Case C‑25/15

Proceedings brought

against

István Balogh

(Request for a preliminary ruling

from the Budapest Környéki Törvényszék)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Right to interpretation and translation — Directive 2010/64/EU — Scope — Definition of criminal proceedings — Procedure laid down by a Member State for the recognition of a decision in criminal proceedings handed down by a court in another Member State and for the entry in the criminal record of the conviction handed down by that court — Costs in connection with the translation of that decision — Framework Decision 2009/315/JHA — Decision 2009/316/JHA’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 9 June 2016

Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision on the organisation and content of the exchange of information extracted from criminal records between Member States and Decision establishing a European Criminal Records Information System — National special procedure for the recognition by the court of a Member State of a final judicial decision convicting a person handed down by a court of another Member State — Not permissible

See the text of the decision. (see para. 28)

A case in which the competent authorities of a Member State (convicting Member State), first, inform, in accordance with Article 4(2) of Framework Decision 2009/315, through ECRIS, established by Decision 2009/316, the competent authorities of another Member State (Member State of nationality) of a criminal conviction handed down by a court of the first Member State against a national of that second Member State with a view to the storage by the latter of the information thus forwarded, in accordance with Article 5(1) of that framework decision and, secondly, send to the authorities of the Member State of nationality, at their request, the judgment given by that court with a view to its recognition by that Member State and the entry of that conviction in its criminal record comes within the scope of Framework Decision 2009/315 on the organisation and content of the exchange of information extracted from the criminal record between Member States and Decision 2009/316 on the establishment of the European Criminal Records Information System (ECRIS). (see paras 29-31)

See the text of the decision. (see para. 35)

Article 1(1) of Directive 2010/64 on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings must be interpreted as meaning that that directive is not applicable to a national special procedure for the recognition by the court of a Member State of a final judicial decision handed down by a court of another Member State convicting a person for the commission of an offence. In the first place, Directive 2010/64 lays down rules concerning the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings and proceedings for the execution of a European arrest warrant. In accordance with Article 1(2) of that directive, that right is to apply to the person suspected or accused of having committed a criminal offence until the conclusion of the proceedings, which is understood to mean the final determination of the question whether that person has committed the offence, including, where applicable, sentencing and the resolution of any appeal. A national special procedure, which has as its purpose the recognition of a final judicial decision handed down by a court of another Member State, takes place, by definition, after the final determination of whether the suspected or accused person committed the offence and, where applicable, after the sentencing of that person. In the second place, as, inter alia, Article 3(1) and (2) and recitals 14, 17 and 22 of Directive 2010/64 state, that directive seeks to ensure, for suspected or accused persons who do not speak or understand the language of the proceedings, the right to interpretation and translation by facilitating the application of that right in order to ensure that they are able to exercise their rights of defence and, therefore, to safeguard the fairness of the proceedings. Where the person concerned has already obtained the translation of the judgment handed down in their regard, a new translation of that judgment with a view to its recognition by the Member State in which that person is a national is not necessary for the protection of that person’s rights of defence or right to effective judicial protection and was not, therefore, justified in the light of the objectives pursued by Directive 2010/64. (see paras 36-40, 56, operative part)