 
end, Member States will have to gather and record information for the purpose of 
evaluation and monitoring.  Th is information will be used by the Commission to 
produce reports that will be made publicly available. 
III. BACKGROUND 
 
EN 43   EN 11. In its opinion of 14 July 2000 (1 0341/00 JUR 241 COPEN 52) on the draft 
Framework Decision on the standing of vi ctims in criminal procedure, the Legal 
Service examined the scope of Article 31 of the TEU. It considered whether it 
belonged to the objectives of the Union to harmonise the penal proceedings and 
practices of the Member States. While expressing doubts that this was what the 
authors of the Treaty of Amsterdam had in mind, given that those proceedings and 
practices applied to entirely  internal cases, it nevertheless noted that the wording 
of the provisions of Titl e VI of the TEU offered a rather wide margin of 
interpretation.  In the words of the opini on ''if the Council felt a need to deal with 
aspects of the functioning of the criminal  justice systems of the Member States 
which are not expressly mentioned in Ar ticles 30-32 of the TEU, in order to 
further the more general objective of the Union of providing citizens with a high 
level of safety, it would ha ve the power to do so'', adding that ''The improvement 
of such support for victims may also enha nce the credibility of , and trust in, the 
functioning of the criminal justice system as a whole, which can also be considered a contribution to th e creation of an area of security and justice.''.  In the 
Legal Service's view the proposal now under consideration follows the same logic. 
12. The Legal Service notes that, in th e words of Article 29 of the TEU '' the Union's 
objective shall be to provide ci tizens with a high level of safety within an area of 
freedom, security and justice ''. The means of achieving that objective are laid 
down in Articles 29, 30, 31 and 32. 
Among those means are those mentioned in Article 31(1)(c), on which the 
Commission based its proposal. Accordi ng to that provision, common action on 
judicial cooperation in criminal matters '' shall include '' ''ensuring compatibility in 
rules applicable in the Member State, as may be necessary to improve such 
cooperation''. The application of this provi sion depends in principle on two factors: 
(a) the action must aim at ensuring compatibility  in Member States' rules and (b) 
the action must not exceed what may be necessary  to improve  judicial cooperation. 
Provided we remain in the area of ''judi cial cooperation in criminal matters'', 
Article 31 should be interpreted broa dly, in view of the expression '' shall include '' 
which appears in the introductory senten ce of Article 31(1). We should examine 
whether the competences assigned to the Un ion by this provision may be the basis 
for common action which aims to establish a pedestal of standards to ensure a 
minimum of compatibility between the rule s applicable in the Member States to 
the extent necessary to improve judicial  cooperation between the Member States 
with a view to creating an area of  freedom, security and justice. 
13. The adoption of Framework Decisions 
42 by the Council implementing the 
principle of mutual recognition was not  accompanied by the adoption of minimum 
standards for the protection of individual rights. Such standards are provided for 
by existing international human rights treaties.  While it ma y be true that currently, 
in the words of Opinion 2/94 of the C ourt, ''No Treaty provision confers on the 
                                                 
42  Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender 
procedures between Member States, OJ L 190, 18.7.2002, p. 2; Council Framework Decision of 22 
July 2003 on the ex ecution in the European Union of orders freezing property or evidence, OJ L 196, 
2.8.2003, p. 45. 
 
EN 44   EN Community institutions any general pow er to enact rules on human rights'' 43, it 
must be said that there is nothing to pr event the Union, under the TEC, from laying 
down its own standards in order to create a high level of protection in a specific 
legal environment – in this case an area in which legal decisions must be 
recognised and executed on the basis of th e principle of mutual recognition and 
hence of mutual trust – insofar as the essent ial aim of such measures is to facilitate 
the mutual recognition of decisions by Memb er States, rather than the protection of 
human rights. 
14. Common action based on Article 31(1)(c) must  to a certain degree seek to ensure 
compatibility between Member States' rules. It is true that the Commission has not specified whether there is currently any in compatibility between these rules, in the 
sense that there may be contradictions, opposition or conflict between them, either 
as regards basic commitments or rules governing procedure or  competence, which 
would prevent their simultaneous application in specific cases. However, the Treaty does not stipulate that common action should consist in eliminating existing incompatibilities. The evidence of greater compatibility between the rules applying 
to procedural rights in criminal proceedi ngs would increase tr ust between the legal 
systems of the various Member States. 
15. Common action based on Article 31(1)(c) must  not – as was stated  in point 12 of 
this opinion – go beyond what is necessary to improve judicial cooperation.  In fact, this is more generally about th e obligation on the Union to respect the 
principle of subsidiarity (see second pa ragraph of Article 5 of the TEC, made 
applicable to the Union by Article 2 of th e TEU).  Given that most cases affected 
by the procedural guarantees in question are purely internal to each Member State, 
it may be asked whether th e proposal is compatible with the principle of 
subsidiarity laid down in Article 5 of  the TEC and further developed in the 
Protocol on the application of the princi ples of subsidiarity and proportionality. 
Taking account of the guidelines in that Pr otocol, it may be said that, in strictly 
internal cases, action at national level al one or lack of actio n by the Union would 
not be contrary to the requirements of  the Treaty and would not damage the 
interests of the Member States.  In practice, however, it will not be possible to foresee in which cases the judicial coope ration of another Member State should or 
could be requested at successive stages of the proceedings. For this reason it is not 
possible to draw a distinction, for the purposes of determini ng the scope of the 
Framework Decision, between internal cases and others. The result  is that it cannot 
be said that the measures laid down (which in fact ar e minimal) go beyond what is 
necessary to encourage judicial cooperation in criminal matters 
44. 
Therefore, if the Council is of the opini on that the guarantees laid down in the 
proposal at Union level offer advantages because of the positive effect on mutual 
trust between Member States and betw een courts and on the functioning of 
criminal justice systems, and that th ese measures do not go beyond what is 
                                                 
43  Opinion of the Court of 28 March 1996, ECR I-1759. 
44  Note the difference on this point between Artic le 31 of the TEU and Article 65 of the TEC, which 
refers to ''civil matters having cross-border implications''. 
 
EN 45   EN necessary to improve judicial cooper ation, the Union may adopt the proposed 
measures and Article 31(1)(c ) of the TEU is the correct legal basis for that 45. 
CONCLUSION  
16. The Legal Service considers that the Co mmission proposal is correctly based on 
Article 31(1)(c) of the TEU and that the Council can adopt the proposed measures 
if, in compliance with the principle of s ubsidiarity, it considers that they do not go 
beyond what is necessary to improve judi cial cooperation in criminal matters. 
                                                 
45  It should be noted that, under Article III 270 of the Treaty establishing a Constitution 
for Europe, ''Judicial coopera tion in criminal matters in the Union shall be based on 
the principle of mutual recognition of j udgments and judicial decisions and shall 
include the approximation of the laws and regulations of the Member States''.  
According to Article III-270(2), ''To the extent necessary to facilitate mutual 
recognition of judgments and j udicial decisions and police and judicial cooperation in 
criminal matters having a cross-border dimension, European framework laws may 
establish minimum rules.  Such rules shall take into account the differences between the legal traditions and system s of the Member States.  
They shall concern: (a) mutual admissibility of evidence between Member States; (b) the rights of individual s in criminal procedure; 
(c) the rights of victims of crime; 
(d) any other specific aspects of crim inal procedure which the Council has 
identified in advance by a European decision; for the adoption of such a 
decision, the Council shall act unanimously  after obtaining the consent of the 
European Parliament. 
Adoption of the minimum rules referred to in this  paragraph shall not prevent Member States from 
maintaining or introducing a higher le vel of protection for individuals.''. 
 
EN 46   EN ANNEX 2 – Meeting Report  
Experts’ meeting on procedural rights 
26-27 March 2009 
Brussels 
Peter Csonka , Head of the Criminal Justice for the European Commission’s DG Justice, 
Freedom and Security (DG JLS), chaired the expert meeting on procedural rights. The 
European Commission plans to submit a proposal  on procedural rights to the Council by 
early July so that the upcoming Swedish presid ency of the European Union (EU) can tackle 
it right from the start of its presidency. 
The background is that, following a Green Paper in 2003, the Commission tabled a 
proposal in 2004 for the minimum approximati on of procedural ri ghts in five areas 
(hereafter known as ‘the five procedural rights’): 
• Access to legal advice, both before and duri ng trial (and legal aid for those who cannot 
afford to pay for a lawyer) 
• Access to interpretation and tran slation for non-native defendants 
• Protection of vulnerable persons who ca nnot understand or follow the proceedings 
• Communication and consular assi stance to foreign detainees 
• Information about rights by way of a Letter of Rights 
Following Member State (MS) objections, the text was diluted and a compromise proposal 
was tabled by the Austrian presidency of th e EU in 2006, listing general rights such as the 
right to information, the right  to legal assistan ce and the right to  interpretation. No 
agreement was reached on the proposal after discussions in 2007. 
It is important that any EU text should be fully compatible with the provisions of the 
European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), i.e. be “Strasbourg proof”. The European 
Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) is overbur dened. Six MS opposing the original EU 
proposal suggested a non-bindi ng resolution with best pract ice guidance rather than a 
legislative proposal as they believed that the legal basis for legislation was shaky. There is 
still controversy as to whether there was a le gal basis for the EU to legislate despite the 
Council Legal Service saying that there is a legal basis in its September 2004 Opinion. A 
non-binding report of the High- Level Advisory Group on the Future EU Justice Programme 
recommends that all citizens of the EU should be provided with a basic set of rights as 
minimum guarantees if they are s ubject to a crimin al investigation. 
Preliminary findings of the ‘Procedural Rights in the European Union’ study  
Taru Spronken (Maastricht University) and Gert Vermeulen (Ghent University)  gave 
a presentation on the update of  a 2005 study on the five pro cedural rights. A questionnaire 
(with 122 questions) is being developed to be se nt out to all MS by em ail on the right to 
information, the right to legal advice, the righ t to legal assistance fr ee of charge and the 
 
EN 47   EN right to interpretation and translation. The aim is to find out how the rights are regulated in 
detail. 
A preliminary comparison was given of some as pects of the Dutch and Belgian systems.  
In the Netherlands, there is no Letter of Right s. On arrest, suspects are cautioned about the 
right to silence and given some information on the charge. Access to the file can be limited 
during the pre-trial investigation.  
In Belgium, there is no Letter of Rights. There is no obligation to inform people being 
interrogated of the nature of and reason for the accusation. There are some exceptions to 
this in that a person formally accused by an inve stigating judge is only then informed at the 
discretion of the judge. The judge  is not obliged to inform pe ople targeted in a judicial 
investigation (but not officially  accused) of their rights. Arre sted suspects are not given any 
explicit information about their procedural right s (e.g. the right to remain silent). They are 
given access to the file one or  two days ahead of their cour t appearance and can photocopy 
it at the end of the preliminary phase. 
In the Netherlands, suspects have the right to  choose a lawyer at any time but have no 
access to one before the first police interrogati on and no assistance during the interrogation. 
In a judgment in the Salduz  case, the ECtHR has ruled that access to a lawyer should be 
granted from the first interrogation by the police. In the Panovits  case, the ECtHR ruled 
that lack of legal assistance during interroga tion could constitute a breach of the ECHR. 
There is a big debate in the Netherlands as to what that means for the Dutch situation. A 
confession obtained without a lawyer present may be excluded from evidence. 
In Belgium, there is a right to legal advice, a suspect can choose a lawyer at any time but 
there is no access before the first police in terrogation or assistance during the first 
interrogation. There is a maximu m of 24 hours deprivation of lib erty before a suspect must 
appear before a judge. Lawyers and magistrate s called for an extension from 24 to 48 hours 
as currently there are more arrests than neces sary but lawyers did not ask for this to be 
backed up by the presence of a lawyer. 
Presentation of ‘Effective Criminal Defence Rights in Europe’ (Uni versity of West of 
England)  
Professor Ed Cape  gave this presentation. There is a l ack of rigorous scie ntific evidence 
on how the investigative stage works in practice. The approach is to look at issues such as 
equality of arms, effective representation an d effective participa tion as experienced by 
those caught up in the criminal justice process.  Reports have been completed for England & 
Wales, Belgium and Hungary while resear ch is ongoing for Finland, Germany, Poland, 
Turkey, France and Italy. A conference will be he ld in Brussels in June 2010 to disseminate 
the findings and a book is to be published. 
Among the preliminary findings:  Hungary
 
– No obligation to provide a Letter of Rights 
 
EN 48   EN – Ploys are used by the police to avoid legal ad vice being granted to interviewees before 
their interview with the police (e.g. questi oning a person informa lly or questioning a 
suspect as if they were a witness) 
– Lack of defence counsel access to info rmation at the investigative stage 
– Appointment of substitute lawyers at shor t notice in cases of mandatory defence 
(sometimes a trainee without supervision) 
– No mandatory translation of key documents and poor quality of translation 
Belgium  
– No obligation to provide a Letter of Rights 
– No right to presence of lawyer during interrogation 
– No right to access the file at the investigative stage 
– Poor level of quality of interpreters and no quality assurance 
– Inadequate pay for defence lawyers 
England & Wales  
– Letter of Rights required at the i nvestigative stage but not thereafter 
– No statutory right to inte rpretation and translation 
– Emerging themes 
The ECHR does not cover all aspects of an  effective criminal defence. The ECtHR 
intervenes when the failure of legal represen tation is extreme, i.e. not when there is a 
question mark over the defence’s competence.  Compliance with the ECHR’s provisions on 
the right to a fair trial is variable. There are major defici encies in terms of access to a 
defence lawyer, especially for poor(er) people . Legal regulation is necessary to ensure 
access to effective criminal defence but it is not  sufficient as, if judges allow breaches then 
any legislation will be pretty meaningless. Ther e is a lack of systematic collection of data 
and research on how far there is an effective defence. 
Letter of Rights project  
The German Ministry of Justice has drawn up a document which can provided information 
on procedural rights to the accuse d immediately after their arrest. The idea is that it will be 
available in all police stations in electronic  form and can be accessed on the internet and 
then printed out. The next step is for it to be translated into other languages. The Law 
Society in England & Wales has a similar project.  It may be possible to  use it as a basis for 
a European-wide Letter of Rights. 
Austrian project – ‘Assessing pr e-trial access to defence rights’  
 
EN 49   EN This is a project involving Austria, Croatia, Germany and Slovenia covering topics such as 
access to legal assistance, access to legal ai d, the enforcement of defence rights, the 
participative rights of defence lawyers during interrogation and the recording of 
interrogations. It covers  country reports on the legal situ ation, a quantitativ e analysis via a 
questionnaire and a qualitative analysis via follow-up interviews. Results are due by October 2010. 
In Austria, there is a new pre-trial law in wh ich suspects can talk to a lawyer before their 
first interrogation and the lawyer can be an observer at the interr ogation. There is also a 
new Austrian legal aid emergency service whic h aims to make access to a lawyer possible 
immediately after an arrest or  during a first interrogation usually by police. The pilot 
project began in July 2008 and was tested unt il October 2008 before being extended. There 
is a telephone hotline available to  all detainees regardless of th eir financial means. It is a 24 
hour per day, seven day per week  service paid for by the detainee if he/she has enough 
money but by the Ministry of Justice if he/she  does not. The defendant can waive their right 
to this. 
After 48 hours, the case must go to court and then  the general legal aid lawyer system kicks 
in. In connection with the emergency servic e, there has been little contact between 
defendants and lawyers. In each of July, August and September 2008, there were 39 cases 
of lawyers being used out of around 1,200 arre sts per month. This is possibly because the 
police have not informed defendants of this righ t or because there is not a tradition of active 
defence at the pre-trial stage.  
Peter Csonka (DG JLS) called for coordination between th e different projects to avoid 
people being asked the same questi ons in different questionnaires. 
The meeting then moved onto debate about three themes. Theme 1 – Is there a need fo r EU action in this area?
 
Eberhard Siegismund (German Ministry of Justice): Binding EU-wide regulations are 
urgently needed because 60% of cases at th e ECtHR are repeated cases where a decision 
has already been taken in a previous case with similar facts. This shows that the ECtHR has 
a low level of acceptance and dissemination. The provisions of the ECHR are taken too 
little account of in practice and so an additiona l instrument is needed. Cases are admissible 
at the ECtHR only if national le gal proceedings are exhausted, which can take a long time. 
The ECtHR looks at an overall approach, which is of no benefit to th e citizen, who wants to 
know if it is ille gal if they do not have a legal defence at a certain stage [of their case]. We 
need a body that can swiftly say if  measures were legal or not. 
Lorenzo Salazar (Italian  Ministry of Justice): Yes. Back in 2003, Italy asked the 
Commission to put together a proposal on minimum guaranteed ri ghts and Italy has been in 
favour of adopting an instrument ever since.  A citizen could be a rrested anywhere in 
Europe but rights vary in different countries as does treatment and the material conditions 
of detention. We need to take action. We must ensure that it is not only legislation but also 
practical things and material conditions ne ed to be aligned in Europe. Complete 
convergence is very difficult in the short term. Beyond the ri ghts of those who have been 
arrested, we need to look at the rights of w itnesses and all parties in  criminal proceedings 
(and especially the most vulnerable). 
 
EN 50   EN Serge de Biolley (Belgium’s Perm anent Representation to the EU): Belgium’s position 
has not changed. It is necessa ry to align positions in th is area because EU law has 
continued to develop and there is a bigge r gap between the right to cooperation and 
progress not being made in implementing our common values. Belgium is not one of the 
best in class in all sectors. We’ll be forced  to make developments. Yes to the question but 
there are issues such as where we need to start. 
Jessica Auken (Denmark): It would be useful to know a bout the practical implementation 
of rules by MS. We don’t have an overview of what is happening and we need to evaluate 
this and ensure that the introduction of mini mum rules in Europe w ill help protect the 
rights. There is a lot of work to be done. We are a long  way from a decision to introduce 
minimum rights everywhere. Some MS are mo re committed than others but often those 
most committed often find it most difficult to implement things. That’s a pity. Denmark is 
sceptical about the introduction of this sy stem for that reason. Would introducing an 
instrument mean the elimination of existing hu man rights? We need to ensure that it is 
legally watertight and that we do not unde rmine work done by others. It would be 
interesting to hear the Council of Europe’s view s on this. First we need to study this before 
implementing rules. 
Peter Csonka (DG JLS): Is Denmark in favour of an instrument with limited scope? 
Jessica Auken (Denmark): Denmark’s position has not cha nged. It is in favour of a 
restricted instrument. The disc ussion today is about a broade r catalogue of rights and my 
comments come in that context. 
Dimitrios Zimianitis (Gree k Ministry of Justice): Entirely supported wh at Italy said. In 
favour of an instrument. Greece’s position has not changed since 2004. Greece believes the EU must act as the existing fr amework in the Council of Europe is not sufficient. We need 
a uniform mechanism to ensure that people’s ri ghts are uniformly applied across the EU. If 
the Lisbon Treaty is adopted, there would be the right to take a case to the European Court 
of Justice. The ECtHR is too slow and it is not possible to use it in practice. 
Geraldine Moore  (Irish Ministry of Justice): Ireland had difficulties with the previous 
proposal but sees the importance of procedural safeguards. There are minimum standards in 
the ECHR so Ireland wonders if a new initiativ e is necessary and has added value. Ireland 
is more in favour of best practice and p eer evaluation. It would like to see practical 
evidence to show that an instrument is n eeded. The studies presented this morning were 
interesting and it is a p ity that they will not be finished before 2010. 
Adrienne Boerwinkel (Dutch  Ministry of Justice): The presentations show that 
legislation is one thing but practical implem entation is something else. Although some MS 
have proper legislation, the practice may not be  in line with proper procedural standards. 
The opposite may also exist, with some MS ha ving proper practical st andards in practice 
but little in the way of legislation. For exam ple, in The Netherlands, there is no legal 
obligation to have a Letter of Rights but ex tensive brochures in different languages are 
given to people when they are arrested. The Netherlands sees the need for EU action to improve the procedural rights of suspects in  the EU but this should not focus only on 
legislation. It is important to accompany legi slative proposals with practical measures and 
that we can monitor the establishment of pr ocedural standards. Le gislation, practical 
 
EN 51   EN measures and monitoring implementation are three elements of importance to focus on 
together. 
Raoul Ueberecken (Luxembourg’s Perm anent Representation to the EU): 
Luxembourg’s position has not changed since 2004 and has in fact strengthened. Perhaps it 
is time to look at rediscovering the balance be tween facilitating cro ss border prosecutions 
and protecting the rights  of the accused. This question is closely linked to the next question 
to be discussed, i.e. mutual recognition and mutual trust. Luxembourg hopes the proposals 
will be revived soon. 
Rosalind Campion (UK’s Office for Criminal Justice Reform): The UK can agree with 
what the Netherlands said in particular. The UK does not think that legislation is the only 
solution and that action has a broader meaning than legislation. The UK does not want to 
replace the ECHR’s right s but look at areas where we can add value. 
Lord Justice Thomas (European Netw ork of Councils for the Judiciary): Broadly in 
favour of a cautious approach to further legi slation. Strong support for getting going in this 
area but we must recognise the deep historic al differences [in syst ems] between MS. We 
need to take into account the rights of victims and witnesses and to work with 
representatives of these groups or else we will get nowhere. 
Zuzana Cernecka (Czech Ministry of Justice): Yes to this question. The Czech Republic 
has supported procedural rights from the beginning but not by way of a Framework 
Decision. Studies today show the need for work  in this area. It w ould facilitate mutual 
recognition and enhance mutual trust between MS and citizen s’ trust in the judicial 
authorities of other MS. The Czech Republic would welcome practical measures in this 
area. 
Matevz Pezdirc (Slovenian  Ministry of Justice): Slovenia has the same position as before 
and supports EU action. We should have legislat ive action in procedural  rights. There is a 
gap between legislation and reality. Sloveni a can support the idea of practical measures 
accompanying legislation plus some evalua tion. With lots of mutual recognition 
instruments, we need action in the area of pro cedural rights and protectio n of citizens in this 
respect. 
Eszter Viczko (Hungarian Ministry of Justice):  Hungary supports legislative measures. 
Anna Ondrejova (Slovakia’s General Prosecutor’s Office): Slovakia’s position is the 
same as in 2007. Although aware of the informati on and results of research here, it still has 
misgivings about overlap between the jurisdic tion of the ECtHR and the European Court of 
Justice (ECJ). Slovakia sees a place for measures other than legislative ones. 
Marina Gusauskiene (Lithuania’s  Ministry of Justice): Yes to the question. Lithuania 
agrees with The Netherlands that it not only legislation but practical implementation that 
matters. There is a fresh code in Lithuania and the country is not afra id of EU intervention 
as it has good standards on pa per but is not so good in pract ice. Some of the rights are 
cheap whereas others are expensive (e.g. legal advice and interpreting services). The right 
needs to be followed up with good finance and good organisation of the service. Rights of 
victims are important too and Lithuania is happy that the Commission is doing something 
on that. 
 
EN 52   EN Peter Csonka (DG JLS): More will be done on victims’ rights. A proposal to amend the 
2001 Framework Decision on victims is  due in the second half of 2009. 
Bernhard Weratschnig (Austria’s  Ministry of Justice): Austria has always supported a 
procedural rights instrument and will agree to it. In terms of its scope, that is something we’ll come back to later. 
Trevor Stevens (Committee for the Prevention of Torture): Stevens  could not give a 
Council of Europe position on th is question. From on-site vi sits to prisons and police 
stations in some 47 countries, he pointed to  huge differences between MS on procedural 
rights. Where rights exist, they are not necessa rily applied in practice. The CPT has a lot of 
information that it is willing to share with  researchers (e.g. on access to lawyers, doctors 
etc.) and the Commission and participants to this meeting can contact the CPT when they 
come to Strasbourg. If there is EU legislation in  this area and the CPT likes it, it will check 
carefully if it is complied with. 
Peter Csonka (DG JLS): Thanked Stevens for the information and monitoring offers. If 
there are standards, the CPT is well placed to check what is done in practice as we see a 
growing gap between legislation and what happens in practice. 
Holger Matt (European Criminal Bar Association): Speaking as a European citizen, 
Matt said that European citizens who are arrested  in another country expect to be told in a 
language they understand what the matter for whic h they have been arrested is about. The 
right to a translator must be established once a nd for all. It is difficu lt to understand why we 
are hesitating about this. We need practical means to enforce this right and therefore we 
need an EU instrument. The right to silence is al so part of the core rights that we need to 
discuss when addressing procedural rights. 
Karoly Bard (Central European University): The slowness of the ECtHR procedure is a 
strong argument as is the fact that it is always  reactive. The ECtHR is not that much help in 
enforcing the rights of indi viduals. We need more than the rights of the ECHR. 
Anthony Barbara (Maltese Ministry of Justice): The situation needs to be improved but 
the question is how. In Malta, if you keep silent and do not answer questions from the 
police, no inference of guilt can be taken. 
Cyprus: Cyprus’s position is the same as in 2004. It does not think that legislation is 
needed but may change its views in the near future. 
Theme 2 – Mutual recognition and mutual trust – What is necessary by way of procedural 
rights to promote mutual trust?  
Gisèle Vernimmen presented the ULB study on this . In her conclusions, she said that there 
was broad consensus that something needed to be done. The options are: 
Soft law/best practice – less priority/resources are given to this as for binding rules and it 
needs good will to ensure that it works. 
A binding instrument – this woul d improve the respect of right s thanks to the involvement 
of the ECJ and would make free movement of  people easier as there would be the same 
safeguards in different countries 
 
EN 53   EN Accompanying measures (e.g. training and networking) 
In terms of which rights to c over, a Letter of Rights is f undamental. Even if it is not 
mandatory, there is a lot of positive experience in several MS and it should be encouraged. 
Even if there is rapprochement between MS, this is not enough. There needs to be 
information and training, networking and double defence (i.e. in the executing and issuing 
MS – this has consequences for legal aid as if  a person gets it in one country they should 
get it in the other) 
Theme 3 – Crossborder v domestic proceedings  
Discussion on whether any future EU legislatio n should be limited to crossborder cases or 
should cover crossborder and domestic proceedings 
Peter Csonka (DG JLS) asked participants which option th ey would prefer. If there should 
be separate proceedings (crossborder ones and domestic ones), he asked how this would 
work in practice given that a domestic case can become a crossborder one at any time. 
Jodie Blackstock (Justice): One main reason why the Commission’s proposal was rejected 
in 2007 by some MS was about the perceive d lack of a legal basis for adopting an 
instrument. Justice thinks that this needs to be tackled head on and argues that there is a 
legal basis. Justice sees ma king a division between crossborder and domestic proceedings 
as unworkable in practice as cas es can switch from crossbor der to domestic or vice versa 
after investigations have begun. Justice argues th at, to further cooperation, there need to be 
procedural safeguards covering bo th crossborder and domestic proc eedings. It believes that 
the five rights identified are necessary. Ju stice argues that both the ECtHR and CPT can 
only deal with breaches after they have occu rred. For Justice, unless the EU has an EU-
wide set of standards applyi ng in all circumstances, which defence lawyers can rely on, 
judicial cooperation will not be realised. Binding regulation with de tailed provisions on 
how they can be used and how they  can be measured is essential. 
Ilias Anagnostopoulos (Chair of the CCBE Criminal Law Committee): We know from 
EAW procedures that it is not enough to have a defence counse l in the executi ng MS as it is 
necessary to have one in th e issuing MS too. For a Europ ean Evidence Warrant, advice is 
needed in both the executing and issuing MS. He does not believe that a legal instrument 
limited to crossborder cases woul d be an alternative to an EU-wide instrument. This is not 
only because of the possible creation of a double standard but such a policy would be a step 
backwards towards the era of extradition pr oceedings. Although ther e are good grounds to 
pay special attention to the crossborder element,  this could not be an alternative to an EU-
wide catalogue of procedural rights. A new EU legal instrume nt would set in motion all the 
monitoring mechanisms that are currently not there. 
Rosalind Campion (UK’s Office for Criminal Justice Reform): The UK is very keen to 
look at anything that will enhance crossb order cooperation. The discussion is very 
theoretical. It would be better to look at a text and see if there is a legal basis or not. 
Alina Barbu (Romanian Mi nistry of Justice): Romania strongly suppo rts an instrument 
on this topic but is cautious a bout the language and substance.  Romania is concerned that 
national and EU legislation would mean differ ent legally binding instruments. She sees a 
difficulty in drawing a line between crossborde r and domestic cases in criminal proceedings 
 
EN 54   EN and thinks that it would be di fficult to explain why there were  different legal proceedings if 
that were to be the case. 
Johan Callewaert (ECtHR): The Council of Europe acknow ledged that the ECtHR was 
too slow at the moment but has decided to ch ange the order in which cases are dealt with. 
Up until now they were dealt with in the order that they came in but from now on cases will 
be given a priority-based order. So importa nt cases and those where there would be a 
danger in delay will be priori tised. The reflection paper talk s of the ECtHR and the ECHR 
needing a higher profile yet three quarters of  disputes going to the ECtHR are clearly 
unfounded so possibly their profile is too high. If a new in strument is drafted it is important 
to ensure that the text is compatible with the ECHR othe rwise any doubts about standards 
and compatibility between the ECHR and the new instrument would give rise to a big 
number of disputes. The Council of Europe is in favour of an EU instrument if it is fully in 
line with the ECHR and the st andards set are not lowered.    
Eberhard Siegismund (German Ministry of Justice): He sees the problem as not being 
legal issues but be ing political will. 
Lorenzo Salazar (Italian  Ministry of Justice): Italy is against limiting the scope of a 
future instrument to crossborder cases alone b ecause of the need to ensure the principle of 
equality between citizens. Differentiating be tween crossborder and domestic cases would 
be absurd. 
Vania Costa Ramos (Law Faculty of Lisbon University): She argued that as all citizens 
of the EU are citizens of the EU regardless of their nationality th ere should be the same 
rights for all. There should be a decision set ting out a list of basic rights and this would 
have to include all scenarios. If more than  one jurisdiction may a pply, solutions could be 
pinpointed. There could be practical mechanisms , e.g. with legal assistance. If it is a 
national case, then the accused would not need a lawyer in a different country. Crossborder 
cases are more complicated and sometimes might  need specific mechanisms to deal with 
that. 
Professor Ed Cape: The people implementing the rights will probably be ordinary 
policemen, lawyers and judges. In England a nd Wales for example, it takes time for rights 
(e.g. for a recording to be made) to become entr enched in daily practice. If the instrument is 
confined to crossborder cases then the poli ceman who deals with them will probably come 
across them rarely and so a lot of mistak es will be made. This will be because the 
policeman has not recognised it as a crossborde r case or is not aware of the special rules, 
which could lead to more litigation and appeals. 
Zuzana Cernecka (Czech Ministry of Justice): The legal basis continues to be a key 
question for the Czech Republic. Procedural righ ts may be regulated at EU level only for 
crossborder cases – this is purel y a question of the legal basis. If it is limited to crossborder 
cases then the Czech Republic is willing to cooperate and is open to more discussion. 
Possible ways to proceed  
Signe Ohman (Swedish Mi nistry of Justice): The protection of individuals in criminal 
proceedings is a top priority for the Swedish presidency of the EU. There seems to be an 
understanding that mutual trust and procedural  safeguards go hand in hand – that was clear 
 
EN 55   EN from Gisèle Vernimmen’s presentation. We need  to strengthen procedural safeguards to 
increase mutual trust and we need to focu s more on the rights and needs of individuals. 
There is more free movement than ever before  and we need to address the problems that 
can arise because of increased mobility. Th e language of proceedings and understanding 
the system in that other country are key. 
It is time to resume discussion on procedur al rights in criminal proceedings and to 
strengthen these rights. It is a delicate and complicated issue. There were three years of 
discussion over the last proposal. We think that a step by step approach is best, focusing on 
a few rights at each step so th at we can go into real depth as  regards the problems. We think 
we should work with practical measures. We be lieve that we should st art with th e right to 
translation and interpretation and then continue  with other rights (e.g. to a defence, to 
information etc.) We need political agreement on a strategy and we are thinking of putting a roadmap forward in July. This approach will minimise the risk of failure. There is a 
conference in Stockholm, from 22 to 23 July , on justice in the EU from the citizens’ 
perspective. It is about citizens’ access to  criminal justice and rights in criminal 
proceedings. 
Priscilla Guillotin De Corson (Fair Trials International): She was interested in the order 
of the Swedish proposals. Sh e asked how many Framework Decisions would be adopted 
during the Swedish presidency of the EU and what guarantees there were that something 
would be done in the next presidencies. 
Signe Ohman (Swedish Ministry of Justice): Ideally Sweden would adopt a bunch of 
Framework Decisions during its presidency but f ears that that will not be possible. Sweden 
hopes that agreement on the first step is possibl e and thinks that a roadmap will ensure that 
we deal with all the fundamental procedural rights. Hopefully future presidencies will make it a top priority too. 
Eberhard Siegismund (German Ministry of Justice): Siegismund supported the Swedish 
initiative and approach although he would have preferred a broa der approach. A key 
question is how to involve future presidencies . There also needs to be a parallel approach 
with practical measures being linked to the formal approach. 
Peter Csonka (DG JLS): The Commission will submit a pr oposal on practical measures, 
drawing inspiration from a paper by the six c ountries that suggested an alternative to a 
Framework Decision earlier. He asked future pr esidencies (Spain and Belgium) what they 
would do. 
Spain: Spain is convinced that this matter needs to be dealt with. The delegate could not 
give Spain’s official position for its future presidency but assured participants that the 
country would do all it can to make progress. 
Serge de Biolley (Belgium’s Permanent Representation to the EU): If the Swedish 
presidency process becomes dynamic, Belgiu m will be behind it. The delegate would 
imagine it to be one of the t op priorities of the presidency  but could not commit to that. 
Eszter Viczko (Hungarian  Ministry of Justice): Hungary supported the proposal but 
could not say what the pres idency’s proposals would be. 
 
EN 56   EN Lorenzo Salazar (Italian  Ministry of Justice): Italy would have hoped for something 
more ambitious but, given the result last time, the Swedish approach may turn out to be a 
good one. The delegate hoped that protection of European citizens would be a fundamental 
part of the Stockholm programme. 
Peter Csonka (DG JLS): The Stockholm programme will be based largely on a 
Commission Communication and defendants’ rights are an important priority in that.  
Bernhard Weratschnig (Austria’s  Ministry of Justice): Austria is in favour of resolving 
the issue of interpreting and agrees with the Swedish proposal. 
Claudia Gualtieri (European Parliament LIBE Committee): A proposal for a 
recommendation (focussing on fundamental rights, mutual recognition, the evaluation of justice and judicial training) is being disc ussed in the LIBE Committee with a vote next 
week and then more discussion in plenary in  May. The starting point is that EU citizens 
must be treated in the same way. The re commendation makes a list and refers to 
presumption of innocence, a Letter of Rights, legal advice, information about the reasons 
for the charges, access to an interpreter and documents being available in a language that 
the citizen understands. 
Rosalind Campion (UK’s Office fo r Criminal Justice Reform): She asked when the 
European Parliament’s recommendations were likely to be ready. She sees the Swedish 
approach, to take a real problem and solve it with detailed legislation and practical 
measures and not just replicate the ECHR, as very ambitious. She asked for the areas in the 
roadmap to have an impact assessment on the proposals put forward. 
Peter Csonka (DG JLS): There is an obligation to do an impact assessment and this 
meeting is part of it. 
Claudia Gualtieri (European Parliament LIBE Committee): The recommendations are 
to be voted on in committee next week a nd go to plenary in the first week of May. 
Signe Ohman (Swedish Mi nistry of Justice): Sweden sees its approach as very ambitious 
– a legislative document and a document with practical measures only on interpreting and translation. The old Framewor k Decision proposal had a few articles on the right to 
interpreting and translation and more or less repeated what is  in the ECHR in the end. 
Markko Kunnapu (Estonia’s  Ministry of Justice): Estonia supported the Framework 
Decision proposal and would support the new initiative. 
Frederic Baab (France’s  Ministry of Justice): France is in favour of an instrument that 
would be at least at the level of the sta ndards set by the ECHR and by the ECtHR itself. 
Sweden has chosen to focus on some asp ects and has wisely chosen a relatively 
uncontroversial idea, the right to be able to  understand what you are being accused of in a 
criminal procedure, i.e. the que stion of translation and interp reting. For the other rights, we 
need more refined analysis and we need a roadmap.  
As for the domestic vs crossborder proceedin gs issue, supposing new evidence came to 
light in another country, two different judges  in France might come to two different 
decisions as to whether to ask the other country for the evidence. It is the same dossier but 
with two different treatments. If decisions ar e taken on a case by case basis like this, this 
 
EN 57   EN shows the difficulty of putting an instrument into  practice. It is important to decide which 
criteria to take to determine whether a given case is a crossborder one or not. 
Zigmund Dundurs (Latvia’s  Ministry of Justice): In principle, Latvia is very supportive. 
It is important not to distinguish between  crossborder and national cases. The Swedish 
approach to focus on individual rights seems very reasonable. 
Kirsi Pulkinnen (Finland’s  Ministry of Justice): Finland is very ha ppy to hear that 
Sweden is continuing the work on procedural right s and thinks that the ‘one right at a time’ 
approach by Sweden is a good one. 
Gert Vermeulen (Ghent University): Procedural rights are part icularly relevant in 
domestic cases and not so much in crossborde r cases. It is primarily domestically where 
something needs to be done. With regard th e French example, perhaps minimum standards 
should be agreed for particular areas (e.g. house s earch). One idea is that , if there are two or 
three MS involved in a case where a house sear ch or phone tap is needed, the agreement 
could be that the best rights from the three MS accrue to th e individual. That  would avoid a 
binding minimum instrument for the whole EU. 
Peter Csonka (DG JLS): Peter Csonka wanted to know how this could be done, e.g. using 
a form with open boxes to be ticke d if certain rights are allowed. 
Gert Vermeulen (Ghent University): Gert Vermeulen suggested a step by step approach 
so that, when a piece of evidence was obtai ned from abroad, it would be deemed as 
acceptable evidence if it lived up to the standa rds of the ECHR. If there were need for a 
phone tap abroad, the approach could be that th e better rights [between the two countries 
involved] apply. 
Peter Csonka (DG JLS): More time is probably needed to write this paper. The 
Commission plans to continue working on evidence and will table a Green Paper on 
evidence, including the problem of admissibilit y. We will see if we need evidence-related 
guarantees, e.g. for surreptitious techniques such as phone taps. 
Anna Ondrejova (Slovakia’s  Ministry of Justice): Slovakia is open to talk with the 
Commission and the Swedish presidency so th at this legislation reaches a balanced 
solution. Sweden’s focussed approach is interesting. 
Professor Erik Hertog (Lessius University College): Speaking on behalf of legal 
interpreters and translat ors, Professor Erik Hertog said th at mutual trust between MS cannot 
work if it is not built on mutual trust in communication (incl uding interpreting and 
translation) between MS. A reference to inte rpreting and translating was included in the 
Tampere Programme in 1998 and in the 2003 Green  Paper. The latter referred to training, 
certification, quality and a code of ethics – so everything was included and this was a very 
positive document. However, the Framework Decision proposal on procedural rights was reduced to a few general comments on the ri ght to an interpreter for example. Legal 
interpreters and translators are now r eady and welcome the Swedish proposal.  
They want an instrument that is linked to quality (e.g. quali ty assurance and monitoring of 
quality) to guarantee mutual trust. Mention in  the Swedish proposal should be made to ‘the 
right to a competent interpreter’. Quality refers  not just to training but to a comprehensive 
account of what MS can do to have a quality  interpreter. A report from the Reflection 
 
EN 58   EN Forum on Multilingualism and Interpreter Traini ng shows what interpreters would like to 
see in the Swedish proposal. We think the step by step approach or ‘salami tactic’ taken by 
Sweden is a good one because putting the whole package of rights on the table will not work. If we start with the right to translation/interpreta tion, this could create momentum for 
the rest of the package. A roadmap would allow for subsequent EU presidencies to deal with one right each. Interpreters and translat ors are very positive about the content of the 
Swedish proposal and because it is Sweden, which has a cast iron reputation regarding 
interpreters and translators – the Stockholm Institute is an excellent training centre. 
There is an idea to create a single register of interpreters and tr anslators as part of e-Justice 
plans. But linking up registers does not make se nse unless criteria are set as to what the 
abilities of the interpreters a nd translators are. There is a c onference on 26-28 November in 
Antwerp, where a European Legal Interpreters’ and Translators’ Association (EULITA) is 
due to be set up, and to which participants are welcome. 
Peter Csonka (DG JLS): Peter Csonka made it clear that  the proposal would be coming 
from the Commission (not Sweden) and that the roadmap would be coming from Sweden. 
The two should be seen in combination. The right would be about either a right to a 
qualified interpreter and translator or, by mergi ng these rights, the right  for the accused to 
understand the charge and follow the proceedi ngs. He asked what else translators and 
interpreters want to see in the legislation/best  practice paper and if th ere were figures as to 
the costs for these services at an average tr ial. He added that paying interpreters and 
translators would need state funding and possibly EU funding. 
Professor Erik Hertog (Lessius University College): Professor Erik Hertog did not have 
figures to hand but referred to a lengthy passage on the costs in a Council document on the costs of justice. Concerns of MS include the cost of training, of monitoring quality and of paying translators and interpreters . Training does not need to cost that much – there are lots 
of strategies to keep down initial training co sts. In one system, candidates can be tested in 
their language skills before being admitted to  a course that includes legal practitioners 
before being tested again at the end of the co urse. In terms of best practice, the report on 
interpreter training shows what interpreters wa nt to see achieved in practice. The EU’s 
Multilingualism Commissioner Leonard Orban is  understood to be considering a similar 
report for translators.  
Peter Csonka (DG JLS): Peter Csonka was appreciative of any help that Professor Hertog 
could give on the cost issue. 
Claudia Gualtieri (European Parliament): A step by step appro ach is good but Claudia 
Gualtieri wondered if the Commission proposal would home in on specific aspects such as 
a register and the costs of interpretation. Hi gh quality interpreters and translators are 
needed. As a judge in Venice, she had encount ered the problem of finding interpreters for 
Chinese, especially because there are hundreds of dialects. The solution had been for police 
to scour Chinese restaurants to find someone sp eaking a particular dialect. She wondered if 
the instrument would stipulate that all interpre ters and translators w ould have to be on an 
official register and, if so, what would happen with the cases where i ndividual dialects were 
needed. 
Peter Csonka (DG JLS): These questions will be  covered in impact studies. Perhaps they 
will be looked at in best practice. 
 
EN 59   EN Ivanka Ivanova (Open Society Institute): Ivanka Ivanova is involved in monitoring 
police custody and has encountered a serious probl em with rare languages in Bulgaria. It is 
easy to find certified interpreters for languages such as English, French or German but not 
so for languages such as Finni sh or Romanian. The need for such languages has risen due 
to growing numbers of, for example, Finnish and Romanian tourists. Police stations use 
different creative solutions, such as asking local teachers for help. Her question was if 
police stations/prosecutor services were expected to have a full list of interpreters covering all potential languages that could be encounter ed or could restrict the implementation of 
safeguards to the most common languages. 
Ivanka Ivanova said that arguments such as that the ECtHR is overburdened and that the 
ECHR is not implemented should lead to discussion on how to reduce the burden and 
improve implementation rather than havi ng a new legally binding instrument. A new 
instrument would be worth having if there is pr oof that EU instruments in criminal matters 
are leading to violations of rights of individuals . In the justification of the new instrument it 
is important to take into account traditional procedural rights and other safeguards, for 
example medical help during dete ntion. A step by step approach to procedural rights is a 
good approach, starting with the rights that are more violated in the instruments that we 
have and the right to interpretation is one of t hose. There is also an issue relating to mutual 
recognition and the exchange of data between MS. Different MS have different standards of 
data protection. There is a concern that the police and/or prosecuto rs may use data to 
prosecute other crimes or profile people. 
Peter Csonka (DG JLS): Access to medical help, especial ly for poorer suspects, was in 
the Commission’s original 2003 proposal but was thrown out by MS. But the issue will 
come back. As for the problem of finding qualifie d interpreters at shor t notice, at night and 
in exotic languages, there is no easy solution here. 
Trevor Stevens (Committee for the Prevention of Torture): Efforts are being made in 
Strasbourg to improve the ECtHR situation but this is unlikely to ma ke the machinery in 
Strasbourg perfect and so there is  a need for an EU instrument . He was very interested in 
the roadmap and suggested to Sweden that the next issue to address should be access to a 
lawyer as it is a fundamental safeguard to prev ent ill treatment. Issues here could be when a 
suspect can have access to a lawyer, for how long, what the system is for appointing a 
lawyer, the lawyer’s status in a police stat ion and the quality of assistance (e.g. just a 
trainee or someone more experienced). 
Minimum standards must bear in mind evolving case law in this area (e.g. the Salduz  case) 
so a clause would be needed to take case law into account. 
Peter Csonka (DG JLS): Peter Csonka asked if access to a qua lified translat or/interpreter 
was a problem encountered by the CPT. 
Trevor Stevens (Committee for the Prevention of Torture): Trevor Stevens sees many 
examples of what Claudia Gualtieri spoke about and said that, although unsatisfactory, 
there was a need for ad hoc arrangement s for interpreters. Recognising qualified 
interpreters is very important but the problem is  how best to organise this because it costs a 
lot of money. He fears that ad hoc arrange ments will be necessary and that they are 
sometimes better than no interpreter at all. 
 
EN 60   EN Frederic Baab (France’s  Ministry of Justice): On access to lawyers, it is important to 
realise that there are complexities, for example th at the term ‘garde à vue’ is not the same in 
Germany as in France. In Germany, it comes at a later stage in the pro cedure (at the official 
notification of accusations stage) . If the issue of access to a lawyer is addressed then it is 
important to broaden this to access to the file as, if the lawyer has no access to the file, the 
suspect can perhaps do without the lawyer. On  interpreting/translat ing, France suggested 
that the Commission kept to gene ral provisions. Going into detail s such as how an expert is 
put on a register may lead to difficulties and a possible impasse because many countries 
will refuse to change their systems w ithout understanding the need to do it. 
Holger Matt (European Criminal Bar Association): Interpreting and translating is very 
important so we need clear and uniform rules as far as possible. ECBA will support this initiative. The need for an additional legally  binding instrument is justified because we 
know that there are lots of shortcomings in procedural rights and we recognise that the 
ECtHR cannot deal with all these shortcomings. The relevance of a new instrument is that 
then MS can guarantee that their citizens are de alt with properly in the other 26 MS. ECBA 
offered all MS, the Commission and the European  Parliament its assistance and expertise. 
Natacha Kazatchine (Amnesty International): Amnesty International (AI) has been 
supporting the idea of a new instrument from the beginning. The Swedish EU presidency’s 
belief that the EU bears responsibility to prot ect the rights of individuals is the starting 
point for AI. AI has denounc ed Italy’s security package, suspects being held 
incommunicado in detention in Spain and viol ence by law enforcement authorities and sees 
a lack of redress for victims of this. 
AI supports a wide instrument, covering righ ts, monitoring of rights, crossborder and 
domestic cases and for it to be binding on MS. Legislation will not solve everything but will set benchmarks that will hold MS to account and should foresee oversight mechanisms. AI hoped for a more comprehensive approach fro m Sweden as, for example, it is difficult 
to have an agreement on translation/interp retation without having an agreement on what 
documents are given to the suspect. Rights are interlinked and some rights run the risk of 
being left aside. The first right  to be looked at should not beco me an end in itself. AI wants 
a clear and binding agenda with timelines agr eed by MS. It should not preclude the EU 
from carrying on with other rights, including  practical measures. It should not stop 
reflection on monitoring/assess ing what is going on in MS. 
Peter Csonka (DG JLS): The Commission is committed to continuing work beyond the 
first proposal. 
Signe Ohman (Swedish Mi nistry of Justice): MS want added value and not to repeat 
what is in the ECHR so Signe Ohman believes that MS will be willing to discuss details. Failure with the first procedural right would me an failure with the broader initiative so she 
was anxious to avoid failure. The first right is the first of several steps and is not a single 
initiative on interpreting. That is the idea of the roadmap. 
Professor Erik Hertog (Lessius University College): Professor Erik Hertog was anxious 
to stress that he did not want to give the impr ession that translators/interpreters were the top 
priority but pointed out that that lawyers,  judges or police cannot do important tasks 
without the support of a translator  and interpreter that they can rely on. In terms of training 
and education, a study has shown that over half of MS have no form of training for legal 
 
EN 61   EN interpreters. Yet legal translators and interpre ters are used every day. The problem of rarer 
languages needs a solution (although each MS ca n cover 80-85% of its needs with 10 to 15 
languages). A solution is set out  in the report on traini ng interpreters  and involves 
language-independent training. Training and a register shoul d be what the Commission 
proposal is based on and these should not incu r undue costs. On training, if one looks at 
best practice in the report, most cases can use a trained interprete r but, where they cannot, 
then it is important to justif y it. For example, if detenti on can be for only 24 hours and no 
sworn interpreter with a particular language is av ailable, then it is just ifiable to make do as 
best one can. MS should have a re gister of trained interpreters, possibly split into those with 
a basic or high level of training. 
Miroslav Krutina (Defence lawyer): Miroslav Krutina welcomed the move to support the 
human rights of defendants and victims in the EU. He liked the idea of the Letter of Rights 
and gave examples of ones that the Czechs ha d for witnesses and for defendants. But they 
were too complicated to understand and th e Czech bar has drafted its own model.  
Susan Clements (UK Law Societies):  The UK Law Societies Joint Brussels Office calls 
for binding minimum procedural rights across the board, both cross-border and domestic, 
and not a lowering of current standards.  Th ey emphasise the importance of effective, 
accessible and timely means of redress for indi viduals at MS level.  Among other things, 
minimum procedural rights applicable througho ut Member States may lead to defendants 
having more confidence in the process in ot her Member States and therefore for example 
consenting to their return under the European  Arrest Warrant. Mini mum procedural rights 
should provide clarity and thereby pote ntially remove pointless appeals. 
Gert Vermeulen (Ghent University): Gert Vermeulen was concerned that the debate was 
moving too much towards the issue of quality  of interpreters and translators. While 
important, he could not see its c onnection with procedural rights. 
Nadejda Hriptievschi (Moldova’ s Public Defender’s Office): Nadejda Hriptievschi is 
very supportive of an EU instrument and do es not understand the concern about having the 
ECtHR as the ECtHR is a last remedy. Legal safeguards are not a priority for governments 
and so the EU must come up with measures here . If a step by step approach is the only way 
then that is alright. 
Lorenzo Salazar (Italian  Ministry of Justice): The skills and costs [of interpretation and 
translation] are the main points for a futu re proposal which the Commission and Sweden 
are proposing. It is important to  take into account the differe nt expectations of MS. The 
Commission must proceed pragmatically and the Swedish approach is probably a good 
thing. Politically, care is needed not to disappoint  expectations and care  is needed with the 
issue of regulating a professi on with high costs. If it doe s go in this direction, the 
Commission must pinpoint its ro le in terms of financial su pport. The Commission has a 
role to play in the training of interpreters. 
Deirdre Duffy (Irish Council for Civil Liberties): Procedural rights for suspects are very 
much separate from those for victims but are connected. If MS want added value and proof, 
she suggested that MS talk  to practitioners in MS. 
Priscilla Guillotin De Corson (Fair Trials International): Priscilla Guillotin De Corson 
supported the protection of all procedural rights  but said that she was happy to work with 
 
EN 62   EN interpretation first. She point ed to a practical problem that , where there was no access to a 
lawyer, a suspect would hope for legal advice fro m the interpreter but th at this was not the 
interpreter’s role. To facilita te the roadmap, she suggested putting in place pilot projects 
and training with regard to access to a lawy er to prepare the ground for the next measures. 
She is ready to provide MS with studies of  cases to show the needs and problems of 
citizens when faced with systems in foreign countries. 
Matevz Pezdirc (Slovenian  Ministry of Justice): It would be useful if all criminal and 
procedural codes were translated. If they we re in three major languages or all languages, 
that would help practitioners and citizens when  entering into discussion with the police or 
authorities. If MS want to do something on procedural rights, they must make some 
concessions, change legislati on and provide finance if they are to go further than the 
ECHR. 
Peter Csonka (DG JLS): Peter Csonka concluded the meeting with some preliminary 
conclusions. He understood that there was su pport for the ‘salami approach’/long-term 
vision but that some MS still needed to be c onvinced. He noted the reluctance of the Czech 
Republic and other MS on it being a broader in strument covering domestic and crossborder 
cases. He said that care must be taken for the new instrument not to fall below the standards 
of the ECtHR. He stressed that rights were not just for suspects but also for victims and the 
Commission will work on victims’ rights too. The Commission is preparing a new proposal 
amending the 2001 Framework Decision on vict ims’ rights and two other Framework 
Decisions, on the trafficking of human bei ngs and the sexual expl oitation of children. 
 
EN 63   EN ANNEX 3   
[excerpt from Study on the transparency of co sts of civil judicial proceedings in the 
European Union", Final Report pages 198 – 201] 
Criteria used in determining rates relating to the intervention of a translator / interpreter 
during the procedure 
When the judge requires for the submitted documents  to be translated, translators’ fees can 
be calculated on different bases: 
Depending on the number of characters: Generally  the scale is set for 55 characters that 
correspond to a line. It is used, for example, in Germany , Austria and Luxembourg . 
Significant differences in rates can be observe d. In Austria, costs vary between 1.09 and 
2.03 Euros (roughly the same rates in Luxembourg ), while in Germany they vary between 
1.25 and 4 Euros for the same number of characters. 
Depending on the number of words: Costs vary  between 0.05 and 0.20 Euros on average. 
This is the case of Bulgaria , Denmark , Spain , and Finland . In other countries like 
Sweden , The Netherlands and Malta , the rates can go from 0.49 Euros / word and up 
to 1.49 Euros / word in the United Kingdom . 
Depending on the number of pages: This cal culation basis is the most commonly used 
which explains the differences in tariffs. On average, prices vary between 8.50 and 24 
Euros per page in Bulgaria , Estonia , Greece , Italy , Latvia , Lithuania , Malta and 
Slovakia . In Scandinavian countries such as Sweden , Denmark and Finland , the 
average cost is 40 Euros per page. Slovenia in rather expensive as the cost can reach 
50.49 Euros per page. 
Depending on the number of hours: Concerning th ese tariffs, there is no real similarity in 
what is applied. 
- France → 15 to 20 Euros per hour; 
- Luxembourg → average : 43.58 Euros / hour; 
- Czech Republic → from 3.74 to 13.10 Euros per hour; 
- Romania → minimum of 5.93 Euros per hour. 
It must be said that Ireland is the only country wh ere a rate based on the number of days is 
implemented (about one hundred Euros per day). Th e same appears in th e data provided by 
the National Experts. In Cyprus the average fees charged by translators during the 
proceedings are 85 Euros. These vary from 68 to 102 Euros for a procedure. When an interpreter is required to translate the words of any parties or the witnesses’ and to explain the course of the proceedings to those concer ned, the fees are calculated on an hourly basis 
depending on the number of days during which the interpreter was needed. The charges are 
all different. Some other factors may affect interpreters’ fees such as simultaneous or 
delayed translation, or the speci ficity of language (sign langua ge, communication with deaf, 
blind and hearing-impaired; Slovakia) 
 
EN 64   EN The same is true when the service takes pl ace outside of normal working hours (between 8 
pm and 8 am), outside the normal working da ys (Saturdays, Sundays and public holidays), 
during holidays and when the translators’ and th e interpreters’ work must be carried out in 
an emergency situation. In these cases, costs may be increased from fifty percent to one 
hundred percent (e.g.: Romania, Slovenia ). 
The difficulty, the specificity of the language tran slated (translator or in terpreter), as well as 
the technicality of the terminol ogy of the document to be transl ated have also a bearing on 
the fees. In Greece , for instance, costs can vary signi ficantly depending on the nature of 
the documents like birth or marriage certificates, bank statements, personal correspondence 
or political documents, medical, eco nomic or scientific reports or even autopsy reports and 
court decisions. 
In Lithuania , Slovenia , Slovakia and Austria , the difficulty and ra rity of the language 
is a readily accepted criterion in  setting rates. The costs are always lower for European 
languages like English and French whereas langu ages such as Japanese, Chinese or Arabic 
generate higher costs.  
The case of Slovenia presents a particular feature because distinction is made between the 
translators and interpreters appointed by th e Court and those chosen by the party. Costs 
vary depending on this distinction. When they  are appointed by the Co urt, prices will be 
fixed by the Court. If it is a party who employ a tr anslator or interpreter, the fees will result 
from an agreement between the parties and the tr anslator or interpreter. On average, in the 
case of an appointment by the Court, the costs vary between 25.25 and 41.31 Euros / page while in the other case they va ry between 25.87 and 50.49 Euros / page. 
Additional compensation: In some countries prov isions are made in the form of allowances 
or compensations for expenses covering the cost  of daily life. These allowances can cover 
the costs of transport, accommoda tion and catering. For example, in Estonia , the sum of 
three Euros per day minimum is granted for m eals and thirteen Euros per day for housing 
costs. Some similar amounts are granted in Italy , Lithuania , Poland , Romania and 
Slovakia .  
 
EN 65   EN 
 
EN 66   EN ANNEX 4  
Table 1. Number of non-nationals in each EU Member States46  
COUNTRIES 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Austria 758,024 766,055 731,631 755,124 765,303 88,609 814,065 826,013 
Belgium 853,369 861,682 846,734 848,396 860,287 870,862 900,500 932,161 
Bulgaria 25,634 … … … … … 26,000 25,500 
Cyprus 57,800 61,600 … … 83,500 98,100 98,000 118,100 
Czech 
Republic 228,862 180,261 163,805 179,154 195,394 193,480 258,360 296,236 
Denmark 259,361 258,630 266,729 265,424 271,211 267,604 270,051 278,096 
Estonia 274,309 … … … … … 242,000 236,400 
Finland 87,680 91,074 98,577 103,682 107,003 108,346 113,852 121,739 
France … … … … … 3623,063 3510,000 3650,100
Germany 7343591 7296817 7318628 7335592 7334765 7287,980 7289,149 7255,949
Greece … 761,438 … … 891,197 … 884,000 887,600 
Hungary 153,125 115,809 116,429 115,888 130,109 143,774 156,160 167,873 
Ireland 126,533 155,528 187,200 215,473 198,732 255,400 314,100 452,300 
Italy 1270553 1464589 1334889 1549373 1990159 2402,157 2670,514 2938,922
Latvia 619,611 581,508 556,801 532,534 514,966 487,212 456,758 432,951 
Lithuania … 35,094 … … … 32,327 32,862 39,687 
Luxembourg 159,400 162,285 … 170,700 174,200 177,400 181,800 198,213 
Malta 8,558 8,890 9,564 10,358 11,000 11,999 12,000 13,877 
Netherlands 651,532 667,802 690,393 699,954 702,185 699,351 691,357 681,932 
Poland … … 700,329 … … … 700,000 54,883 
Portugal 191,143 207,607 224,932 238,746 … … 276,000 434,887 
                                                
 
46 http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=t able&init=1&plugin=0&language=en&pcode=tps00157 
 
EN 67   EN COUNTRIES 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 
Romania … … 178,154 … 25,645 25,929 25,993 26,069 
Slovakia … … … 29,854 29,855 22,251 25,563 32,130 
Slovenia 42,524 42,279 … 44,693 45,294 44,285 48,968 53,555 
Spain 923,879 1370657 1977946 2664168 2772200 3371,394 4002,509 4606,474
Sweden 487,175 477,312 475,986 474,099 476,076 481,141 479,899 491,996 
United 
Kingdom 2459934 … … 2760031 2941400 3066,055 3425,000 3659,900
Total         
Note : (…) = data not available 
 
EN 68   EN Table 2 - Population and percentage of non-nationals in each Member State, number of 
criminal proceedings (incomplete) and seriou s crimes recorded by the police in 2006 in 
each Member State 
COUNTRIES Population 
of each Member State 2007
47 Number 
of Non-nationals in each MS 2007
48 % of
Non-nationals in each MS 2007
49 Number of 
criminal proceedings in 2007 Serious Crimes 
Recorded by the Police 2006 (excluding misdemeanours)
50
Austria 8,298,923 826,013 10%  589,495 
Belgium 10,584,534 932,161 8.8%  1,012,004 
Bulgaria 7,679,290 25,500 0.3% 37,97751 136,410 
Cyprus 778,684 118,100 15.2% 107,997 (2006 
statistics)52 7,923 
Czech 
Republic 10,287,189 296,236 2.9% 78,54553 336,446 
Denmark 5,447,084 278,096 5.1%  425,093 
Estonia 1,342,409 236,400 17.6%  51,834 
Finland 5,276,955 121,739 2.3%  324,575 
France 63,392,140 3650,100 5.8%  3,725,588 
Germany 82,314,906 7255,949 8.8% 5,806,781 
(2006 figures)
54 6,304,223 
Greece 11,171,740 887,600 7.9%  463,750 
Hungary 10,066,158 167,873 1.7% 426,91455 425,941 
                                                 
47http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/refreshTableActio n.do?tab=table&plugin=1&pcode=tps00001&language=
en 
48 http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=t able&init=1&plugin=0&language=en&pcode=tps00157 
49http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/po rtal/page?_pageid=1996,45323734&_d ad=portal&_schema=PORTAL&scre
en=welcomeref&open=/t_popula/t_pop/t_demo_pop&language=en&product=REF_TB_population&ro
ot=REF_TB_population&scrollto=0 
50 http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/pls/por tal/!PORTAL.wwpob_page.sh ow?_docname=702125.PDF 
51 http://www.nsi.bg/SocialActivities_e/Crime_e.htm 
52http://www.mof.gov.cy/mof/cystat/statistics.nsf/All/50F489DBBAA9E96DC22575080024ACA9?OpenDocum
ent&sub=3&e= 
53 http://www.czso.cz/csu/cizinci.ns f/engt/1D003D9229/$File/c08t01.pdf 
54Addition of figures for criminal pro ceedings at first instance, public pros ecution and appellant instance stage. 
http://www.destatis.de/jetspeed/portal/cms/Sites/des tatis/Internet/EN/Content/Statistics/Rechtspflege/G
erichtsverfahren/Tabellen/Content75/Gerich tsverfahren,templateId=renderPrint.psml 
 
EN 69   EN COUNTRIES Population 
of each Member State 2007
47 Number 
of Non-nationals in each MS 2007
48 % of
Non-nationals in each MS 2007
49 Number of 
criminal proceedings in 2007 Serious Crimes 
Recorded by the Police 2006 (excluding misdemeanours)
50
Ireland 4,312,526 452,300 10.5% 440,93956 103,178 
Italy 59,131,287 2,938,922 5.0%  2,771,490 
Latvia 2,281,305 432,951 19.0%  62,328 
Lithuania 3,384,879 39,687 1.2%  75,474 
Luxembourg 476,187 198,213 41.6%  25,913 
Malta 407,810 13,877 3.4%  16,527 
Netherlands 16,357,992 681,932 4.2% 1,276,00057 1,218,447 
Poland 38,125,479 54,883 0.1% 2,669,30058 1,287,918 
Portugal 10,599,095 434,887 4.1%  398,959 
Romania 21,565,119 26,069 0.1%  232,658 
Slovakia 5,393,637 32,130 0.6%  115,152 
Slovenia 2,010,377 53,555 2.7%  90,354 
Spain 44,474,631 4606,474 10.4% 936,78959 2,267,114 
Sweden 9,113,257 491,996 5.4%  1,224,958 
United 
Kingdom 60,816,701 3,659,900 6.0% 148,800 
(Scotland)60 
1,732,506 (England and Wales)
61 5,968,674 
                                                                                                                                                         
55 http://portal.ksh.hu/pls/ksh/docs/eng/xsta dat/xstadat_annual/tabl2_08_02ie.html 
56http://www.courts.ie/Courts.ie/library3.nsf/(Web Files)/AABB16FA5813D4958025748900572B22/$FILE/Cou
rts%20Service%20Annual%20Report%202007%20-%20Pt%202%20.pdf 
57 http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publicati on/?VW=T&DM=SLEN&PA=37340eng&D1=0-4,10-
20&HD=090429-1117&LA=EN&HDR=T&STB=G1 
58 http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publicati on/?VW=T&DM=SLEN&PA=37340eng&D1=0-4,10-
20&HD=090429-1117&LA=EN&HDR=T&STB=G1 
59 http://www.ine.es/jaxi/tabla.do 
60 http://openscotland.gov.uk/Publications/2009/04/27103325/5 
61 http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/criminalannual.htm  
 
 
EN 70   EN Table 2 (a) Figures on Three Countries of the Number of Prosecuted, Accused or 
Convicted in 2007 and from that the Number who were Non-Nationals 
 Accused or Convicted No of Accused or Convicted 
who were Non-Nationals. 
Austria62 247,021 (Accused 2007) 68,941 (28% of Accused) 
Czech Republic63 78,545 (Prosecuted 2007) 
67,186 (Accused 2007) 75,728 (Convicted 2007) 3,461 (4.4% of Prosecuted) 
2,999 (4.5% of Accused) 4,690 (6.2% of Convicted) 
France
64 654 229 (Convicted 2007) 145,901(22.3% of 
Convicted) 
Table 3. Number of non-nationals in the prisons of each EU Member States and Number 
of those which are then Pre-Trial Detainees  
(First figure is number of foreign Prisoners and second figure is of foreign pre-trial detainees) 
COUNTRIES 200065 2001 200266 2003 200467 200568 200669 200770 
Austria 2,077  2,475   3,979 
& 1,199 3,768 
& 1,207 3,917 
& 1,310 
Belgium 3,501  3,785   3,860 
& 1,670 4,148 
& 1,677 4,234 
& 1,753 
Bulgaria 141  190  217 262 
& 131 233 
& 91 211 
& 9 
                                                
 
62http://www.statistik.at/web_en/statistic s/social_statistics/criminality/recorded_crimes_by_the_police/index.htm
l 
63 http://www.czso.cz/csu/cizinci.ns f/engt/1D003D9229/$File/c08t01.pdf 
64 http://www.insee.fr/fr/themes/tableau .asp?reg_id=0&ref_id=NATTEF05313 
65 http://www.coe.int/t/e/legal_affairs/legal_co-operati on/prisons_and_alternativ es/statistics_space_i/pc-
cp%20_2001_%202%20-%20e%20_SPACE%20I%20-%202000%20final%20version_.pdf 
66 http://www.coe.int/t/e/legal_affairs/legal_co-opera tion/prisons_and_alternativ es/statistics_space_i/PC-
CP(2003)5E-%20Space-I.pdf 
67 http://www.coe.int/t/e/le gal_affairs/legal_co-
operation/prisons_and_alternatives/statistics_ space_i/Council%20of%20Europe_SPACE%20I%20-
%202004%20Nov05%20-%20E.pdf 
68 http://www.coe.int/t/e/le gal_affairs/legal_co-
operation/prisons_and_alternatives/statistics_ space_i/Council%20of%20Europe_SPACE%20I%20-
%202005%20-%20final%20version.pdf 
69 http://www.coe.int/t/e/legal_affairs/legal_co-operati on/prisons_and_alternativ es/statistics_space_i/pc-
cp%20(2007)%2009%20rev3%20-%20e%20(SPACE%202006)%2023-01-08.pdf 
70 http://www.coe.int/t/e/legal_affairs/legal_co-opera tion/prisons_and_alternativ es/statistics_space_i/PC-
CP_2009_%2001Rapport%20SPACE%20I_2007_090324_final.pdf 
 
EN 71   EN COUNTRIES 200065 2001 200266 2003 200467 200568 200669 200770 
Cyprus   148  264 241 
& 57 290 
& 72 357 
& 39 
Czech 
Republic 2,620  1,743   1,652 
& 721 1,378 
& 510 1,392 
& 541 
Denmark 557  561  621 754 
& 363 710 
& 349 654 
& … 
Estonia 146  1,660  1,456 1,780 
& 466 1,740 
& 483 1,413 
& 423 
Finland 168  293  264 286 
& 114 300 
& 98 301 
& 86 
France 10,553  11,518  12,307 11,820
& 
… 11,436 
& 
… 12,341 
& 
… 
Germany   23,509  22,474 22,095
& 6,954 21,263 
& 6,483 20,485 
& 5,569 
Greece 3,892  3,800   3,990 
& … 5,902 
& 1,417  
Hungary 762  836  647 631 
& … 583 
& 109 544 
& … 
Ireland …  242    395 
& 135 474 
& 214 
Italy 15,258  16,937  17,642 19,656
& 9,655 12,360 
& 9,070 16,643 
& 12,067 
Latvia 35  42  40 26 
& … 59 
& 26 84 
& … 
Lithuania 122  133  55 67 78 80 
 
EN 72   EN COUNTRIES 200065 2001 200266 2003 200467 200568 200669 200770 
& 
14 & 
32 & 
26 
Luxembourg 233  243  409 495 
& 273 568 
& 290 546 
& 255 
Malta   99   91 
& 35 136 
& 72  
Netherlands 1,026  4,733  5,466 5,818 
& 1,666 5,339 
& 1,306 4,246 
& 1,315 
Poland 1,409  1,306  1,026 750 
& 408 659 
& 363 629 
& 324 
Portugal   1,647   2,386 
& 
1,005 2,552 
& 
1,071 2,371 
& 
878 
Romania 299  374  312 274 
& 46 260 
& 31 243 
& 23 
Slovakia 187  179  211 220 
& 147 185 
& 96 165 
& 102 
Slovenia 188  171  149 144 
& 69 151 
& 69 140 
& 68 
Spain 8,470  12,961  14,119 18,436
& 7,285 20,018 
& 7,792 18,474 
& 7,151 
Sweden 1,211  1,390  1,460 1,475 
& … 1,533 
& … 1,424 
& … 
UK [just 
overall fi
gures for  
UK](England & Wales 5,586    8,941 9,650 
& 2,271 10,879 
& 1,532 11,310 
& 1,602 
 
EN 73   EN COUNTRIES 200065 2001 200266 2003 200467 200568 200669 200770 
 111  79  90 71 
& 15 133 
& 64 206 
& 93 
 …  16  10 38 
& 15 58 
& 45  
Note
: (…) = data not available 
Table 4  Percentage of non-nationals in th e Prisons of each EU Member States and 
Percentage of those which are then Pre-Trial Detainees  
(First figure is % of foreign Prisoners and s econd figure is of forei gn pre-trial detainees) 
COUNTRIES 200071 2001 2002722003 200473200574200675 200776 
Austria 30.1  33.0   45.4 
& 30.1 42.9 
& 32.0 44.1 
& 33.4 
Belgium 40.4  40.9   41.2 
& 
43.3 41.6 
& 
40.4 42.9 
& 
41.4 
Bulgaria 1.5  2.0  2.0 2.1 
& 50 1.9 
& 39.1 1.9 
& 4.3 
Cyprus   42.9  48.4 45.6 
& 23.7 48.4 
& 24.8 53.2 
& 10.9 
Czech 
Republic 11.7  10.3   8.7 
& 43.6 7.3 
& 37.0 7.4 
& 38.9 
                                                
 
71 http://www.coe.int/t/e/legal_affairs/legal_co-operati on/prisons_and_alternativ es/statistics_space_i/pc-
cp%20_2001_%202%20-%20e%20_SPACE%20I%20-%202000%20final%20version_.pdf 
72 http://www.coe.int/t/e/legal_affairs/legal_co-opera tion/prisons_and_alternativ es/statistics_space_i/PC-
CP(2003)5E-%20Space-I.pdf 
73 http://www.coe.int/t/e/le gal_affairs/legal_co-
operation/prisons_and_alternatives/statistics_ space_i/Council%20of%20Europe_SPACE%20I%20-
%202004%20Nov05%20-%20E.pdf 
74 http://www.coe.int/t/e/le gal_affairs/legal_co-
operation/prisons_and_alternatives/statistics_ space_i/Council%20of%20Europe_SPACE%20I%20-
%202005%20-%20final%20version.pdf 
75 http://www.coe.int/t/e/legal_affairs/legal_co-operati on/prisons_and_alternativ es/statistics_space_i/pc-
cp%20(2007)%2009%20rev3%20-%20e%20(SPACE%202006)%2023-01-08.pdf 
76 http://www.coe.int/t/e/legal_affairs/legal_co-opera tion/prisons_and_alternativ es/statistics_space_i/PC-
CP_2009_%2001Rapport%20SPACE%20I_2007_090324_final.pdf 
 
EN 74   EN COUNTRIES 200071 2001 2002722003 200473200574200675 200776 
Denmark 17.0  16.3  16.5 18.2 
& 48.1 18.9 
& 49.2 18.0 
& … 
Estonia 3.1  35.8  31.9 40.4 
& 26.2 40.4 
& 27.8 40.9 
& 29.9 
Finland 6.2  8.5  7.7 7.5 
& 39.9 8.1 
& 32.7 8.3 
& 28.6 
France 21.6  21.5  21.9 20.5 
& … 19.8 
& … 19.4 
& … 
Germany   29.9  28.2 28.0 
& 21.5 26.9 
& 30.5 26.3 
& 27.2 
Greece 48.4  45.9   41.6 
& 
… 58.4 
& 
24.0  
Hungary 4.8  4.6  3.9 3.8 
& … 3.7 
& 18.7 3.7 
& … 
Ireland …  8.0    12.6 
& 34.2 14.3 
& 45.1 
Italy 28.5  30.1  31.5 33.0 
& 49.1 32.3 
& 73.4 36.5 
& 72.5 
Latvia 0.4  0.5  0.5 0.4 
& … 0.9 
& 44.1 1.3 
& … 
Lithuania 1.4  1.2  0.7 0.8 
& 20.9 1.0 
& 41.0 1.0 
& 32.5 
Luxembourg 59.1  63.9  74.6 71.4 
& 55.2 75.2 
& 51.1 73.4 
& 46.7 
Malta   35.0   30.5 39.7  
 
EN 75   EN COUNTRIES 200071 2001 2002722003 200473200574200675 200776 
& 
38.5 & 
52.9 
Netherlands 7.4  29.1  27.2 32.9 
& 28.6 32.7 
& 24.5 29.1 
& 31.0 
Poland 2.2  1.6  1.3 .09 
& 54.4 0.7 
& 55.1 0.7 
& 51.5 
Portugal   12.0   18.5 
& 42.1 20.2 
& 42.0 20.5 
& 37.0 
Romania 0.6  0.7  0.8 0.7 
& 16.8 0.7 
& 11.9 0.8 
& 9.5 
Slovakia 2.6  2.3  2.2 2.4 
& 
66.8 2.1 
& 
51.9 2.0 
& 
61.8 
Slovenia 16.6  15.3  13.2 12.7 
& 47.9 11.6 
& 45.7 10.5 
& 48.6 
Spain 18.8  25.4  27.5 30.1 
& 39.5 31.2 
& 38.9 32.4 
& 38.7 
Sweden 21.3  21.4  19.9 20.9 
& … 21.4 
& … 21.0 
& … 
UK (England 
& Wales 8.5    12.0 12.7 
& 23.5 14.0 
& 14.1 14.2 
& 14.2 
UK 
(Scotland) 1.9  1.2  1.3 1.0 
& 21.1 1.8 
& 48.1 2.8 
& 45.1 
UK 
(Northern Ireland) …  1.5  0.8 2.8 
& 39.5 3.9 
& 77.6  
Note
:  (…) = data not available 
 
EN 76   EN Table 5: Estimated number of criminal proceed ings involving non-nationals per year in 
Member States  
COUNTRIES Population 
of each 
Member 
State 
200777 % of 
Non-
nationals 
in each 
MS 
200778 Number of 
criminal 
proceedings  
in 2007 *79 Number of 
criminal 
proceedings 
involving a 
non-national 
80 
Austria 8,298,923 10% 165978 16598 
Belgium 10,584,534 8.8% 211690 18628 
Bulgaria 7,679,290 0.3% 37,97781 114 
Cyprus 778,684 15.2% 107,997 (2006 
statistics)82 10799 
Czech 
Republic 10,287,189 2.9% 78,54583 2278 
Denmark 5,447,084 5.1% 108941 5556 
Estonia 1,342,409 17.6% 26848 4725 
Finland 5,276,955 2.3% 105538 2427 
France 63,392,140 5.8% 1267842 73534 
Germany 82,314,906 8.8% 5,806,781 
(2006 figures)
84 255498 
Greece 11,171,740 7.9% 223434 17651 
Hungary 10,066,158 1.7% 426,91485 7257 
                                                 
77http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/refreshTableActio n.do?tab=table&plugin=1&pcode=tps00001&language=
en 
78http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/po rtal/page?_pageid=1996,45323734&_d ad=portal&_schema=PORTAL&scre
en=welcomeref&open=/t_popula/t_pop/t_demo_pop&language=en&product=REF_TB_population&root=REF_TB_population&scrollto=0 
79 Figures with no footnotes were derived by finding two percent of the population as on average this was the 
amount of proceedings for the countries that we have figures for 
80 We multiplied the % of non-nationals in each country by the no of crim inal proceedings in each country. 
81 http://www.nsi.bg/SocialActivities_e/Crime_e.htm 
82http://www.mof.gov.cy/mof/cystat/statistics.nsf/All/50F489DBBAA9E96DC22575080024ACA9?OpenDocum
ent&sub=3&e= 
83 http://www.czso.cz/csu/cizinci.ns f/engt/1D003D9229/$File/c08t01.pdf 
84Addition of figures for criminal pro ceedings at first instance, public pros ecution and appellant instance stage. 
http://www.destatis.de/jetspeed/portal/cms/Sites/des tatis/Internet/EN/Content/Statistics/Rechtspflege/G
erichtsverfahren/Tabellen/Content75/Gerich tsverfahren,templateId=renderPrint.psml 
 
EN 77   EN COUNTRIES Population 
of each 
Member 
State 
200777 % of 
Non-
nationals 
in each 
MS 
200778 Number of 
criminal 
proceedings  
in 2007 *79 Number of 
criminal 
proceedings 
involving a 
non-national 
80 
Ireland 4,312,526 10.5% 86250 8625 
Italy 59,131,287 5.0% 1182624 59131 
Latvia 2,281,305 19.0% 45626 8668 
Lithuania 3,384,879 1.2% 67696 812 
Luxembourg 476,187 41.6% 9523 3961 
Malta 407,810 3.4% 8156 277 
Netherlands 16,357,992 4.2% 1,276,00086 53592 
Poland 38,125,479 0.1% 2,669,30087 2669 
Portugal 10,599,095 4.1% 211980 8691 
Romania 21,565,119 0.1% 431302 431 
Slovakia 5,393,637 0.6% 107872 647 
Slovenia 2,010,377 2.7% 40206 1085 
Spain 44,474,631 10.4% 936,78988 97426 
Sweden 9,113,257 5.4% 182264 9842 
United 
Kingdom 60,816,701 6.0% 148,800 
(Scotland)89 
1,732,506 (England and Wales)
90 112878 
Total    1,039,298 
                                                                                                                                                         
85 http://portal.ksh.hu/pls/ksh/docs/eng/xsta dat/xstadat_annual/tabl2_08_02ie.html 
86 http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publicati on/?VW=T&DM=SLEN&PA=37340eng&D1=0-4,10-
20&HD=090429-1117&LA=EN&HDR=T&STB=G1 
87 http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publicati on/?VW=T&DM=SLEN&PA=37340eng&D1=0-4,10-
20&HD=090429-1117&LA=EN&HDR=T&STB=G1 
88 http://www.ine.es/jaxi/tabla.do 
89 http://openscotland.gov.uk/Publications/2009/04/27103325/5 
90 http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/criminalannual.htm  
 
 
EN 78   EN Table 6: Estimated costs of interpretati on and translation in Member States  
COUNTRIES Population 
of each Member State 2007
91 Number of 
criminal proceedings involving a non-national  Costs of 
Interpretation (no of non-nationals proceedings X €200) Costs of 
Translation of 30 pages  ( no of non-nationals proceedings X €255-€1500) 
Austria 8,298,923 16598 €3,319,600 €4,232,490-
€24,897,000 
Belgium 10,584,534 18628 €3,725,600 €4,750,140-
€27,942,000 
Bulgaria 7,679,290 114 €22,800 €29,070-
€171,000 
Cyprus 778,684 
10799 €2,159,800 €2,753,745-
€16,198,500 
Czech 
Republic 10,287,189 2278 €455,600 €580,890-
€3,417,000 
Denmark 5,447,084 5556 €1,111,200 €1,416,780-
€8,334,000 
Estonia 1,342,409 4725 €945,000 €1,204,875-
€7,087,500 
Finland 5,276,955 2427 €485,400 €618,885-
€3,640,500 
France 63,392,140 73534 €14,706,800 €1,8751,170-
€11,0301,000 
Germany 82,314,906 255498 €51,099,600 €130,303,980-
€766,494,000 
Greece 11,171,740 17651 €3,530,200 €4,501,005-
€26,476,500 
Hungary 10,066,158 7257 €1,451,400 €1,850,535-
€10,885,500 
Ireland 4,312,526 8625 €1,725,000 €2,199,375-
€12,937,500 
                                                 
91http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/refreshTableActio n.do?tab=table&plugin=1&pcode=tps00001&language=
en 
 
EN 79   EN COUNTRIES Population 
of each Member State 2007
91 Number of 
criminal proceedings involving a non-national  Costs of 
Interpretation (no of non-nationals proceedings X €200) Costs of 
Translation of 30 pages  ( no of non-nationals proceedings X €255-€1500) 
Italy 59,131,287 59131 €11,826,200 €15,078,045-
€88,696,500 
Latvia 2,281,305 8668 €1,733,600 €2,210,340-
€13,002,000 
Lithuania 3,384,879 812 €162,400 €207,060-
€1,218,000 
Luxembourg 476,187 3961 €792,200 €1,010,055-
€5,941,500 
Malta 407,810 277 €55,400 €70,635-
€415,500 
Netherlands 16,357,992 53592 €10,718,400 €13,665,980-
€80,388,000 
Poland 38,125,479 2669 €533,800 €680,595-
€4,003,500 
Portugal 10,599,095 8691 €1,738,200 €2,216,205-
€13,036,500 
Romania 21,565,119 431 €86,200 €109,905-
€646,500 
Slovakia 5,393,637 647 €129,400 €164,985-
€970,500 
Slovenia 2,010,377 1085 €217,000 €276,675-
€1,627,500 
Spain 44,474,631 97426 €19,485,200 €24,843,630-
€146139000 
Sweden 9,113,257 9842 €1,968,400 €2,509,710-
€14,763,000 
United 
Kingdom 60,816,701 112878 £37,500,000 €28,783,890-
€169,317,000 £24,896,602-
 
EN 80   EN COUNTRIES Population 
of each Member State 2007
91 Number of 
criminal proceedings involving a non-national  Costs of 
Interpretation (no of non-nationals proceedings X €200) Costs of 
Translation of 30 pages  ( no of non-nationals proceedings X €255-€1500) 
£146,450,604 
Notes to Table 6
 
Many Member States already comply with the ECHR obligation to provide interpretation and 
translation to suspects. This obl igation is by no means new, nor are the costs related to it. All 
Member States have some system in place to c over interpretation and translation fees in their 
criminal justice systems. Those member States  that comply well with the ECHR obligation 
are unlikely to have to incur any expenses  in addition to what they already spend on this as a 
result of the proposed Framework Decision (e.g.  UK and IE). The proposed instrument may 
result in costs for Member States that do not  fulfil the requirements of the ECHR (and are 
consequently in breach of it).  
In order to arrive at some costs, we t ook the figures provided by the UK for costs of 
interpretation and number of cases. By dividing the total cost by the number of cases, we were 
able to get an average figure  per case, which we then adjusted for other Member States. We 
used a statistical breakdown of the ECtHR case law in order to get a rough estimate of the 
percentage of criminal cases that involve a foreign defendant. 
So what we have been able to produce is the following 
• a rough estimate of the number of crimin al cases per Member State per year, 
• an estimate of number involving a foreign defend ant. We estimate this to be about 10% of 
criminal cases on average. 
• an estimate of the possible range of costs of  interpretation per Member State (by taking 
the estimate of number of cases involving a foreign defendant and multiplying this by our 
estimated average cost of interpretation fo r each case (approximately an average of €200 
per case). 
What we are not able to do is to refine this fo r each Member State give n that we do not have 
the data on the actual number of cases where interpretation/translation is required. However, 
where we have been able to find information (f or example by using the Google search engine 
to find press articles), the figures obtai ned tend to be comparable to our own. 
Interpretation  
UK spends £37.5 million on interpretation.  
 
EN 81   EN In Annex 5 it is shown that there 1,881,306 crim inal proceedings in the UK in 2007. On 
average in the EU 10% of criminal proceedin gs involve non-nationals. Therefore 10% of 
1,881,306 is 188,131. 
To see on average how much is spent on interpretation we divided £37.5million by 188,131 Just under £200 was  spent on average on interpreta tion in each case in the UK in 2007 which 
would convert to €200 
Calculations
 
1,881,306  criminal proceedings 
   1,881,306   
/ 100  
18813.06   
X 10  
188131  10% of cases 
   
37,500,000   
/ 112,878  
£ 199  average spent per case 
€200  average spent per case 
 
Translation  
From Annex 3 we can see the varied amounts of costs for translation in each MS. This 
depends on whether calculating it by word/character/page etc. 
We are going to base our translation cost s on the amount it costs to translate a page. 
The amount of pages that would need to be tr anslated can vary from a simple case and two 
pages to translate to a very detailed docum ent which may need up to 80 pages translated. 
Therefore we will use an average of a 30 page document that needs to be translated and see the cost of it.  
From the figures given in Annex 3 the price of translating a page varies from €8.50 to €50. 
Therefore if we multiply €8.50 by 30 pa ges we get a total cost of €255. 
 
EN 82   EN And if we multiply €50 by 30 page s we get a total cost of €1500. 
Therefore the cost of tran slating 30 pages varies from €255 - € 1500 depending on the MS. 
Calculations  
30  
X  
8.50  
€255 per 30 pages @ €8.50 per page 
  
30  
X  
50  
€1500 per 30 pages @ €50 per page 
Total  
Based on the UK cost of interpretation in 2007 and the costs we have for translation of a page 
in various Member States we have calculated an average cost of interpretation and translation. 
Thus if we were to add the cost of interpre tation (€380) to the cost of translation (€255 - 
€1500) we get a total figure of €635- €1880 dependi ng on the MS. The cost of translation 
could be also calculated by the amount per word/per character or per day.