The situation of a person who wishes to lodge an objection against a penalty order which has not yet acquired the force of res judicata and of which he is the addressee falls within the scope of Directive 2010/64 on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings, with the result that that person must be able to exercise the right to interpretation and translation guaranteed by that directive.

Articles 1 to 3 of Directive 2010/64 on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which, in criminal proceedings, does not permit the individual against whom a penalty order has been made to lodge an objection in writing against that order in a language other than that of the proceedings, even though that individual does not have a command of the language of the proceedings, provided that the competent authorities do not consider, in accordance with Article 3(3) of that directive, that, in the light of the proceedings concerned and the circumstances of the case, such an objection constitutes an essential document.

First, the right to interpretation provided for in Article 2 of Directive 2010/64 concerns the translation by an interpreter of the oral communications between suspected or accused persons and the investigative and judicial authorities or, where relevant, legal counsel, to the exclusion of the written translation of any written document produced by those suspected or accused persons. Accordingly, that article ensures that a person can obtain the free assistance of an interpreter, if that person himself orally lodges an objection against the penalty order of which he is the subject at the registry of the competent national court, so that that registry records that objection, or, if that person lodges an objection in writing, can obtain the assistance of legal counsel, who will take responsibility for the drafting of the appropriate document, in the language of the proceedings. However, to require Member States not only to enable the persons concerned to be informed, fully and in their language, of the facts alleged against them and to provide their own version of those facts, but also to take responsibility, as a matter of course, for the translation of every appeal brought by the persons concerned against a judicial decision which is addressed to them would go beyond the objectives pursued by Directive 2010/64.

Secondly, the right to translation of certain essential documents laid down in Article 3(1) and (2) of Directive 2010/64 concerns, in principle, only the written translation into the language understood by the person concerned of certain documents drawn up in the language of the proceedings by the competent authorities. It does not include, in principle, the written translation into the language of the proceedings of a document such as an objection lodged against a penalty order.

However, given that Article 3(3) of that directive allows the competent authorities to decide, in any given case, whether any document other than those provided for in Article 3(1) and (2) of that directive is essential, it is for the referring court, taking into account in particular the characteristics of the procedure applicable to such a penalty order and of the case brought before it, to establish whether the objection lodged in writing against a penalty order should be considered to be an essential document, the translation of which is necessary. In that regard, the facts that that objection, which can be submitted in writing or, where it is lodged orally, directly at the registry of the competent court, is not subject to the obligation to state reasons, must be lodged within a particularly short period of two weeks from service of that order and does not require the mandatory involvement of a lawyer, and that it is drawn up by the person concerned in a language of which he has a command, but which is not the language of the proceedings, are relevant.

(see paras 38, 40-44, 47, 49-51, operative part 1)