People in Europe facing criminal proceedings outside of their country of residence are faced with language problems if they are not acquainted with the language of the country where they are being prosecuted.
In 2009 the Swedish Presidency of the Council of the EU presented a roadmap on procedural rights in criminal proceedings and requested the European Commission to draw up wide-ranging proposals, including on interpretation and translation of procedural documents in the native language of the suspect or the person accused. That same year the Ministers of Justice and Home Affairs of the 27 member states agreed that the rights included in the road map are fundamental procedural rights and that therefore “action in respect of these rights should be given priority at this stage.”
The Treaty of Lisbon, which came into force in December 2009 envisages that minimum rules will be adopted in relation to the mutual admissibility of evidence, rights of individuals and victims of crime in criminal proceedings. Having common minimum standards in relation to these rights should improve the functioning of judicial cooperation between member states of the EU.
Last year, in April, the European Parliament gave its backing to draft EU legislation on the issue. Consequently, the European Commission, in July 2010, presented a proposal on the right to information in criminal proceedings to foster closer cooperation between member states’ procedural rules as regards interpretation and translation. The proposal aims to set common minimum standards throughout the EU to improve the rights of suspects.
Under the proposal all suspects or accused persons in criminal proceedings, including persons subject to a European Arrest Warrant, who do not understand or speak the language used, are entitled to interpretation and translation free of charge at all stages of criminal proceedings, including any appeals. Member states must also ensure that the right to interpretation is extended to legal advice given to the suspect or accused. The costs of interpretation and translation are to be borne by the member states.
If adopted, the proposed directive would ensure that persons suspected or accused of having committed a crime on EU soil receive written translations of all essential documents – including the detention order, charge sheet and indictment – when facing trial outside of their country of residence, rather than having to rely upon oral translations summarising the evidence. Other rights granted by the proposed directive include the right of the suspect or accused person to be informed about his rights in writing; the right to written information about rights in European Arrest Warrant proceedings; and the right to information about the charge. Moreover the proposal requires member states to establish a procedure to ascertain whether the suspect or accused person has received all information to which he is entitled, and if not, the applicable remedies.
Member states were divided on whether the EU has competence to legislate on purely domestic proceedings or whether the legislation should only cover cross-border cases. In fact during the period 2004-2007, Malta was one of six member states blocking the adoption of the original proposal, adopted by the Commission in 2001, on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings, the scope of which was considered to be too broad. The position adopted by the Maltese government on the current proposal is that in principle it supports the provisions of the directive, but will put forward certain positions to ensure that it will not create an excessive administrative burden on the authorities responsible for its implementation.
Brenda Azzopardi is an Executive,
EU Policy & Legislation, MEUSAC