Proposal for a Council framework decision on the right to interpretation and to translation in criminal proceedings {SEC(2009) 915} {SEC(2009) 916}
Date: 2009-07-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU action, criminal procedure, internal border of the EU, interpretation of the law, legal expenses, operation of the Institutions, rights of the defence, translation

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 8.7.2009 
COM(2009) 338 final 

2009/0101 (CNS) 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL FRAMEWORK DECISION 

on the right to interpretation and to translation in criminal proceedings  

{SEC(2009) 915} 
{SEC(2009) 916}

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
1. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

INTRODUCTION 

This proposal for a Council Framework Decision aims to set common minimum standards 
as regards the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings throughout the 
European Union. The proposal is envisaged as a first step in a series of measures designed 
to replace the Commission's 2004 proposal for a Council Framework Decision on certain 
procedural  rights  in  criminal  proceedings  throughout  the  European  Union  -  COM(2004) 
328, 28.4.2004 - which is withdrawn after due notification to the Council and the European 
Parliament. Agreement could not be reached on that proposal, despite 3 years' discussions 
in  the  Council  Working  Group,  and  it  was  effectively  abandoned  in  June  2007,  after  a 
fruitless discussion in the Justice Council. Adopting a step-by-step approach is now seen as 
a  generally  acceptable  way  to  proceed;  it  will  also  gradually  help  build  confidence  and 
contribute to enhancing mutual trust. This proposal should therefore be considered as part 
of  a  comprehensive  package  of  legislation  which  will  seek  to  provide  a  minimum  set  of 
procedural  rights  in  criminal  proceedings  in  the  European  Union.  Rights  covered  in  the 
2004  proposal  were,  besides  the  right  to  free  interpretation  and  translation,  the  right  to 
legal  advice,  the  right  to  information  about  rights  (Letter  of  Rights),  the  right  to  specific 
attention for vulnerable defendants, the right to communicate with consular authorities and 
the right to communicate with the family. For this proposal, the Commission has decided 
to concentrate on the right to interpretation and translation as it was the least controversial 
right  in  the  discussions  of  the  2004  proposal  and  there  was  information  and  research 
available on this right. 

This proposal seeks to improve the rights of suspects who do not understand and speak the 
language  of  the  proceedings.  Having  common  minimum  standards  in  relation  to  these 
rights should facilitate the application of the principle of mutual recognition.  

As regards the legal basis, the proposal is based on Article 31(1) of the Treaty on European 
Union.  Article  31(1)(c)  envisages  that  the  EU  may  develop  "common  action"  so  as  to 
ensure  compatibility  in  rules  where  necessary  to  improve  cooperation.  For  judicial 
cooperation, in particular mutual recognition, it is necessary to have mutual trust. A certain 
degree of compatibility is necessary to improve mutual trust and hence, co-operation. 

The right to interpretation and translation, which stems from the European Convention on 
Human Rights (ECHR), is fundamental for a person facing a criminal charge who does not 
understand the language of the proceedings so that the suspect knows the charges against 
him  and  understands  the  procedure.  The  suspect  must  be  in  a  position  to  understand  of 
what he is accused. Translations should be provided of essential procedural documents. In 
accordance with the ECHR, interpretation and translation must be provided free of charge. 

5. 

Impact Assessment  

The  proposal  was  subject  to  an  Impact  Assessment  which  is  contained  in  document 
SEC(2009) 915. The Impact Assessment was examined, and subsequently approved, by the 
Impact Assessment Board on 27 May 2009. The Board's recommendations and how these 
were  accommodated  can  be  found  at  paragraph  25  of  the  Impact  Assessment 
(http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/practice_en.htm).  The  options  set  out  were  as 
follows: 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
(a)  Maintaining  the  status  quo  would  entail  no  EU  action.  The  current  situation  whereby 
Member States are expected to comply with their ECHR obligations could be expected to 
continue as now with the perceived imbalance between prosecution and the accused which 
has  hitherto  hampered  mutual  recognition.  This  would  have  negligible  economic 
consequences. 

(b)  Non-legislative  measures  such  as  recommendations  would  encourage  exchanges 
between Member States and help to identify best practice. This option would lead to better 
awareness  of ECHR standards by disseminating and recommending  practices  which help 
compliance. It would not achieve further approximation of legal standards.  

(c)  New  instrument  covering  all  rights  along  the  lines  of  the  2004  proposal.  Its 
implementation by Member States, monitoring by the Commission and  ultimate recourse 
to the ECJ would help overcome differences in compliance with the ECHR and promote 
mutual trust. The economic impact would be twofold, first the cost of putting services in 
place to ensure rights are respected, and second, the gain in reduced costs of appeals. 

(d) A measure restricted to cross-border cases would constitute a first step. It would need 
careful  consideration  so  that  any  potential  issue  of  discrimination  between  categories  of 
suspects involved in cross-border versus domestic proceedings is addressed appropriately. 
As  with  the  previous  option,  the  economic  impact  would  be  twofold,  first  the  cost  of 
putting  services  in  place  to  ensure  rights  are  respected,  and  second,  the  gain  in  reduced 
costs of appeals, but to a lesser extent than above since it is less ambitious in scope. 

(e)  A  step-by-step  approach,  beginning  with  measures  on  access  to  interpretation  and 
translation,  involving  a  new  Framework  Decision  requiring  Member  States  to  provide 
minimum standards only for access to interpretation and translation is the favoured option. 
The economic impact would be twofold, first the cost of putting services in place to ensure 
rights are respected, and second, the gain in reduced costs of appeals. 

The Impact Assessment identified the combination of options (b) and (e) as the preferred 
approach  maximising  synergies  between  legislative  and  non-legislative  action.  Therefore 
this Framework Decision should be followed up by a document on best practice. 

2. 

6. 

7. 

BACKGROUND 

Article  6  of  the  Treaty  on  European  Union  (TEU)  provides  that  the  Union  shall  respect 
fundamental  rights,  as  guaranteed  by  the  European  Convention  for  the  Protection  of 
Human  Rights  and  Fundamental  Freedoms  (ECHR)  and  as  they  result  from  the 
constitutional  traditions  common  to  Member  States.  Moreover,  in  December  2000,  the 
European  Parliament,  the  Council  and  Commission  jointly  signed  and  solemnly 
proclaimed the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.  

The  Presidency  Conclusions  of  the  Tampere  European  Council1  stated  that  mutual 
recognition  should  become  the  cornerstone  of  judicial  cooperation,  but  makes  the  point 
that mutual recognition "...and the necessary approximation of legislation would facilitate 
[…] the judicial protection of individual rights"2.  

1 
2 

15 and 16 October 1999. 
Conclusion 33. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
8. 

9. 

10. 

The Commission Communication to the Council and the European Parliament of 26 July 
2000 on Mutual Recognition of Final Decisions in Criminal Matters3 stated that “it must 
therefore be ensured that the treatment of suspects and the rights of the defence would not 
only not suffer from the implementation  of the principle  [of  mutual  recognition]  but  that 
the safeguards would even be improved through the process”.  

This  was  endorsed  in  the  Programme  of  Measures  to  Implement  the  Principle  of  Mutual 
Recognition of Decisions in Criminal Matters4 ("Programme of Measures"), adopted by the 
Council  and  the  Commission.  It  pointed  out  that  “mutual  recognition  is  very  much 
dependent on a number of parameters which determine its effectiveness”. 

These parameters include mechanisms for safeguarding the rights of suspects (parameter 3) 
and the definition of common minimum standards necessary to facilitate application of the 
principle  of  mutual  recognition  (parameter  4).  This  proposal  for  a  Framework  Decision 
represents  an  embodiment  of  the  stated  aim  of  enhancing  the  protection  of  individual 
rights.  

3. 

THE RIGHT TO TRANSLATION AND INTERPRETATION AS ESTABLISHED UNDER THE ECHR 

11. 

Article 5 ECHR – Right to liberty and security - stipulates that:  

"(1) Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of 
his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by 
law: (…) 

(f) the lawful arrest or detention of a person …with a view to …extradition. 

(2)Everyone  who  is  arrested  shall  be  informed  promptly,  in  a  language  which  he 
understands, of the reasons for his arrest and of any charge against him.” 

(…) 

(4) Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take 
proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court 
and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful." 

And Article 6 – Right to a fair trial – stipulates that: 

"(3) Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: 

(a)  to  be  informed  promptly,  in  a  language  which  he  understands  and  in  detail,  of  the 
nature and cause of the accusation against him; 

(…) 

(e)  to  have  the  free  assistance  of  an  interpreter  if  he  cannot  understand  or  speak  the 
language used in court." 

3 
4 

COM(2000) 495, 29.7.2000. 
OJ C 12, 15.1.2001, p. 10. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
12. 

4. 

13. 

The  Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights  of  the  European  Union  reflects  these  rights  in  its 
Articles 6 and 47 to 50. 

The  European  Court  of  Human  Rights  (ECtHR)  has  held  on  Article  6  ECHR  that  the 
accused has the right to interpretation free of charge, even in the event of his conviction, 
that  he  has  a  right  to  receive  the  documents  setting  out  the  charge  in  a  language  that  he 
understands,  that  the  interpretation  must  be  sufficient  to  allow  the  person  charged  to 
understand  the  proceedings  and  that  the  interpreter  must  be  competent.  That  the  accused 
has  the  right  to  interpretation  free  of  charge,  even  in  the  event  of  his  conviction  was 
established in Luedicke, Belkacem and Koç v. Germany5. In Kamasinski v. Austria6, it was 
established that the interpretation provided should be of a high enough standard to enable 
the defendant to have knowledge of the case against him and to defend himself. The right 
applies  to  documentary  material  and  the  pre-trial  proceedings.  The  ECtHR  held  that  the 
standard of interpretation must be "adequate" and that details of the charge must be given 
to  the  person  in  a  language  that  he  understands  (Brozicek  v.  Italy7).  It  is  for  the  judicial 
authorities to prove that the defendant speaks the language of the court adequately and not 
for the defendant to prove he does not8. The interpreter must be competent and the judge 
must safeguard the fairness of the proceedings (Cuscani v. UK9).  

SPECIFIC PROVISIONS 

The proposal for a draft Framework Decision sets out basic obligations and builds on the 
ECHR  and  the  case-law  of  the  ECtHR.  The  Reflection  Forum  on  Multilingualism  and 
Interpreter  Training10  produced  a  report  with  recommendations  on  the  quality  of 
interpretation  and  translation.  This  Report  was  the  fruit  of  meetings  of  the  Reflection 
Forum convened by the Commission's Directorate-General for Interpretation during 2008 
to  identify  whether  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 
improve the provision of competent and qualified interpreters in criminal proceedings. The 
Recommendations  included  having  a  Curriculum  in  Legal  Interpreting  and  a  system  of 
accreditation, certification and registration for legal interpreters.  

Article 1 - Scope of application  

14. 

The  scope  covers  all  persons  suspected  in  respect  of  a  criminal  offence  until  final 
conviction (including any appeal). Here, the term "suspect" is used to cover such persons. 

5 

6 
7 
8 

9 
10 

28 November 1978, Series A N° 29. “46.The Court thus finds that the ordinary meaning of the term […] “free” 
in Article 6 para. 3(e) […] is confirmed by the object and purpose of Article 6. The Court concludes that the 
right protected by Article 6 para. 3(e) entails, for anyone who cannot speak or understand the language used in 
court, the right to receive the free assistance of an interpreter, without subsequently having claimed back from 
him payment of the costs thereby incurred.” 
19 December 1989, A Series N° 168. 
19 December 1989, (10964/84) [1989] ECHR 23. 
“41[…] the Italian judicial authorities should have taken steps to comply with it so as to ensure observance of 
the requirements of Article 6 § 3 (a) (art. 6-3-a), unless they were in a position to establish that the applicant in 
fact had sufficient knowledge of Italian to understand from the notification the purport of the letter notifying 
him  of  the  charges  brought  against  him.  No  such  evidence  appears  from  the  documents  in  the  file  or  the 
statements  of  the  witnesses  heard  on  23  April  1989.  On  this  point  there  has  therefore  been  a  violation  of 
Article 6 § 3 (a) (art. 6-3-a).” 
24 September 2002 - No.3277/96. 
http://ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/orban/docs/FinalL_Reflection_Forum_Report_en.pdf 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
This is intended as an autonomous term, irrespective of the designation of such persons in 
national proceedings. 

15. 

Since the case-law of the ECtHR has clarified that persons being questioned in relation to 
offences, whether or not formally charged, should be covered by Article 6 ECHR, persons 
arrested  or  detained  in  connection  with  a  criminal  charge  also  come  within  the  ambit  of 
this provision. These rights start to apply from the time when the person is informed that 
he  is  suspected  of  having  committed  an  offence  (e.g.  on  arrest  or  when  the  suspected 
person is no longer free to leave police custody).  

The Article clarifies that the proposal also applies to European Arrest Warrant cases. It is 
an  important  point  that  European  Arrest  Warrant  cases  are  covered  since  the  Framework 
Decision  concerning  the  European  Arrest  Warrant  only  addresses  these  rights  in  general 
terms. In this respect, the proposal is a further development of Article 5 ECHR. 

Article 2 - The right to interpretation  

16. 

This Article lays down the basic principle that interpretation should be provided during the 
investigative and judicial phases of the proceedings, i.e. during police questioning, at trial 
and at any interim hearings or appeals. The right is also extended to legal advice given to 
the suspect if his lawyer speaks a language that he does not understand.  

Article 3 - The right to translation of essential documents 

17. 

11 
12 

The  suspect  has  the  right  to  translation  of  essential  documents  in  order  to  safeguard  the 
fairness of the proceedings. In Kamasinski v. Austria11, the ECtHR stated that the right to 
interpretation  applied  to  "documentary  material"  and  that  the  accused  should  have 
sufficient  knowledge  of  the  case  against  him  to  enable  him  to  defend  himself12.  The 
essential documents for the criminal proceedings should therefore include the charge sheet 
or  indictment  and  any  relevant  documentary  material  such  as  key  witness  statements 
needed  in  order  to  understand  "in  detail,  the  nature  and  cause  of  the  accusation  against 
him" in accordance with Article 6(3)(a) of the ECHR. Translation should also be provided 
of any detention order or order depriving the person of his liberty and the judgment, which 
is necessary for the person to exercise his right of appeal (ECHR Protocol 7, Article 2). 

In  respect  of  proceedings  for  the  execution  of  a  European  Arrest  Warrant,  the  European 
Arrest Warrant should be translated. 

19 December 1989, A Series N° 168. 
“74. The right […]to the free assistance of an interpreter applies not only to oral statements made at the trial 
hearing but  also  to  documentary  material  and  the pre-trial  proceedings.  Paragraph 3  (e)  (art. 6-3-e)  signifies 
that a person "charged with a criminal offence" who cannot understand or speak the language used in court has 
the right to the free assistance of an interpreter for the translation or interpretation of all those documents or 
statements  in  the  proceedings  instituted  against  him  which  it  is  necessary  for  him  to  understand  or  to  have 
rendered into the court's language in order to have the benefit of a fair trial. […]However, paragraph 3 (e) (art. 
6-3-e)  does  not  go  so  far  as  to  require  a  written  translation  of  all  items  of  written  evidence  or  official 
documents in the procedure. The interpretation assistance provided should be such as to enable the defendant 
to have knowledge of the case against him and to defend himself, notably by being able to put before the court 
his  version  of  the  events.  In  view  of  the  need  for  the  right  guaranteed  by  paragraph  3  (e)  (art.  6-3-e)  to  be 
practical  and  effective,  the  obligation  of  the  competent  authorities  is  not  limited  to  the  appointment  of  an 
interpreter  but,  if  they  are  put  on  notice  in  the  particular  circumstances,  may  also  extend  to  a  degree  of 
subsequent control over the adequacy of the interpretation provided (see the Artico judgment).” 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Article 4 - Member States to meet the costs of interpretation and translation 

18. 

This  Article  provides  that  the  costs  of  interpretation  and  translation  are  to  be  met  by  the 
Member State. That the accused has the right to interpretation free of charge, even in the 
event of his conviction was established in Luedicke, Belkacem and Koç v. Germany13.  

Article 5 - Quality of the interpretation and translation 

19. 

This  Article  sets  out  the  basic  requirement  to  safeguard  the  quality  of  interpretation  and 
translation. Recommendations in this respect can be found in the Report of the Reflection 
Forum on Multilingualism and Interpreter Training14.  

Article 6 - Non-regression clause 

20. 

The  purpose  of  this  Article  is  to  ensure  that  setting  common  minimum  standards  in 
accordance with this Framework Decision does not have the effect of lowering standards in 
certain  Member  States  and  that  the  standards  set  in  the  ECHR  are  maintained.  Member 
States remain entirely at liberty to set standards higher than those agreed in this Framework 
Decision. 

Article 7 – Implementation 

21. 

This  Article  requires  that  Member  States  must  implement  the  Framework  Decision  by  x 
/xx/ 20xx and, by the same date, send the text of the provisions transposing it into national 
law to the Council and the Commission.  

Article 8 – Report 

22. 

XX  months  after  implementation,  the  Commission  must  submit  a  report  to  the  European 
Parliament and to the Council, assessing the extent to which the Member States have taken 
the necessary measures in order to comply with this Framework Decision, accompanied, if 
necessary, by legislative proposals. 

Article 9 - Entry into force 

23. 

5. 

24. 

13 

14 

This  Article  provides  that  the  Framework  Decision  will  enter  into  force  on  the  twentieth 
day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. 

SUBSIDIARITY PRINCIPLE 

The  objective  of  the  proposal  cannot  be  sufficiently  achieved  by  Member  States  alone, 
since the aim of the proposal is to promote trust between them and it is therefore important 
to  agree  on  a  common  minimum  standard  that  applies  throughout  the  whole  of  the 
European  Union.  The  proposal  will  approximate  Member  States'  substantive  procedural 

“46.The  Court  thus  finds  that  the  ordinary  meaning  of  the  term  […]  “free”  in  Article  6  para.  3(e)  […]  is 
confirmed  by  the  object  and purpose of  Article  6.  The  Court  concludes  that  the  right  protected by  Article  6 
para. 3(e) entails, for anyone who cannot speak or understand the language used in court, the right to receive 
the free assistance of an interpreter, without subsequently having claimed back from him payment of the costs 
thereby incurred.” 
See footnote 10 above. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
rules in respect of interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings in order to build 
mutual trust. The proposal therefore complies with the subsidiarity principle. 

6. 

25. 

PROPORTIONALITY PRINCIPLE 

The proposal complies with the proportionality principle in that it does not go beyond the 
minimum  required in order to achieve the stated objective at European level and what is 
necessary for that purpose. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
2009/0101 (CNS) 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL FRAMEWORK DECISION 

on the right to interpretation and to translation in criminal proceedings  

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 31(1)(c) thereof, 

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission, 

Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament, 

Whereas: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

The  European  Union  has  set  itself  the  objective  of  maintaining  and  developing  an 
area of freedom, security and justice. According to the conclusions of the European 
Council in Tampere of 15 and 16 October 1999, and in particular point 33 thereof, 
the  principle  of  mutual  recognition  should  become  the  cornerstone  of  judicial 
cooperation in both civil and criminal matters within the European Union. 

On  29  November  2000  the  Council,  in  accordance  with  the  Tampere  Conclusions, 
adopted a programme of measures to implement the principle of mutual recognition 
in  criminal  matters15.  The  introduction  to  the  programme  of  measures  states  that 
mutual  recognition  is  "designed  to  strengthen  cooperation  between  Member  States 
but also to enhance the protection of individual rights". 

Implementation  of  the  principle  of  mutual  recognition  of  decisions  in  criminal 
matters  presupposes  that  Member  States  have  trust  in  each  other's  criminal  justice 
systems. The extent of the mutual recognition exercise is very much dependent on a 
number  of  parameters,  which  include  "mechanisms  for  safeguarding  the  rights  of 
[…]  suspects"16  and  common  minimum  standards  necessary  to  facilitate  the 
application of the principle of mutual recognition. 

Mutual  recognition  can  only  operate  effectively  in  a  spirit  of  confidence,  whereby 
not only judicial authorities, but all actors in the criminal process see decisions of the 
judicial authorities of other Member States as equivalent to their own, implying "not 
only trust in the adequacy of one's partner's rules, but also trust that these rules are 
correctly applied"17.  

15 
16 
17 

OJ C 12, 15.1.2001, p. 10. 
OJ C 12, 15.1.2001, p. 10. 
COM(2000) 495, 26.7.2000, p. 4. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

(9) 

(10) 

(11) 

Although  all  Member  States  are  parties  to  the  European  Convention  for  the 
Protection  of  Human  Rights  and  Fundamental  Freedoms  (ECHR),  experience  has 
shown  that  this  in  itself  does  not  always  provide  a  sufficient  degree  of  trust  in  the 
criminal justice systems of other Member States.  

Article 31(1) of the Treaty on European Union provides for "ensuring compatibility 
in rules applicable in the Member States as may be necessary to improve [judicial co-
operation  in  criminal  matters]".  Common  minimum  standards  should  lead  to 
increased confidence in the criminal justice systems of all Member States which in 
turn should lead to more efficient judicial cooperation in a climate of mutual trust. 

Such  common  standards  should  be  applied  in  the  fields  of  interpretation  and 
translation  in  criminal  proceedings.  In  order  to  enhance  the  necessary  confidence 
among  Member  States,  this  Framework  Decision  provides  for  basic  common 
standards with regard to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings in the 
European  Union  which  reflect  the  traditions  of  the  Member  States  in  applying  the 
relevant provisions of the ECHR. 

The  right  to  interpretation  and  translation  for  those  who  do  not  understand  the 
language  of  the  proceedings  are  enshrined  in  Articles  5  and  6  of  the  ECHR,  as 
interpreted by the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. The provisions 
of this Framework Decision facilitate the application of those rights in practice.  

The  provisions  of  this  Framework  Decision  should  ensure  that  the  rights  of  the 
suspect  who  does  not  speak  and  understand  the  language  of  the  proceedings  to 
understand the accusations brought against him and to understand the proceedings in 
order  to  be  able  to  exercise  his  rights  are  protected  by  providing  free  and  accurate 
linguistic  assistance.  This  assistance  should  be  extended,  if  necessary,  to  relations 
between the suspect and his defence counsel. 

Appropriate assistance should be provided also to suspects suffering from hearing or 
speech impediments. 

The  duty  of  care  towards  suspects  unable  to  understand  or  follow  the  proceedings 
underpins  a  fair  administration  of  justice.  The  prosecution,  law  enforcement  and 
judicial  authorities  should  therefore  ensure  that  suspects  in  a  potentially  weak 
position  are  able  to  exercise  effectively  their  rights.  Those  authorities  should  be 
aware of any potential vulnerability and take appropriate steps to ensure these rights. 
This should always be the case where a suspect is a minor or suffers from disabilities 
which impair his active participation in proceedings. 

(12)  Member  States  should  be  under  a  duty  to  provide  training  to  judges,  lawyers  and 
other relevant court personnel in order to ensure the quality of the interpretation and 
translation. 

(13) 

This  Framework  Decision  respects  the  fundamental  rights  and  observes  the 
principles recognised by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. 
In particular, this Framework Decision seeks to promote the right to liberty, the right 
to a fair trial and the rights of the defence.  

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
(14) 

Since  the  aim  of  achieving  common  minimum  standards  cannot  be  achieved  by 
Member  States  acting  unilaterally  and  can  only  be  achieved  at  Union  level,  the 
Council  may  adopt  measures  in  accordance  with  the  principle  of  subsidiarity  as 
referred to in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union and defined in Article 5 of 
the Treaty establishing the European Community. In accordance with the principle of 
proportionality, as set out in the latter Article, this Framework Decision does not go 
beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective, 

HAS ADOPTED THIS FRAMEWORK DECISION: 

Article 1 
Scope  

1. 

2. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

This Framework Decision lays down rules concerning the rights to interpretation and 
translation in criminal proceedings and proceedings for the execution of a European 
Arrest Warrant. 

Those  rights  apply  to  any  person  from  the  time  that  person  is  informed  by  the 
competent authorities of a Member State that he is suspected of having committed a 
criminal offence until the conclusion of the proceedings(the “suspect”). 

Article 2 
The right to interpretation  

Member  States  shall  ensure  that  a  suspect  who  does  not  understand  and  speak  the 
language  of  the  criminal  proceedings  concerned  is  provided  with  interpretation,  in 
order  to  safeguard  the  fairness  of  the  criminal  proceedings.  Interpretation  shall  be 
provided  during  those  proceedings  before  investigative  and  judicial  authorities, 
including  during  police  questioning,  during  all  necessary  meetings  between  the 
suspect  and  his  lawyer,  during  all  court  hearings  and  during  any  necessary  interim 
hearings.  

Member States shall ensure that, where necessary, legal advice received throughout 
the criminal proceedings is interpreted for the suspect.  

Member  States  shall  ensure  that  a  procedure  is  in  place  to  ascertain  whether  the 
suspect understands and speaks the language of the criminal proceedings. 

Member States shall ensure that there is a right of appeal against a decision finding 
that there is no need for interpretation. 

The  right  to  interpretation  includes  assistance  of  persons  with  hearing  or  speech 
impediments. 

With regard to proceedings for the execution of a European Arrest Warrant, Member 
States  shall  ensure  that  any  person  subject  to  such  proceedings  who  does  not 
understand  and  speak  the  language  of  the  proceedings  shall  be  provided  with 
interpretation during those proceedings. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
Article 3 
The right to translation of essential documents 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

Member States shall ensure that a suspect who does not understand the language of 
the  criminal  proceedings  concerned  is  provided  with  translations  of  all  essential 
documents in order to safeguard the fairness of the criminal proceedings. 

The essential documents to be translated shall include the detention order depriving 
the person of his liberty, the charge/indictment, essential documentary evidence and 
the judgment.  

The  suspect  or  his  lawyer  may  submit  a  reasoned  request  for  translation  of  further 
documents, including written legal advice from the suspect’s lawyer.  

Member States shall ensure that there is a right of appeal against a decision to refuse 
translation of any documents referred to in paragraph 2. 

With regard to proceedings for the execution of a European Arrest Warrant, Member 
States  shall  ensure  that  any  person  subject  to  such  proceedings  who  does  not 
understand the language in which the European Arrest Warrant is drawn up, shall be 
provided with a translation of the said document. 

Article 4 
Member States to meet the costs of interpretation and translation 

Member  States  shall  cover  the  costs  of  interpretation  and  translation  resulting  from  the 
application of Articles 2 and 3. 

Article 5 
Quality of the interpretation and translation 

1. 

2. 

Interpretation  and  translation  shall  be  provided  in  such  a  way  as  to  ensure  that  the 
suspect is fully able to exercise his rights. 

Member  States  shall  offer  training  to  judges,  lawyers  and  other  relevant  court 
personnel in order to ensure the suspect’s ability to understand the proceedings.  

Article 6 
Non-regression clause 

Nothing in this Framework Decision shall be construed as limiting or derogating from any of 
the rights and procedural safeguards that may be ensured under the European Convention for 
the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms or the laws of any Member States 
which provide a higher level of protection. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
Article 7 

Implementation 

Member  States  shall  take  the  necessary  measures  to  comply  with  the  provisions  of  this 
Framework Decision by …….. at the latest18. 

By the same date Member States shall transmit to the Council and to the Commission the text 
of  the  provisions  transposing  into  their  national  law  the  obligations  imposed  on  them  under 
this Framework Decision.  

Article 8 

Report 

The Commission shall, by ………. 19, submit a report to the European Parliament and to the 
Council, assessing the extent to which the Member States have taken the necessary measures 
in order to comply with this Framework Decision, accompanied, if necessary, by legislative 
proposals. 

Article 9 

Entry into force 

This  Framework  Decision  shall  enter  into  force  on  the  twentieth  day  following  that  of  its 
publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. 

Done at Brussels,  

For the Council 
The President 

18 
19 

24 months after publication of this Framework Decision in the Official Journal. 
36 months after publication of this Framework Decision in the Official Journal. 

EN 

13 

   EN