Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings
Date: 2010-03-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: criminal procedure, interpretation of the law, judicial cooperation, mutual recognition principle, operation of the Institutions, right to justice, rights of the defence, translation

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 9.3.2010 
COM(2010) 82 final 

2010/0050 (COD) 

Proposal for a 

DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 

on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
1. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

INTRODUCTION 

This proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and the Council aims to set 
common minimum standards as regards the right to interpretation and translation in 
criminal proceedings throughout the European Union. The proposal is the first step in 
a series of measures set out in the Procedural Rights Roadmap, adopted in Council 
on  30  November  2009  instructing  the  Commission  to  put  forward  proposals  on  a 
"step  by  step"  basis.  This  approach  is  now  seen  as  the  best  way  to  proceed;  it  will 
gradually  help  build  confidence  and  contribute  to  enhancing  mutual  trust.  This 
proposal  should  therefore  be  considered  as  part  of  a  package  of  legislation  to  be 
presented over the next few years which will provide a minimum set of procedural 
rights in criminal proceedings in the European Union.  

The  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,  thereby  improving  the  functioning  of  judicial  co-operation  between 
Member States of the EU.  

The  proposal  is  similar  to,  and  replaces,  one  which  was  put  forward  as  a  draft 
Framework  Decision  on  8  July  20091.  The  text  was  discussed  in  Council  working 
groups. Agreement was reached on a general approach at the Justice Council of 23 
October 2009, but there was not enough time for adoption before 1 December 2009, 
date of entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty so that earlier proposal became obsolete.  

As regards the legal basis, the proposal is based on Article 82(2) of the Treaty on the 
Functioning  of  the  European  Union  (TFEU).  That  Article  provides  that,  "[t]o  the 
extent necessary to facilitate mutual recognition of judgments and judicial decisions 
and  police  and  judicial  cooperation  in  criminal  matters  having  a  cross-border 
dimension,  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  may,  by  means  of  directives 
adopted  in  accordance  with  the  ordinary  legislative  procedure,  establish  minimum 
rules. Such rules shall take into account the differences between the legal traditions 
and systems of the Member States. 

They shall concern: 

(a) mutual admissibility of evidence between Member States; 

(b) the rights of individuals in criminal procedure; 

(c) the rights of victims of crime; 

(d)[…]". 

For mutual recognition to function well it is necessary to have mutual trust. A certain 
degree of compatibility is necessary to improve mutual trust and hence, co-operation. 

1 

COM(2009) 338, 8.7.2009. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
5. 

6. 

2. 

7. 

8. 

9. 

The  right  to  interpretation  and  translation,  which  stems  from  the  European 
Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and can also be derived from the EU Charter 
of  Fundamental  Rights2,  is  fundamental  for  a  person  facing  a  criminal  charge  who 
does  not  understand  the  language  of  the  proceedings  so  that  he  knows  the  charges 
against  him  and  understands  the  procedure.  In  accordance  with  the  ECHR, 
interpretation and translation must be provided free of charge. 

Impact  Assessment  -  SEC(2009)915  and  its  Summary  SEC(2009)916  In  order  to 
inform  the  July  2009  proposal,  the  Commission  carried  out  an  Impact  Assessment 
which is valid mutatis mutandis for the present proposal for a Directive. The report 
on 
at 
Assessment 
http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/ia_carried_out/docs/ia_2009/sec_2009_0917_
en.pdf   

available 

Impact 

the 

is 

BACKGROUND 

Article  6(3)  of  the  Treaty  on  European  Union  (TEU)  provides  that  fundamental 
rights,  as  guaranteed  by  the  ECHR  and  as  they  result  from  the  constitutional 
traditions  common  to  the  Member  States,  shall  constitute  general  principles  of  the 
Union’s  law.  Article  6(1)  TEU  provides  that  the  Union  recognises  the  rights, 
freedoms  and  principles  set  out  in  the  Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights  of  the 
European  Union  of  7  December  2000,  as  adapted  at  Strasbourg,  on  12  December 
2007, which shall have the same legal value as the TFEU and TEU. Article 47 of the 
Charter of Fundamental Rights guarantees the right to a fair trial, including the right 
to  legal  advice  and  representation,  while  Article  48  provides  that  the  rights  of  the 
defence should be respected. 

The  Presidency  Conclusions  of  the  Tampere  European  Council3  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"4.  

The Commission Communication to the Council and the European Parliament of 26 
July 2000 on Mutual Recognition of Final Decisions in Criminal Matters5 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”.  

10. 

This  was  endorsed  in  the  Programme  of  Measures  to  Implement  the  Principle  of 
Mutual Recognition of Decisions in Criminal Matters6 ("Programme of Measures"), 

2 

3 
4 
5 
6 

Explanations  relating  to  the  Charter  of  Fundamental  rights  (OJ  C  303,  14.12.2007),  annexed  to  the 
Charter, in the Explanation on Article 48 stipulate: "Article 48 is the same as Article 6 (2) and (3) of the 
ECHR [6(2) and 6(3) ECHR quoted]. In accordance with Article 52(3), this right has the same meaning 
and  scope  as  the  right  guaranteed  by  the  ECHR."  Article  52(3)  of  the  Charter  also  states:  "This 
provision shall not prevent Union law providing more extensive protection". 
15 and 16 October 1999. 
Conclusion 33. 
COM(2000) 495, 29.7.2000. 
OJ C 12, 15.1.2001, p. 10. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
11. 

12. 

13. 

14. 

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 Directive represents an embodiment of the stated aim of enhancing the 
protection of individual rights.  

The  Commission  put  forward  in  2004  a  comprehensive  proposal7  for  a  legislation 
covering some important rights of defendants in criminal proceedings. This proposal 
could not be adopted by Council.  

On  30  November  2009,  the  Justice  Council  adopted  a  Roadmap  for  strengthening 
procedural rights of suspected or accused persons in criminal proceedings8 calling for 
the adoption of five measures covering some important procedural rights, based on a 
"step-by-step"  approach  and  inviting  the  Commission  to  present  the  necessary 
proposals to this end. The first measure envisaged in the Roadmap concerns the right 
to interpretation and translation.  

The  Stockholm  Programme,  adopted  by  the  European  Council  of  10-11  December 
20099,  reaffirmed  the  importance  of  the  rights  of  the  individual  in  criminal 
proceedings  as  a  fundamental  value  of  the  Union  and  an  essential  component  of 
mutual  trust  between  Member  States  and  of  public  confidence  in  the  EU.  The 
Stockholm  Programme  refers  to  the  Roadmap  as  being  integral  part  of  the 
multiannual  programme  and  calls  on  the  Commission  to  come  forward  with 
appropriate proposals for its swift implementation. 

3. 

THE  RIGHT  TO  TRANSLATION  AND  INTERPRETATION  AS  ESTABLISHED  UNDER  THE 
ECHR AND UNDER THE EU CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS 

15. 

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.” 

(…) 

7 
8 
9 

COM(2004) 328, 28.4.2004. 
OJ C 295, 4.12.2009, p. 1. 
European Council Conclusions, 10-11 December 2009. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
(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." 

The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union enshrines these rights in 
its Articles 6 and 47 to 50. In particular, Article 47 guarantees the right to a fair trial, 
including the right to legal advice and representation; Article 48 guarantees respect 
for the presumption of innocence and the rights of the defence10. 

The  European  Court  of  Human  Rights  (ECtHR)  has  held  in  relation  to  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. 
Germany11.  In  Kamasinski  v.  Austria12,  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. Italy13). 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 not14. The interpreter must be 

See footnote 2. 
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)”. 

16. 

10 
11 

12 
13 
14 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
17. 

18. 

19. 

competent and the judge must safeguard the fairness of the proceedings (Cuscani v. 
UK15).  

The proposal for a draft Directive sets out minimum requirements and builds on the 
ECHR  and  the  case-law  of  the  ECtHR.  The  Commission's  Reflection  Forum  on 
Multilingualism and Interpreter Training16 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  Directorate-General  for  Interpretation 
during  2008  to  identify  whether  there  was  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.  

The  Directorate-General  for  Translation  of  the  European  Commission  (DGT)  has 
launched  the  European  Master's  degree  in  Translation  (EMT)  initiative.  In 
cooperation  with  an  expert  group  consisting  of  eminent  academics,  a  reference 
framework,  made  up  of  six  competencies,  for  translator's  university  education  has 
been created. In September 2009, the DGT set up a network of high-level translation 
programmes  at  Masters'  level  throughout  the  EU  to  pursue  excellence  in  translator 
education,  including  the  specialised  field  of  legal  translation,  and  enhance  the 
translator profession in all member states. 

Where necessary, appropriate use may be made of funding possibilities available at 
the level of the European Union to support member States' efforts to comply with the 
requirements of this legislation, in particular as regards State-funded translation and 
interpretation facilities.  

4. 

SPECIFIC PROVISIONS 

Article 1 - Scope of application  

19. 

20. 

The  scope  covers  criminal  proceedings  and  proceedings  for  the  execution  of  a 
European Arrest Warrant. It covers any person from the time that they are suspected 
of  having  committed  a  criminal  offence  until  the  conclusion  of  the  proceedings 
(including any appeal). It is an important point that European Arrest Warrant cases 
are  covered  since  the  Framework  Decision  on  the  European  Arrest  Warrant  only 
addresses  these  rights  in  general  terms.  In  this  respect,  the  proposal  is  a  further 
development of Article 5 ECHR. 

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. 

15 
16 

24 September 2002 - No. 3277/96. 
http://ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/orban/docs/FinalL_Reflection_Forum_Report_en.pdf 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Article 2 - Right to interpretation  

21. 

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.  This  includes 
interpretation  of  communication  between  the  suspected  or  accused  person  and  his 
lawyer. There should be a system in place to ascertain whether the person needs an 
interpreter and for the person to challenge a decision that an interpreter is not needed 
or to challenge the quality of the interpretation. 

22. 

European Arrest Warrant proceedings are explicitly covered.  

Article 3 - Right to translation of essential documents 

23. 

24. 

25. 

The  suspect  has  the  right  to  written  translation  of  essential  documents  in  order  to 
safeguard  the  fairness  of  the  proceedings.  In  Kamasinski  v.  Austria17,  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  himself18.  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). If the documents 
are very lengthy, translations can be limited to the relevant passages.  

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

A  person  may  also  waive  their  right  to  translation  on  the  condition  that  they  have 
received legal advice beforehand. 

Article 4 - Costs of interpretation and translation 

26. 

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, 

17 
18 

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 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
even in the event of his conviction was established in Luedicke, Belkacem and Koç v. 
Germany19.  

Article 5 - Quality of the interpretation and translation 

27. 

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 Training20.  

Article 6 - Non-regression clause 

28. 

The purpose of this Article is to ensure that setting common minimum standards in 
accordance  with  this  Directive  does  not  have  the  effect  of  lowering  standards  in 
certain  Member  States  and  that  the  standards  set  in  the  European  Convention  on 
Human Rights, in the Charter of Fundamental Rights and in other relevant provisions 
of international law are maintained. Member States remain entirely at liberty to set 
standards higher than those agreed in this Directive. 

Article 7 – Implementation 

29. 

This  Article  requires  that  Member  States  must  implement  the  Directive  by  xx/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 

30. 

12  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  Directive, 
accompanied, if necessary, by legislative proposals. 

Article 9 - Entry into force 

31. 

5. 

32. 

19 

20 

This  Article  provides  that  the  Directive  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  rules  in  respect  of  interpretation  and  translation  in  criminal 

“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 14 above. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
proceedings in order to build mutual trust. The proposal therefore complies with the 
subsidiarity principle. 

6. 

33. 

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 

9 

   EN 

 
2010/0050 (COD) 

Proposal for a 

DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 

on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings 

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 

Having  regard  to  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the  European  Union,  and  in  particular 
Article 82(2) thereof, 

Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission21, 

After transmission of the draft legislative act to the national Parliaments, 

Having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee22, 

Having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions23, 

Acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, 

Whereas: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights enshrines the right to a fair trial, 
including  the  right  to  legal  advice  and  representation.  Article  48  of  the  Charter 
guarantees respect for the presumption of innocence and the rights of the defence. 

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 matters24.  The  introduction to the programme of  measures  explains that 
mutual  recognition  is  "designed  to  strengthen  cooperation  between  Member  States 
but also to enhance the protection of individual rights". 

(4) 

Implementation  of  the  principle  of  mutual  recognition  of  decisions  in  criminal 
matters  presupposes  that  Member  States  have  trust  in  each  other's  criminal  justice 

21 
22 
23 
24 

OJ C , , p. . 
OJ C , , p. . 
OJ C , , p. . 
OJ C 12, 15.1.2001, p. 10. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
                                                 
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"25  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 partners' rules, but also trust that these rules are 
correctly applied"26.  

Although  all  Member  States  are  parties  to  the  European  Convention  for  the 
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 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  82(2)  of  the  Treaty  provides  for  the  establishment  of  minimum  rules 
applicable in the Member States so as to facilitate mutual recognition of judgments 
and judicial decisions and police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters having 
a  cross-border  dimension.  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. 

On  30  November  2009,  the  Council  adopted  the  Roadmap  on  Procedural  Rights 
which requested the Commission to put forward proposals on a "step by step" basis, 
on  the  right  to  interpretation  and  translation,  the  right  to  information  about  rights,, 
the  right  to  legal  advice,  before  trial  and  at  trial,  the  right  for  a  detained  person  to 
communicate  with  family  members,  employers  and  consular  authorities,  and 
protection for vulnerable suspects.  

This  Directive,  the  first  measure  on  the  Roadmap,  should  lay  down  common 
standards  to  be  applied  in  the  fields  of  interpretation  and  translation  in  criminal 
proceedings in order to enhance the necessary confidence among Member States.  

The  right  to  interpretation  and  translation  for  those  who  do  not  understand  the 
language of the proceedings are enshrined in Article 6 of the ECHR, as interpreted 
by  the  case  law  of  the  European  Court  of  Human  Rights.  The  Directive  should 
facilitate the application of those rights in practice, with a view to safeguarding the 
right to fair proceedings. 

The  rights  provided  for  in  this  Directive  should  also  apply  to  proceedings  for  the 
execution of a European Arrest Warrant. Executing Members States should provide, 
and  bear  the  costs  for,  interpretation  and  translation  for  any  requested  person  who 
does not understand or speak the language of the proceedings.  

The suspected or accused person should be able, inter alia, to explain his version of 
the events to his legal counsel, point out any statements with which he disagrees and 
make his legal counsel aware of any facts that should be put forward in his defence.  

(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

(9) 

(10) 

(11) 

(12) 

25 
26 

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

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(13) 

(14) 

(15) 

(16) 

(17) 

(18) 

(19) 

The finding that there is no need for interpretation or translation should be subject to 
the  possibility  of  review.  Member  States  should  ensure  that  the  suspect  or  accused 
person  has  the  right  to  challenge  a  decision  finding  that  there  is  no  need  for 
interpretation including cases where interpretation or translation is so deficient that it 
amounts to an absence of interpretation.  

The duty of care towards suspects or accused persons who are in a potentially weak 
position,  in  particular  because  of  physical  impairments  which  affect  their  ability  to 
communicate  effectively,  underpins  a  fair  administration  of  justice.  The  competent 
authorities should therefore ensure that these persons are able effectively to exercise 
the  rights  provided  for  under  this  Directive,  by  being  aware  of  any  potential 
vulnerability  that  affects  their  ability  to  follow  the  proceedings  and  to  make 
themselves understood and by taking appropriate steps to safeguard these rights. 

The  fairness  of  the  proceedings  requires  that  essential  documents  should  be 
translated for the benefit of the suspect or accused person. Essential documents that 
should be translated include any decision depriving a person of his liberty, the charge 
or indictment, key documentary evidence and any judgment.  

A waiver of the right to written translation of documents should be unequivocal and 
only be valid after legal advice has been received. 

The  effectiveness  of  interpretation  and  translation  should  be  ensured  by  various 
means  such  as  offering  training  to  judges,  lawyers,  prosecutors,  police  and  other 
relevant  court  staff  so  as  to  raise  awareness  of  the  situation  of  those  needing  and 
those providing interpretation.  

This  Directive  should  set  minimum  rules.  Member  States  should  be  able  to  extend 
the rights set out in this Directive in order to provide a higher level of protection also 
in situations not explicitly dealt with in this Directive. The level of protection should 
never  go  below  the  standards  provided  by  the  European  Convention  on  Human 
Rights, as interpreted in the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. 

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

(20)  Member States should ensure that the provisions of this Directive, which correspond 
to rights guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights are implemented 
consistently with them as well as with the relevant case-law of the European Court of 
Human Rights.  

(21) 

Since  the  aim  of  achieving  common  minimum  standards  cannot  be  achieved  by 
Member States acting unilaterally, neither at central nor at regional or local level, and 
can only be achieved at Union level, the European Parliament and the Council may 
adopt  measures  in  accordance  with  the  principle  of  subsidiarity  as  referred  to  in 
Article  5  of  the  Treaty  on  European  Union.  In  accordance  with  the  principle  of 
proportionality, as set out in the same Article, this Directive does not exceed what is 
necessary in order to achieve that objective. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
(22) 

In  accordance  with  Articles  1,  2,  3  and  4  of  Protocol  on  the  position  of  United 
Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice, annexed 
to  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the  European  Union,  the  United  Kingdom  and 
Ireland  have  notified  of  their  wish  to  participate  in  the  adoption  and  application  of 
this  Directive]  /  [Without  prejudice  to  Article  4  of  Protocol  on  the  position  of  the 
United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice, 
the United Kingdom and Ireland will not participate in the adoption of this Directive 
and  will  not  be  bound  by  or  be  subject  to  its  application]27.  In  accordance  with 
Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol on the position of Denmark annexed to the Treaty on the 
Functioning  of  the  European  Union,  Denmark  is  not  taking  part  in  the  adoption  of 
this Directive and is therefore not bound by it or subject to its application 

HAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE: 

Article 1 
Subject-matter and scope  

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

Member States should ensure that these rights referred to in paragraph 1 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. 

Article 2 
The right to interpretation  

Member  States  shall  ensure  that  a  suspect  or  accused  person  who  does  not 
understand and speak the language of the criminal proceedings concerned is provided 
without delay with interpretation of  a quality sufficient 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  or  accused  person  understands  and  speaks  the  language  of  the  criminal 
proceedings. 

Member  States  shall  ensure  that  the  suspect  or  accused  person  has  the  right  to 
challenge a decision finding that there is no need for interpretation.  

The final wording of this recital in the Directive will depend on the actual position of the UK and IE, 
taken in accordance with the provisions of Protocol No 21.  

1. 

2. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

27 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
                                                 
5. 

6. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

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. 

Article 3 
The right to written translation of essential documents 

Member  States  shall  ensure  that  a  suspect  or  accused  person  who  does  not 
understand  the  language  of  the  criminal  proceedings  concerned  is  provided  with 
written translations of all essential documents of a quality sufficient 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  accused  person  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  the  suspect  or  accused  person  has  the  right  to 
challenge a decision finding that there is no need for translation. 

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. 

A person who has a right under this Article to translation of documents may waive 
the right after receiving legal advice on the point. 

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, irrespective of the outcome of proceedings. 

Article 5 
Effectiveness of the interpretation and translation 

1. 

2. 

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

Member  States  shall  offer  training  to  judges,  lawyers,  prosecutors,  police  officers 
and  other  relevant  court  personnel  in  order  to  ensure  the  suspect’s  ability  to 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
understand  the  proceedings  and  to  better  comprehend    the  role  of  interpreters  and 
translators.  

Article 6 
Non-regression clause 

Nothing in this Directive 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,  under  the  EU  Charter  of 
Fundamental Rights, under other relevant provisions of international law or under the laws of 
any Member States which provide a higher level of protection. 

Article 7 
Implementation 

1. 

2. 

3. 

Member  States  shall  bring  into  force  the  laws,  regulations  and  administrative 
provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by …* (* - 24 months after the 
day in which this Directive enters into force) 

When  Member  States  adopt  those  measures,  they  shall  contain  a  reference  to  this 
Directive  or  shall  be  accompanied  by  such  a  reference  on  the  occasion  of  their 
official publication. The methods of making such reference shall be laid down by the 
Member States. 

Member  States  shall  transmit  to  the  Commission  the  text  of  the  provisions 
transposing  into  their  national  law  the  obligations  imposed  on  them  under  this 
Directive  together  with  a  table  showing  how  the  provisions  of  this  Directive 
correspond to the national provisions adopted. 

Article 8 
Report 

The  Commission  shall,  by  ……….  [36  months  after  publication  of  this  Directive  in  the 
Official Journal] 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  Directive,  accompanied,  if  necessary,  by  legislative  proposals.  The  report  shall  also 
address the future cost implications of the measures taken by Member States pursuant to this 
Directive. 

Article 9 
Entry into force 

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

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
Article 10 

This Directive is addressed to the Member States in accordance with the Treaties. 

Done at Brussels,  

For the European Parliament 
The President 

For the Council 
The President 

EN 

16 

   EN