In e na ional Jou nal o he Semio ics o Law - Re ue in e na ionale de Sémio ique ju idique
h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s11196-025-10304-w
Abs ac
Eu opean legal s anda ds on he igh o in e p e a ion and ansla ion in c iminal
p oceedings we e signi ican ly imp o ed wi h he adop ion o Di ec i e 2010/64/
EU, as e idenced by ecen de elopmen s in he case law o he Eu opean Cou o
Human Righ s and in he domes ic legisla ion and case law o EU Membe S a es.
Po ugal is a good illus a ion o hese de elopmen s, while also p o iding nuance
o he o e all pic u e. A e ini ially dismissing he need o in oduce any changes
o i s legal amewo k, Po ugal inally amended i s Code o C iminal P ocedu e in
2023 o comply wi h he Di ec i e, and i s cou s ha e seen an exponen ial ise in
li iga ion ela ed o linguis ic assis ance in ecen yea s. The e is, howe e , consid-
e able dispa i y in he case law o di e en appella e cou s, and he e a e also s ill
some un esol ed issues, such as he ime ame o plead he nulli y a ising om he
ailu e o appoin an in e p e e , he measu es o ensu e he quali y o he in e p e a-
ion and ansla ion p o ided, and he aining o judges, p osecu o s, and judicial
s a on he pa icula i ies o communica ing wi h he assis ance o an in e p e e
and o wo king in mul ilingual se ings mo e b oadly. Analysing he case law and
he iews exp essed by judges, p osecu o s, a o neys, and legal in e p e e s/ ansla-
o s du ing g oup and indi idual in e iews conduc ed be ween 2020 and 2022 in
he con ex o a esea ch p ojec on equali y and cul u al di e si y in he p ac ice
o Po uguese cou s, his a icle examines he legal de elopmen s p omp ed by
Di ec i e 2010/64/EU a he in e na ional/sup ana ional Eu opean le el and in he
Po uguese legal sys em, and discusses he pe sis ence o linguis ic obs acles o
equal access o jus ice and an e ec i e igh o a ai ial in Po ugal.
Keywo ds Legal ansla ion · Di ec i e 2010/64/EU · Access o jus ice ·
Language ba ie s · Po ugal
Accep ed: 19 May 2025
© The Au ho (s) 2025
Legal T ansla ion and he Challenges o O e coming
Language Ba ie s in Cou P ac ice: E idence om
Po uguese Cou s
Pa íciaJe ónimo1
Pa ícia Je ónimo
[email p o ec ed]
1 Law School, Uni e si y o Minho, B aga, Po ugal
1 3
P. Je ónimo
1 In oduc ion
Di ec i e 2010/64/EU o he Eu opean Pa liamen and o he Council o 20 Oc o-
be 2010 on he igh o in e p e a ion and ansla ion in c iminal p oceedings was
p esen ed as aiming solely o ‘ acili a e’ he p ac ical applica ion o he igh o
in e p e a ion and ansla ion ensh ined in A icle 6 o he Eu opean Con en ion on
Human Righ s (ECHR) o hose suspec ed o accused o ha ing commi ed a c imi-
nal o ence who do no speak o unde s and he language o he p oceedings ( eci al
14 o Di ec i e 2010/64/EU). This modes y is misplaced, howe e . While i is ue
ha he igh o linguis ic assis ance in c iminal p oceedings has a long adi ion in
in e na ional human igh s law, and i can be a gued ha he inal ex o he Di ec-
i e ell sho o wha was ini ially en isioned by he Eu opean Commission and o
wha is conside ed necessa y in he li e a u e [11: 530–541], i seems undeniable
ha Di ec i e 2010/64/EU ep esen ed a signi ican imp o emen o he legal land-
scape on p ocedu al igh s in Eu ope. O no e a e, in e alia, explici ecogni ion o
he igh s o (a) be p o ided wi h in e p e a ion du ing c iminal p oceedings be o e
in es iga i e au ho i ies (including du ing police ques ioning) and in communica-
ions wi h legal counsel; (b) o challenge a decision inding ha he e is no need o
in e p e a ion; (c) o be p o ided, wi hin a easonable pe iod o ime, wi h a w i en
ansla ion o all essen ial documen s (including any cha ge o indic men , and any
judgmen ); and (d) o complain ha he quali y o he in e p e a ion o ansla ion
is no su icien o sa egua d he ai ness o he p oceedings. Di ec i e 2010/64/EU
impac ed no only he domes ic legal sys ems o EU Membe S a es, which we e due
o anspose i in o hei own legal sys ems by 27 Oc obe 2013, bu also he case law
o he Eu opean Cou o Human Righ s (EC HR), as e idenced by he judgmen in
Vizgi da . Slo enia (2018), whe e he EC HR elied ex ensi ely on he egime se by
Di ec i e 2010/64/EU o i s in e p e a ion o A icle 6 ECHR.1
To say ha equal access o jus ice and he igh o a ai ial equi e ha pe -
sons in e ac ing wi h he jus ice sys em ha e he oppo uni y o unde s and he p o-
ceedings and no be hinde ed by language ba ie s would appea o be a uism ha
should apply ac oss he boa d o all ju isdic ions (c iminal, ci il, adminis a i e),
ac o s (de endan s, wi nesses, ic ims, e c.) and subjec ma e s, including no only
c iminal law, bu also immig a ion and asylum law, amily law, labou law, e c. And
indeed, he e has been no sho age o calls o he ecogni ion o he igh o linguis ic
assis ance in o he a eas o law as a means o ensu e e ec i e and non-disc imina o y
access o jus ice o e e yone [e.g., 15: 2–3; 6: 22; 7: 43]. The minimum s anda ds
ag eed a he in e na ional le el, howe e , a ely go beyond he igh s o suspec s o
accused pe sons in c iminal p oceedings (wi h a ew no able excep ions, e.g., pe sons
1 Judgmen o 28 Augus 2018, applica ion No. 59,868/08, §§ 52–57 and 82–85.
1 3
Legal T ansla ion and he Challenges o O e coming Language Ba ie s…
wi h disabili ies,2 asylum seeke s,3 ic ims o c ime,4 and non-EU immig an s sub-
jec o e u n decisions5).
While he need o linguis ic assis ance in judicial se ings is on he ise – and, as
no ed abo e, has long been a ea u e in c iminal p oceedings, he linguis ic assis ance
p o ided in domes ic cou s lea es much o be desi ed. A numbe o ac o s con-
ibu e o his s a e o a ai s, including a sho age o quali ied in e p e e s o legal
in e p e a ion in he equi ed language combina ions [e.g., 2: 109–111; 16: 89–90; 8:
143–144], misconcep ions among in e p e e s, de endan s, and judicial ac o s alike
as o he ole o in e p e e s in c iminal p oceedings (e.g., o whose bene i hey a e
wo king, how complex hei asks a e, how neu al hey can be, and wha ype o
expe ise hey a e expec ed o p o ide), and lack o sensi i i y on he pa o judicial
ac o s as o he speci ic demands o wo king wi h in e p e e s and he consequences
ha language ba ie s may ha e on de endan s’ exe cise o hei igh s o de ence
[e.g., 15: 5; 20: 645–646; 14: 150–153].
These di icul ies a e amply documen ed and a ec he judicial sys ems in all
Wes e n democ acies [e.g., 15: 14, 26; 1: 201; 3: 208; 6; 10; 20; 17]. They ea u ed
p ominen ly in he Eu opean Commission’s p oposals o s eng hen suspec ed and
accused pe sons’ igh s in he EU,6 which e en ually led o he Eu opean Council’s
2009 adop ion o he Roadmap o S eng hening P ocedu al Righ s o Suspec ed o
Accused Pe sons in C iminal P oceedings and o he subsequen adop ion o se e al
di ec i es on p ocedu al sa egua ds, including Di ec i e 2010/64/EU and Di ec i e
2012/13/EU o 22 May 2012 on he igh o in o ma ion in c iminal p oceedings, o
which I will also be e e ing h oughou his a icle.
In e iewing he case law o Po uguese cou s on legal in e p e a ion and ansla-
ion in c iminal p oceedings o e he yea s, and discussing he indings o in e iews
wi h judicial ac o s in Po ugal abou hei expe iences in mul ilingual cases, his a i-
cle aims o con ibu e o ongoing deba es on he linguis ic obs acles o equal access
o jus ice in Eu ope ha pe sis in spi e o Di ec i e 2010/64/EU. The e olu ion o
he domes ic case law and he opinions oiced by judicial ac o s will be discussed
agains he backg ound p o ided by he cu en in e na ional and sup ana ional legal
s anda ds on suspec s and accused pe sons’ igh s o linguis ic assis ance in c iminal
p oceedings and hei inco po a ion in o Po uguese s a u o y law.
2 A icle 13 o he 2007 UN Con en ion on he Righ s o Pe sons wi h Disabili ies.
3 A icles 10(5), 12(1)(b), 15(3)(c), and 17(3) o Di ec i e 2013/32/EU o 26 June 2013 on common p o-
cedu es o g an ing and wi hd awing in e na ional p o ec ion.
4 A icles 5 and 7 o Di ec i e 2012/29/EU o 25 Oc obe 2012 es ablishing minimum s anda ds on he
igh s, suppo and p o ec ion o ic ims o c ime, and eplacing Council F amewo k Decision 2001/220/
JHA.
5 A icles 12 and 13 o Di ec i e 2008/115/EC o 16 Decembe 2008 on common s anda ds and p ocedu es
in Membe S a es o e u ning illegally s aying hi d-coun y na ionals.
6 No ably in he Commission’s G een Pape on P ocedu al Sa egua ds o Suspec s and De endan s in
C iminal P oceedings h oughou he Eu opean Union [COM(2003) 75 inal, o 19 Feb ua y 2003],
and P oposal o a Council F amewo k Decision on Ce ain P ocedu al Righ s in C iminal P oceedings
h oughou he Eu opean Union [COM(2004) 328 inal, o 28 Ap il 2004].
1 3
P. Je ónimo
2 Suspec s and Accused Pe sons’ Righ s o Linguis ic Assis ance in
Eu opean In e na ional and Sup ana ional Law
2.1 The Righ o Be In o med o he Cha ges and o he Righ o Linguis ic
Assis ance in a Language Which They Unde s and
Acco ding o A icle 6(3)(a) ECHR, pe sons cha ged wi h a c iminal o ence ha e
he igh o be in o med p omp ly, in a language hey unde s and and in de ail, o
he na u e and cause o he accusa ion agains hem. While his wo ding migh sug-
ges ha me e suspec s (i.e., pe sons no ye o mally indic ed o accused) would
no be able o a ail hemsel es o his igh , he EC HR has ound on mul iple occa-
sions ha suspec s who a e ques ioned abou hei in ol emen in ac s cons i u ing
c iminal o ences a e also en i led o p o ec ion unde his p o ision (e.g., Aleksand
Zaichenko . Russia7). Wi h Di ec i es 2010/64/EU and 2012/13/EU he e is no lon-
ge any ma gin o doub , in any case, since hey explici ly apply o suspec ed o
accused pe sons om he ime hey a e made awa e by he compe en au ho i ies ha
hey a e suspec ed o accused o ha ing commi ed a c iminal o ence.8
Di ec i e 2012/13/EU equi es Membe S a es o ensu e ha suspec s o accused
pe sons a e p o ided p omp ly wi h in o ma ion conce ning ce ain p ocedu al igh s,
among which is he igh o in e p e a ion and ansla ion, o allow o hose igh s o
be exe cised e ec i ely. The in o ma ion mus be gi en in simple and accessible lan-
guage, aking in o accoun any pa icula needs o ulne able suspec s o ulne able
accused pe sons, bu may be gi en o ally o in w i ing [A icle 3(1)(d) and (2)]. Fo
suspec s o accused pe sons who a e a es ed o de ained, s a es mus ensu e ha hey
a e p o ided p omp ly wi h a w i en Le e o Righ s, d a ed in simple and acces-
sible language, in a language ha he pe sons unde s and. Whe e a Le e o Righ s is
no a ailable in he app op ia e language, hey mus be in o med o hei igh s o ally
in a language ha hey unde s and and be gi en wi hou undue delay a w i en Le e
o Righ s in a language ha hey unde s and [A icle 4(1)(4)(5)].9
The impo ance o in o ming suspec s o accused pe sons o hei igh s o in e -
p e a ion and ansla ion, in a language ha hey unde s and, was s essed by he
EC HR in he al eady men ioned Vizgi da . Slo enia (§§ 86–87) and in Wang .
F ance (2022).10 The Cou o Jus ice o he EU (CJEU) also s essed he poin in TL
(2022), a p elimina y uling eques ed by Po ugal’s É o a Cou o Appeal in c imi-
nal p oceedings agains a Moldo an na ional. One o he issues a s ake was whe he
7 Judgmen o 18 Feb ua y 2010, applica ion No. 39,660/02, §§ 41–43.
8 A icle 1(2) o Di ec i e 2010/64/EU and A icle 2(1) o Di ec i e 2012/13/EU.
9 An indica i e model Le e o Righ s is annexed o Di ec i e 2012/13/EU. Unde he heading ‘In e p e a-
ion and ansla ion’ he Le e o Righ s is equi ed o ead as ollows: ‘I you do no speak o unde s and
he language spoken by he police o o he compe en au ho i ies, you ha e he igh o be assis ed by an
in e p e e , ee o cha ge. The in e p e e may help you o alk o you lawye and mus keep he con en
o ha communica ion con iden ial. You ha e he igh o ansla ion o a leas he ele an passages
o essen ial documen s, including any o de by a judge allowing you a es o keeping you in cus ody,
any cha ge o indic men and any judgmen . You may in some ci cums ances be p o ided wi h an o al
ansla ion o summa y’.
10 Judgmen o 28 Ap il 2022, applica ion No. 83,700/17, §§ 73–78.
1 3
Legal T ansla ion and he Challenges o O e coming Language Ba ie s…
a p o ision – such as ha in A icle 120 o Po ugal’s Code o C iminal P ocedu e,
which equi es ha he nulli y esul ing om he ailu e o appoin an in e p e e
mus be pleaded be o e he ac is inalised i he pe son conce ned is p esen a he
ac – complies wi h EU law. The CJEU held ha i would be con a y o EU law o
equi e he pe sons in ol ed in c iminal p oceedings conduc ed in a language ha
hey do no speak o unde s and o plead, wi hin a p esc ibed pe iod, ha hey ha e
no been in o med o hei igh s o in e p e a ion and ansla ion, ailing which ha
challenge will be ime-ba ed, as doing so would e ec i ely ende meaningless he
igh o be in o med as gua an eed by A icle 3(1)(d) o Di ec i e 2012/13/EU.11 The
CJEU no ed ha , wi hou being in o med o hei igh s o in e p e a ion and ansla-
ion, he pe sons conce ned could no know he exis ence and scope o hose igh s o
demand ha hey be espec ed, wi h he esul ha hey would no be able o exe cise
hei igh s o de ence ully and ha e a ai ial. The CJEU concluded, he e o e, ha
na ional legisla ion may no se a ime pe iod wi hin which he in ingemen o he
igh s o in e p e a ion and ansla ion mus be in oked, ailing which ha challenge
will be ime-ba ed.
2.2 The Righ o be Assis ed by an In e p e e F ee o Cha ge
A icle 6(3)(e) ECHR ecognises he igh o pe sons cha ged wi h a c iminal o ence
o ha e he ee assis ance o an in e p e e i hey canno unde s and o speak he
language used in cou . In i s p e-Di ec i e 2010/64/EU case law, he EC HR cla i-
ied, in e alia, ha he assis ance o an in e p e e should be p o ided om he in es-
iga ion s age, unless he e a e compelling easons o es ic his igh (Diallo .
Sweden12); he cos s wi h he in e p e a ion and ansla ion o he cha ges a e always
bo ne by he s a e, i espec i e o he de endan s’ inancial means, so he s a e is no
a libe y o demand eimbu semen o he in e p e a ion cos s (Luedicke, Belkacem
and Koç . Ge many13); he de endan ’s counsel’s knowledge o he language used in
cou is no , in gene al, su icien o dispense wi h he appoin men o an in e p e e ,
since he de endan mus ha e condi ions o unde s and he p oceedings and be able
o in o m his o he counsel o aspec s o include in he de ence (Kamasinski . Aus-
ia14); and he e i ica ion o he de endan ’s need o in e p e a ion acili ies is a
ma e o he ial judge o de e mine in consul a ion wi h he de endan (Cuscani .
Uni ed Kingdom15).
Di ec i e 2010/64/EU equi es ha Membe S a es ensu e ha suspec ed o accused
pe sons who do no speak o unde s and he language o he c iminal p oceedings16
a e p o ided, wi hou delay, wi h in e p e a ion du ing c iminal p oceedings be o e
in es iga i e and judicial au ho i ies, including du ing police ques ioning, in all cou
hea ings and any necessa y in e im hea ings [A icle 2(1)], wi h no ca ea o possi-
11 Judgmen o 1 Augus 2022, C-242/22 PPU, §§ 78–79.
12 Decision o 5 Janua y 2010, applica ion No. 13,205/07, § 25.
13 Judgmen o 28 No embe 1978, applica ions Nos. 6210/73, 6877/75 and 7132/75, §§ 45, 46 and 48.
14 Judgmen o 19 Decembe 1989, applica ion No. 9783/82, § 74.
15 Judgmen o 24 Sep embe 2002, applica ion No. 32,771/96, §§ 38–39.
16 As well as hose wi h hea ing o speech impedimen s, pe A icle 2(3).
1 3
P. Je ónimo
ble compelling easons o es ic he igh . Whe e necessa y o he pu pose o sa e-
gua ding he ai ness o he p oceedings, Membe S a es a e u he mo e equi ed
o ensu e ha in e p e a ion is a ailable o communica ion be ween suspec ed o
accused pe sons and hei legal counsel in di ec connec ion wi h any ques ioning o
hea ing du ing he p oceedings o wi h he lodging o an appeal o o he p ocedu al
applica ions [A icle 2(2)].17 I is up o he Membe S a es o es ablish a p ocedu e o
mechanism o asce ain whe he suspec ed o accused pe sons need he assis ance o
an in e p e e , bu hey mus ensu e ha hese pe sons ha e he igh o challenge a
decision inding ha he e is no need o in e p e a ion [A icle 2(4)(5)]. The cos s o
in e p e a ion a e bo ne by he s a es, i espec i e o he ou come o he p oceedings
(A icle 4).18 Membe S a es a e equi ed o keep a eco d o all he si ua ions whe e
a suspec ed o accused pe son has been subjec ed o ques ioning o hea ings by an
in es iga i e o judicial au ho i y wi h he assis ance o an in e p e e (A icle 7).
In Vizgi da . Slo enia, he EC HR s essed he impo ance o no ing in he eco d
any p ocedu e used and decision aken wi h ega d o he e i ica ion o in e p e -
ing needs, any no i ica ion o he igh o an in e p e e and any assis ance p o ided
by he in e p e e , such as o al ansla ion o o al summa y o documen s, so as o
o eclose any doub s ha may be aised in his ega d la e in he p oceedings (§ 85).
The EC HR s a ed, u he mo e, ha i is no necessa y o he de endan o make an
explici eques o in e p e a ion, since i is incumben on he au ho i ies in ol ed in
he p oceedings, in pa icula he domes ic cou s, o asce ain whe he he ai ness
o he ial equi es (o has equi ed) he appoin men o an in e p e e o assis he
de endan , whene e he e a e easons o suspec ha he de endan is no p o icien
enough in he language o he p oceedings, o example, i he o she is nei he a
na ional no a esiden o he coun y in which he p oceedings a e being conduc ed
(§ 81). The EC HR added in his ega d ha he ac ha he de endan has a basic
command o he language o he p oceedings (o o a hi d language in o which in e -
p e ing is eadily a ailable) should no by i sel ba ha indi idual om bene i ing
om in e p e ing in o a language he o she unde s ands well enough o ully exe cise
his o he de ence igh s (§ 83).19 The EC HR did no , howe e , de ail he p ecise
measu es ha should be aken by domes ic au ho i ies o e i y he linguis ic knowl-
edge o a de endan who is no su icien ly p o icien in he language o he p o-
ceedings, allowing only ha , in some cases, depending on ac o s such as he na u e
o he o ence and he communica ions add essed o he de endan by he domes ic
au ho i ies, a numbe o open-ended ques ions migh be su icien o es ablish he
de endan ’s language needs (§ 84).
17 Acco ding o he Eu opean Commission’s 2018 epo on he implemen a ion o Di ec i e 2010/64/
EU, compliance wi h his obliga ion was s ill subpa . COM (2018) 857 inal, o 18 Decembe 2018, p. 3.
18 Ano he aspec whe e compliance om Membe S a es had no ye been ully achie ed as o 2018,
acco ding o he Commission’s epo .
19 Gone a e he days when he EC HR made he assis ance by in e p e e dependan on he complexi y o
he c iminal o ence a ba , as was he case in, e.g., Güngö . Ge many, decision o 17 May 2001, applica-
ion No. 31,540/96, and He mi . I aly, judgmen o 18 Oc obe 2006, applica ion No. 18,114/02, § 71.
1 3
Legal T ansla ion and he Challenges o O e coming Language Ba ie s…
2.3 The Righ o be P o ided wi h a W i en T ansla ion o Essen ial Documen s
F ee o Cha ge
The igh o he ee assis ance o an in e p e e ecognised by A icle 6(3)(e) ECHR
has long been unde s ood o also co e he ansla ion o he documen s in he p o-
ceedings, which is necessa y o he de endan o ha e he bene i o a ai ial
(Luedicke, Belkacem and Koç . Ge many, § 48). Howe e , he e e ence o an ‘in e -
p e e ’ and no o a ‘ ansla o ’ sugges s ha o al linguis ic assis ance may sa is y he
equi emen s o he Con en ion (He mi . I aly, § 70), and he EC HR has allowed
ha he absence o a w i en ansla ion o a judgmen does no in i sel en ail a iola-
ion o A icle 6(3)(e) ECHR, p o ided ha he de endan is gi en o al explana ions
ha allow him o he o su icien ly unde s and he judgmen (Kamasinski . Aus ia,
§ 85).
He e, Di ec i e 2010/64/EU ep esen s a clea quali a i e leap, as i equi es
Membe S a es o ensu e ha suspec ed o accused pe sons who do no unde s and
he language o he c iminal p oceedings a e, wi hin a easonable pe iod o ime,
p o ided wi h a w i en ansla ion o all documen s ha a e essen ial o ensu e ha
hey a e able o exe cise hei igh o de ence, and explici ly lis s as examples o
essen ial documen s any decision dep i ing a pe son o his o he libe y, any cha ge
o indic men , and any judgmen [A icle 3(1)(2)].20 The compe en au ho i ies may
decide whe he any o he documen is essen ial, and suspec ed o accused pe sons
o hei legal counsel may submi a easoned eques o ha e ec [A icle 3(3)].
The eplacemen o he w i en ansla ion by an o al ansla ion o o al summa y
o essen ial documen s is allowed only in excep ional ci cums ances and on condi-
ion ha i does no p ejudice he ai ness o he p oceedings [A icle 3(7)]. Membe
S a es a e equi ed o ensu e ha suspec ed o accused pe sons ha e he igh o
challenge a decision inding ha he e is no need o he ansla ion o documen s o
passages he eo [A icle 3(5)], and any wai e by hem o hei igh o ansla ion
o documen s mus be unequi ocal, gi en olun a ily, and p eceded by legal ad ice
[A icle 3(8)]. The cos s o ansla ion a e bo ne by he s a es, i espec i e o he
ou come o he p oceedings (A icle 4). Membe S a es a e equi ed o keep a eco d
o all he si ua ions whe e an o al ansla ion o o al summa y o essen ial documen s
has been p o ided in he p esence o an in es iga i e o judicial au ho i y, o when a
pe son has wai ed he igh o ansla ion (A icle 7).
Howe e , in Co aci (2015), he CJEU held ha o equi e Membe S a es o ake
esponsibili y, as a ma e o cou se, o he ansla ion o e e y appeal b ough by
he pe sons conce ned agains a judicial decision ha is add essed o hem would go
beyond he objec i es pu sued by Di ec i e 2010/64/EU, and ci ed Kamasinski .
Aus ia in suppo o he idea ha a ai ial does no necessi a e a w i en ansla ion
o all i ems o w i en e idence o o icial documen s in he p ocedu e.21 The si ua ion
20 This does no mean, howe e , ha s a es a e equi ed o p o ide he ansla ion o passages o essen ial
documen s ha a e no ele an o he pu poses o enabling suspec ed o accused pe sons o ha e knowl-
edge o he case agains hem [A icle 3(4)]. In any case, he Eu opean Commission’s 2018 epo on he
implemen a ion o Di ec i e 2010/64/EU indica es ha compliance wi h he obliga ion o p o ide w i en
ansla ion o essen ial documen s has p o en challenging.
21 Judgmen o 15 Oc obe 2015, C-216/14, §§ 38–39.
1 3
P. Je ónimo
a issue in he main p oceedings conce ned a penal y o de adop ed on he basis o
a sui gene is p ocedu e, acco ding o which he only possibili y he accused pe son
had o ob aining a ial in which he could ully exe cise his igh o be hea d would
be o lodge an objec ion agains ha o de . Such an objec ion mus be lodged wi hin
a pa icula ly sho pe iod o ime, bu may be lodged o ally, by he accused pe son
himsel , and does no ha e o s a e easons; i lodged in w i ing, i mus be w i en in
he language o he p oceedings (in he case a hand, Ge man). The CJEU no ed ha
A icle 3 o Di ec i e 2010/64/EU conce ns, in p inciple, only he w i en ansla ion
in o he language unde s ood by he pe sons conce ned o ce ain documen s d awn
up in he language o he p oceedings by he compe en au ho i ies. I concluded
he e o e ha A icle 3 does no p eclude na ional legisla ion which does no pe mi
he indi idual agains whom a penal y o de has been made o lodge an objec ion in
w i ing in a language o he han ha o he p oceedings, p o ided ha he compe en
au ho i ies do no conside ha , in ligh o he p oceedings conce ned and he ci cum-
s ances o he case, such an objec ion cons i u es an essen ial documen (§§ 44–51).
On he o he hand, in Sleu jes (2017), he CJEU cla i ied ha a penal y o de
p o ided o in na ional law o imposing sanc ions in ela ion o mino o ences
and deli e ed by a judge ollowing a simpli ied unila e al p ocedu e cons i u es an
essen ial documen and mus he e o e be ansla ed in w i ing.22 Mo eo e , in TL,
men ioned ea lie , he CJEU conside ed as essen ial documen s he ‘decla a ion o
iden i y and esidence’ (DIR), he o de summoning he de endan o appea in cou
ollowing he ailu e o comply wi h he p oba ion condi ions, and he o de e ok-
ing he suspension o he p ison sen ence, since hese p ocedu al ac s a e an in eg al
pa o he p ocedu e which es ablished he de endan ’s c iminal liabili y (§§ 53 and
59).23 In P oku a u a Rejonowa Łódź-Bału y (2021), he CJEU held u he mo e
ha , unde A icle 20(3) o Council F amewo k Decision 2005/214/JHA (24 Feb u-
a y 2005) on he applica ion o he p inciple o mu ual ecogni ion o inancial penal-
ies, he au ho i y o he execu ing Membe S a e is allowed o e use o execu e a
decision imposing a inancial penal y o a oad a ic o ence, whe e ha decision
has been no i ied o he add essee he eo wi hou a ansla ion, in o a language which
he o she unde s ands, o he elemen s o he decision which a e essen ial in o de o
enable him o he o unde s and he cha ge, and wi hou ha add essee being a o ded
he oppo uni y o ob ain such a ansla ion on eques .24
22 Conside ing ha , unde Ge man law, he penal y o de ep esen s he i s oppo uni y o he accused
pe son o be in o med o he accusa ion agains him, i is bo h an indic men and a judgmen wi hin he
meaning o A icle 3(2) o Di ec i e 2010/64/EU. Judgmen o 12 Oc obe 2017, C-278/16, §§ 30–31 and
34.
23 The DIR is conside ed essen ial because unde Po uguese law i cons i u es a p elimina y coe ci e
measu e which se s ou a se ies o obliga ions o he pe sons conce ned and he p ocedu al consequences
in he e en o non-compliance (no ably, hei obliga ion no o change hei place o esidence wi hou
communica ing hei new add ess o he compe en au ho i ies), and he o de s because hey cons i u e
p ocedu al ac s which a e ancilla y o he sen encing o he pe sons conce ned (§§ 60–66).
24 Judgmen o 6 Oc obe 2021, C-338/20, § 44.
1 3
Legal T ansla ion and he Challenges o O e coming Language Ba ie s…
2.4 Quali y Sa egua ds
Conce n o e he quali y o he in e p e a ion and ansla ion p o ided o de endan s
in c iminal p oceedings, which was a he co e o he Eu opean Commission’s ini-
ia i e leading up o Di ec i e 2010/64/EU, is no new and has made he occasional
appea ance in he case law o he EC HR o e he yea s. In Kamasinski . Aus ia,
he EC HR no ed ha i was no called on o adjudica e on he Aus ian sys em o
egis e ed in e p e e s, bu held ha , o he igh o linguis ic assis ance o be p ac-
ical and e ec i e, he obliga ion o he compe en au ho i ies is no limi ed o he
appoin men o an in e p e e , and, i hey a e pu on no ice in he pa icula ci cum-
s ances, may also ex end o a deg ee o subsequen con ol o e he adequacy o he
in e p e a ion p o ided (§§ 73–74). On he o he hand, in Uçak . Uni ed Kingdom
(2002), he EC HR dismissed as mani es ly ill- ounded he applican ’s complain s o
lack o impa iali y and abili y on he pa o he in e p e e , no ing, in e alia, ha i
is no app op ia e o he Cou o lay down any de ailed condi ions conce ning he
me hod by which in e p e e s may be p o ided o assis accused pe sons. Mo eo e ,
since in e p e e s a e no pa o he cou o ibunal, he Cou de e mined ha he e
is no o mal equi emen o independence o impa iali y as such, and ha i is su -
icien i he se ices o he in e p e e p o ide he accused wi h e ec i e assis ance
in conduc ing his o he de ence and i he in e p e e ’s conduc is no o such a na u e
as o impinge on he ai ness o he p oceedings.25
Di ec i e 2010/64/EU equi es ha he in e p e a ion and ansla ion p o ided
mus be o a quali y su icien o ensu e ha suspec ed o accused pe sons ha e
knowledge o he case agains hem and a e able o exe cise hei igh o de ence
[A icles 2(8) and 3(9)], and ha Membe S a es mus ensu e, in acco dance wi h
p ocedu es in na ional law, ha suspec ed o accused pe sons ha e he possibili y o
complain ha he quali y o he in e p e a ion o ansla ion p o ided is no su icien
o sa egua d he ai ness o he p oceedings [A icles 2(5) and 3(5)]. In IS (2021),
he CJEU s essed ha Membe S a es ha e o ake conc e e measu es o ensu e ha
he quali y o he in e p e a ion and ansla ion p o ided is su icien and ha i can
be e iewed by he na ional cou s, adding ha accused pe sons may no be ied in
absen ia when, on accoun o inadequa e in e p e a ion, hey ha e no been in o med,
in a language which hey unde s and, o he accusa ion agains hem o whe e i is
impossible o asce ain he quali y o he in e p e a ion p o ided and he e o e o
es ablish ha hey ha e been in o med o he accusa ion agains hem.26 I ci ed, in e
alia, Knox . I aly (2019), whe e he EC HR had held ha a ailu e o he domes ic
25 Decision o 24 Janua y 2002, applica ion No. 44,234/98. Acco ding o he EC HR, he ac ha he
in e p e e was called by he police o he police s a ion o in e p e o he applican du ing he police
in e iew does no sugges any i egula i y o opp ession, much as he ac ha he in e p e e was lis ed
as a wi ness by he p osecu ion did no indica e ha she was associa ed wi h he p osecu ion. The EC HR
no ed, in e alia, ha he applican ’s solici o had ag eed wi h he e idence gi en by he in e p e e and
had no aised any complain abou he in e p e e ’s abili ies o conduc on appeal. The EC HR does no
seem o conside he ac ha communica ions wi h counsel and solici o s had been in e media ed by an
in e p e e a all imes and ha he applican ’s lack o us in he in e p e e migh ha e hinde ed his abili y
o con ey his complain s.
26 Judgmen o 23 No embe 2021, C-564/19, §§ 117–120 and 132–138.
1 3
P. Je ónimo
O he elling illus a ions o he p e-2010 Po uguese case law – aken now om
he case law o common cou s – a e he de ini ion o ‘sui able in e p e e ’ simply as
someone who could unde s and he de endan and be unde s ood by him;47 he ind-
ing ha he ECHR did no equi e he ansla ion o he decision placing an accused
pe son who did no unde s and Po uguese in p e- ial de en ion and ha i su iced
ha he compe en o eign ep esen a ion in Po ugal be in o med o he de en ion
so ha hey could assis hei co-na ional;48 he inding ha he p oximi y be ween
Spanish ( he de endan ’s mo he ongue) and Po uguese was such ha he de en-
dan could easily ha e unde s ood he ull ex en o he accusa ion in w i ing and in
Po uguese;49 he inding ha he nulli y esul ing om he absence o an in e p e e
a he ime when he compe en au ho i ies had d a ed he indic men and he DIR
had no been pleaded be o e he end o he ac and was he e o e ec i ied;50 and he
inding ha i was no necessa y o appoin an in e p e e o conduc an alcohol es
on a pe son who did no unde s and Po uguese, since he pe son conce ned had no
ye been o mally indic ed.51
As men ioned ea lie , he e a e also coun e examples o p e-2010 judgmen s in
which he cou s s ongly a i med he impo ance o e ec i e linguis ic assis ance o
allow suspec ed o accused pe sons who did no unde s and Po uguese o exe cise
hei igh s o de ence. In i s judgmen o 26 June 2007,52 he É o a Cou o Appeal
s essed ha accused pe sons ha e a pe sonal igh o be no i ied o he accusa ion
in a language ha hey unde s and, and ha i did no su ice o se e he no i ica ion
on hei legal counsel. I added ha he igh is only e ec i e wi h he no i ica ion
o he accusa ion o he de endan in w i ing and ully ansla ed, which ende ed
p ocedu ally null and oid he no i ica ion o an accusa ion w i en in Po uguese
o a de endan who only unde s ood Manda in. In i s judgmen o 1 Ap il 2008,53
he É o a Cou o Appeal held ha , while he posi ions a de endan who does no
unde s and Po uguese and one whose mo he ongue is Po uguese can ne e be
ully equi alen , gi en he exis ence o linguis ic in e media ion, i is he na ional
cou ’s esponsibili y o ensu e ha he equi alency is as close as possible. I held
u he mo e ha he igh o be assis ed by an in e p e e and o use he bene i s o
ha assis ance could no be es ic ed acco ding o he na u e o he p oceedings, and
should co e no only he assis ance du ing he ial, bu also he unde s anding o any
o al o w i en ac s in he p oceedings, e en i limi ed o he simple communica ion
be ween he de endan and his o he legal counsel. Ci ing he le e and spi i o he
ECHR, he Cou held ha , while Po uguese law did no ecognise he igh o he
ansla ion o all o de s issued in c iminal p oceedings, A icle 113(9) [cu en (10)]
o he Code o C iminal P ocedu e should be in e p e ed as equi ing he ansla ion
47 Lisbon Cou o Appeal judgmen o 30 June 1992, case No. 0017345.
48 Lisbon Cou o Appeal judgmen o 24 Janua y 2001, case No. 00114783.
49 Po o Cou o Appeal judgmen o 8 June 2005, case No. 0513062. A simila a gumen was used by he
Po o Cou o Appeal in i s judgmen o 14 Oc obe 2009, case No. 0817737.
50 Coimb a Cou o Appeal judgmen o 6 Decembe 2006, case No. 264/06.6JELSB-A.C1.
51 Guima ães Cou o Appeal judgmen o 14 May 2007, case No. 216/07 − 2.
52 Case No. 848/07 − 1.
53 Case No. 331/08 − 1.
1 3
Legal T ansla ion and he Challenges o O e coming Language Ba ie s…
in w i ing o he no i ica ions conce ning he accusa ion, he indic men , he se ing
o a ial da e and he judgmen , as well as hose ela ed o coe ci e measu es and
pa imonial sa egua ds, and he claim o ci il damages.
Also wo h men ioning as an example o p e-2010 good p ac ice is he Coimb a
Cou o Appeal judgmen o 14 Janua y 2009,54 which ound ha i would be un ea-
sonable o equi e ha he nulli y esul ing om he ailu e o appoin an in e p e e
should be pleaded no la e han he end o he ac a which he pe son conce ned was
p esen wi hou he assis ance o an in e p e e , as ha would comple ely e ase he
p o ec ion a o ded by he law. This, howe e , was applicable only o si ua ions in
which he accused pe son was no assis ed by legal counsel. In such cases, he Cou
ound ha he gene al ule o pleading ela i e nulli ies should apply, meaning ha
he accep able ime limi o pleading nulli y would be en days (i.e., he gene al
ime limi o p ocedu al ac s, pe A icle 105(1) o he Code o C iminal P ocedu e),
coun ing om he day on which he pe son conce ned is no i ied o any u he ac
in he p oceedings o has any in e en ion in an ac in he p oceedings. This en-day
ime limi has been adop ed in many judgmen s since,55 albei some imes wi h o he
ma ke s o he s a o he ime limi (e.g., he end o he ac a which he conce ned
pe son was p esen ;56 he momen when counsel i s in e enes in he p oceedings
and is made awa e o he possible nulli y57).
No able examples o good p ac ice in he pos -2010 case law a e he Po o Cou
o Appeal judgmen s o 4 July 201258 and 22 Janua y 2020;59 and he É o a Cou
o Appeal judgmen s o 8 Janua y 2013,60 24 Oc obe 2017,61 20 Decembe 2018,62
and 2 Augus 2022.63
In i s judgmen o 4 July 2012, he Po o Cou o Appeal held ha he p o isions
in he Code o C iminal P ocedu e ea ing he ailu e o appoin an in e p e e as a
ela i e nulli y which can be ec i ied i no pleaded be o e he end o he ac a which
a de endan who does no unde s and Po uguese is p esen a e os ensibly in b each
o he igh s o de ence and ai ial ensh ined in he Po uguese Cons i u ion, as well
as in A icle 14 ICCPR and A icle 6 ECHR. The de endan was a Mo occan na ional
54 Case No. 275/08.7GBVNO-A.C1.
55 E.g., Guima ães Cou o Appeal judgmen o 8 No embe 2021, case No. 1071/19.1GBBCL.G1; Gui-
ma ães Cou o Appeal judgmen o 21 Oc obe 2013, case No. 936/13.9PBBRG.G1; Sup eme Cou
judgmen o 14 Decembe 2016, case No. 303/14.7JELSB.E1.S1; Guima ães Cou o Appeal judgmen o
8 No embe 2021, case No. 1071/19.1GBBCL.G1.
56 E.g., É o a Cou o Appeal judgmen o 17 Janua y 2012, case No. 206/10.4GDABF.E1.
57 E.g., Po o Cou o Appeal judgmen o 29 Ma ch 2017, case No. 256/16.7PAPVZ-B.P1, whe e he
Cou held ha , i he p ecise de e mina ion o he momen when counsel became awa e is impossible,
he pleading o he nulli y is o be accep ed as imely. The É o a Cou o Appeal judgmen o 8 Ma ch
2016, case No. 4/07.2GAMMN.E1, s a ed coun ing om he day he de endan was ques ioned wi h he
assis ance o counsel and an in e p e e .
58 Case No. 765/09.4PRPRT-A.P1.
59 Case No. 921/19.7JAPRT-A.P1.
60 Case No. 128/12.4GTABF.E1.
61 Case No. 884/15.8PBSTB.E1.
62 Case No. 55/2017.9GBLGS.E1.
63 Case No. 53/19.8GACUB-B.E1.
1 3
P. Je ónimo
who had signed a DIR d a ed in Po uguese wi hou being assis ed by an in e p e e
o by legal counsel. The Cou no ed ha , while om a me ely o mal pe spec i e i
could be said ha he nulli y had been ec i ied and he de endan was bound by he
obliga ions a ising om he DIR, om a undamen al igh s pe spec i e i was no
ce ain ha he had unde s ood he meaning o hose obliga ions and e en less ha
he had been in a posi ion o plead he nulli y. The e o e, he DIR could no ha e any
p ocedu al ele ance, since i could e en lead in he u u e o he de endan ’s in ol-
un a y absence om he ial hea ing, o lack o unde s anding o his p ocedu al
obliga ions, which would amoun o an absolu e (un ec i iable) nulli y.
Two o he s andou É o a Cou o Appeal judgmen s also conce n he DIR. In i s
judgmen o 20 Decembe 2018, he Cou poin ed ou he insu iciencies o A icle
92 o he Code o C iminal P ocedu e and c i icised he ‘lack o ision’ o Po u-
guese cou s o hei insis ence on making a li e al in e p e a ion o ha p o ision.
The Cou held ha he cou s (much like he police and he p osecu o s) ha e a
posi i e obliga ion o asce ain whe he he suspec ed o accused pe son is capable
o unde s anding he p oceedings and, when in doub , mus ensu e he in e p e a ion
o ansla ion o essen ial documen s. In his ega d, he Cou held ha he DIR had
o be conside ed an essen ial documen wi hin he meaning o A icle 3(1) o Di ec-
i e 2010/64/UE and ha he e o e he signa u e o a DIR w i en in Po uguese by a
Ge man na ional abou whom he e was no ce ain y ha she unde s ood Po uguese
cons i u ed an in alid ac .64 Pu suan o he CJEU judgmen in TL, he É o a Cou o
Appeal decla ed he nulli y o he DIR (which had no been ansla ed in w i ing in o
a language ha he de endan unde s ood) and o all subsequen p ocedu al ac s, and
o de ed he immedia e elease o he de endan , inding ha any a emp o sal age
some o he p ocedu al ac s ha had ollowed he annulled DIR would ela i ize EU
law and ail o ully comply wi h he CJEU judgmen . Since hen, he Cou has on
se e al occasions es a ed ha A icle 120(2)(c)(3)(a) is inapplicable and ea ed he
ailu e o appoin an in e p e e as an absolu e nulli y, which in alida es all subse-
quen p ocedu al ac s.65
In an ea lie judgmen om 8 Janua y 2013, he É o a Cou o Appeal had held
ha he de endan could no be expec ed o plead he nulli y de i ed om he ailu e
o appoin an in e p e e i he was unaccompanied by counsel, since pleading is a
64 In i s judgmen o 7 May 2019, case No. 22/13.1GBPTM.E1, he É o a Cou o Appeal c i icised he
ac ha se e al police ac ions o g ea p ocedu al signi icance (including a house sea ch and a DIR) had
been conduc ed exclusi ely in Po uguese and wi hou he assis ance o an in e p e e when he de endan
was a B i ish na ional who did no unde s and Po uguese, and acqui ed him.
65 In i s judgmen o 25 Oc obe 2022, case No. 128/22.6GDFAR.E1, he Cou concluded ha he c imi-
nal p oceedings agains a o eign de endan who did no unde s and Po uguese and had no been p o-
ided wi h he assis ance o an in e p e e o a ansla ion o essen ial documen s we e i e e sibly null
om he momen he was placed unde in es iga ion. In i s judgmen s o 20 Feb ua y 2024, case No.
428/21.2GESLV.E1, and 21 May 2024, case No. 399/22.8GESLV.E1, he Cou ound ha he ailu e o
p o ide a o eign na ional wi h a w i en ansla ion o he accusa ion in his mo he ongue, e en hough
he was assis ed by an in e p e e du ing ques ioning in he in es iga i e s age, amoun ed o an absolu e
nulli y, which led o he nulli y o all subsequen p ocedu al ac s. In i s judgmen o 23 Ap il 2024, case
No. 1485/23.2GBABF.E1, he Cou annulled all he p ocedu al ac s subsequen o he placemen unde
in es iga ion o an Indian na ional due o he ailu e o appoin an in e p e e o assis him a e he alcohol
blood es had de e mined ha he was o e he legal limi .
1 3
Legal T ansla ion and he Challenges o O e coming Language Ba ie s…
legal eac ion, and added ha , i he de endan mee s his counsel o he i s ime a
he eading o he judgmen , he should be allowed o plead he nulli y de i ed om
he lack o in e p e e on appeal agains he judgmen . In e es ingly, wha was a s ake
in he case a ba was no he appoin men o an in e p e e as such, bu he quali y
o he in e p e a ion p o ided. The Cou s essed he impo ance o ensu ing ha he
pe o mance o he in e p e e is e ec i e, and held ha he in e p e e ’s ailu e o
ul il his o he ole, o a de icien pe o mance comp omising he adequa e unde -
s anding o he p oceedings, amoun s o a ailu e o appoin an in e p e e and mus
be ea ed as such. The Cou held u he mo e ha he ailu e o in o m he accused
pe son o he ial da e in a language which he o she unde s ands, and in a de ailed
manne , amoun s o an impedimen o he de endan o be p esen and cons i u es an
absolu e nulli y.66
Ano he s andou judgmen om he É o a Cou o Appeal is he judgmen o 24
Oc obe 2017, whe e he Cou ound ha he e usal o a Ge man na ional o ake
an alcohol es , a e ha ing been s opped and subjec ed o an ini ial alcohol es by a
police o ice who in e ac ed wi h him in English, did no cons i u e an o ence o dis-
obedience because he had no been assis ed by an in e p e e and i was he e o e no
ce ain ha he unde s ood ha he was equi ed o ake a second alcohol es and he
consequences o e using o do so. In e es ingly, he Cou held ha he use o Eng-
lish as a hi d language does no ensu e unequi ocal communica ion as is equi ed
in c iminal p oceedings, inding he e o e ha i was imma e ial whe he o no he
accused and he police o ice conduc ing he sea ch spoke easonably good English.
This judgmen is also in e es ing o he obse a ions made a p opos he capaci y o
he judge o de e mine, on his own, i he accused pe son unde s ands Po uguese.
The appealed judge had men ioned ha he was no en i ely pe suaded ha he de en-
dan did no unde s and Po uguese, since he had answe ed ins inc i ely o some o
he ques ions he had asked du ing he hea ing. The Cou no ed in his ega d ha ,
ha ing had only e y b ie con ac wi h he de endan , he judge’s eelings o pe cep-
ions as o he de endan ’s unde s anding o Po uguese, i no con i med by o he
means, we e ine i ably enuous.
Finally, i is also wo h men ioning he Po o Cou o Appeal judgmen o 22
Janua y 2020, which conce ned he no i ica ion o a decision o place an accused
pe son in p e- ial de en ion. The Cou held ha , when ha pe son is a o eigne who
does no unde s and Po uguese, he o al ansla ion o he decision is no su icien ,
e en i p o ided by a sui able in e p e e , and he pe son is only conside ed o be duly
no i ied a e ecei ing he ansla ion in w i ing o he decision, meaning ha he
ime limi o appeal agains he decision only s a s a e his da e.67
66 Mo e ecen ly, he É o a Cou o Appeal cla i ied ha , i a de endan , a e being placed unde in es i-
ga ion and in o med o his o he igh s in a language he o she unde s ands, is no i ied o appea in cou a
a p ecise da e and ime, ecei ing only a documen w i en in Po uguese, ha cons i u es a nulli y which
equi es he epe i ion o he in alid ac and o all hose ha a e dependen on i . Judgmen o 25 May 2023,
case No. 8/23.8GBABT-A.E1.
67 I is wo h no ing in his ega d ha , in 2008, Po ugal was ound o be in b each o A icle 6 ECHR o ,
among o he easons, ha ing conside ed ha he ime limi o appeal a judgmen an om he momen
when he judgmen was se ed on he de endan in Po uguese and no om he momen he ecei ed he
ansla ion o he judgmen in Uk ainian. Panasenko . Po ugal, judgmen o 22 July 2008, applica ion
1 3
P. Je ónimo
As an icipa ed, he posi i e e olu ion in he case law o Po uguese cou s wi h
ega d o he ecogni ion o he impo ance o linguis ic assis ance o ensu e he igh s
o de ence and a ai ial – la gely d i en by Di ec i e 2010/64/EU and mos ly is-
ible in he las i e yea s – is no consis en ac oss he di e en appella e cou s and
e en wi hin he same appella e cou . Fo example, he Lisbon Cou o Appeal, in a
judgmen om 15 June 2021,68 held ha i was no necessa y o appoin an in e p e e
o a house sea ch conduc ed pu suan o a cou o de since he pe son conce ned had
no ye been indic ed and was me ely a suspec . The Coimb a Cou o Appeal, in a
judgmen om 24 Ap il 2024,69 held ha he Code o C iminal P ocedu e does no
equi e he p esence o an in e p e e du ing sea ches conduc ed a he ini ia i e o
he in es iga i e au ho i ies, no o he placemen unde in es iga ion and he DIR o
a o eigne who does no unde s and Po uguese. The Guima ães Cou o Appeal, in
a judgmen om 2 July 2024,70 held ha i a de endan who does no unde s and Po -
uguese is olun a ily absen om he eading o he judgmen , bu is ep esen ed by
legal counsel who unde s ands Po uguese, he e is no need o deli e a ansla ion o
he judgmen in w i ing. The É o a Cou o Appeal held, in a judgmen om 10 July
2024,71 ha Di ec i e 2010/64/EU does no equi e an ex ension o he ime limi o
appeal, no does i s ipula e ha he ime limi only s a s a e deli e y o a ansla-
ion o he judgmen in w i ing, and concluded ha , since he de endan was p esen
a he eading o he judgmen and was assis ed by an in e p e e who p o ided an
o al ansla ion, he had been duly no i ied o he judgmen on ha da e.
4.3 Views o Key S akeholde s
One o he mos consis en indings o he indi idual and g oup in e iews wi h
judges and p osecu o s is ha hey do no conside ha cul u al di e si y aises pa -
icula challenges o cou p ac ice and a e con iden ha Po uguese cou s a e well
equipped o add ess cul u ally based claims and ensu e a ai ial o all wi hou dis-
c imina ion. The only o m o di e si y ha hey a e willing o concede as somewha
challenging is linguis ic di e si y – o he ex en ha i equi es in e media ion by
in e p e e s – bu e en he e, many exp essed con idence ha Po uguese cou s a e
able o ‘make do and mend’, o quo e he exp ession used a p opos he UK cou s
in Cuscani . Uni ed Kingdom (§ 38).72 Unsu p isingly, he pa icipan s in he ocus
g oups wi h a o neys and ep esen a i es o ci il socie y o ganisa ions we e less
No. 10,418/03, §§ 51–53. Meanwhile, in a judgmen o 21 May 2024, case No. 597/23.7PCAMD-A.L1-3,
he Lisbon Cou o Appeal ound ha , since he judgmen had been ead in summa y e sion and he
de endan had eques ed a w i en ansla ion in o Nepali, which had been g an ed o him, he ime limi o
he appeal only an om he da e on which he was no i ied o he ansla ion o he judgmen in i s en i e y.
68 Case No. 5/19.8ZCLSB-C.L1-9.
69 Case No. 20/20.9GAIDN.C1.
70 Case No. 161/23.0GAMTR.G1.
71 Case No. 279/23.0PBBJA-A.E1.
72 In e iewees old us: ‘The in e p e e s, whene e i was necessa y, always o e came he issue’ [FGJ8];
‘[ he in e p e e ] summa ised wha people said and he e we e some di icul ies, bu in he end we unde -
s ood’ [FGJ4]; ‘We manage, each ime be e and wi h in e p e e s, as well as possible. Some imes i is
di icul , akes ime, bu we manage’ [FGP9].
1 3
Legal T ansla ion and he Challenges o O e coming Language Ba ie s…
op imis ic, poin ing ou as nega i e aspec s he judges’ habi ual dismissi eness o he
language ba ie s and eluc ance o appoin in e p e e s o de endan s whose mo he
ongue is Cape Ve dean o Bissau-Guinean C eole,73 as well as he di icul ies in ha -
ing an in e p e e appoin ed o mee ings wi h de endan s held in p ison.74
The p ac ical di icul ies poin ed ou by judges and p osecu o s conce n mainly
he sca ci y o in e p e e s o some language combina ions and he equen need
o eso o ama eu s, such as high school eache s and shop owne s;75 he b eak in
he low o communica ion du ing he hea ings, which he in e en ion o in e p e -
e s necessa ily en ails;76 and he discom o de i ed om hei lack o con ol o e
he accu acy o he in e p e a ion p o ided when hey do no unde s and he o eign
language being used, coupled wi h dis us o some in e p e e s’ echnical accu acy
73 ‘I does no e en occu [ o he judges], o example, ha he e a e in e p e e s o C eole in he cou s
and, in he case o Amado a and Sin a, his ques ion should e ec i ely be aised in he cou s, because
he e is a la ge communi y and i may be e y ele an o he p oduc ion o e idence’ [FGA8]; ‘We go
o cou wi h clien s who do no speak Po uguese o who speak i e y poo ly and would na u ally need
a C eole in e p e e o wha e e , [bu ] he judges jus speak loude because i is a bo he o b ing in a
ansla o . And when we a gue ha maybe he pe sons would need a ansla o because hey do no unde -
s and Po uguese enough o unde s and wha is going on, hey ell me o explain i be e ou side [ he
cou oom]. Bu I also do no speak C eole, o Hindi, o Guja a i, and speaking loude will no sol e he
p oblem. This is c oss-cu ing; i happens in he cou s because [ha ing o ind and appoin an in e p e e ]
would delay he p oceedings and would cause many incon eniences, and he e o e pe sons a e ied and
sen enced wi hou ha ing a minimum capaci y o unde s and’ [FGA5]. The judges’ eluc ance o appoin
in e p e e s o C eole is con i med by a s a emen made by one o he judges in e iewed, quo ed in n.
76 below.
74 ‘We do no ge , no e en h ough eques o he cou o he ba associa ion, an in e p e e appoin ed o
accompany us o jail, and we a i e in cou o de end hem wi hou e e ha ing spoken wi h hem, because
he in e p e e s a e no made a ailable and a e no paid by he s a e o accompany he a o neys in hei
isi s o hose who apply o legal aid’ [FGA5]; ‘Someone mus explain o he Gene al Di ec o a e o he
P ison Se ices ha i mus ha e, like he cou s, a eam o ansla o s who a e no s opped a he en ance
[ o he p ison], ha is, he a o ney o he Romanian communi y, wi h Romanian clien s in p ison, has a
p oblem! Has a judicial ques ioning, goes o he p ison, he law says ha o 48 hou s he a o ney can
go o p ison o speak o he o eign de ainee, bu i does no allow he ansla o o en e !’ [FGCSO7].
75 ‘We had si ua ions in which he de endan s we e eleased om p ison because we could no ind an
in e p e e wi hin 48 hou s o conduc he i s ques ioning, mainly A abic and Chinese’ [FGJ7]; ‘I was
like his: we need a ansla ion om Romanian o Uk ainian, hen he e was someone o someone knew
someone, as a las eso , we looked in he communi y o some Uk ainian o Romanian gen leman who
has a s o e, he mus know, well…. The esul was no always en i ely sa is ac o y. Also because a pa o
he ansla ion mus be echnical and he e o e, i i is no done by someone compe en , a e y w ong idea
may be con eyed’ [IJM25]; ‘The e a e ansla o s who a e ound in ways ha I am no e y happy wi h…
he only hing ha makes hem ansla o s is knowing he language’ [IPW11].
76 ‘Some imes, he bigges di icul y I eel is wi h people, namely Cape Ve deans, Guinean, who al eady
speak Po uguese, bu con inue o use some exp essions speci ic o he Cape Ve dean o he Guinean C e-
ole, and ha he e o e c ea es some di icul ies o communica ion which could possibly be sol ed by an
in e p e e , bu he in e p e e would hen be a hi d elemen which will always b eak he dynamic be ween
he judge, he p osecu o , e c. and he pe son, because om he momen he in e p e e a i es he pe son
no longe speaks bo h languages; he o she s a s o speak solely in C eole and he e o e he e is a loss
he e…. [These a e] si ua ions o which o en he e is no good op ion’ [FGJ5]; ‘I is a bi di e en om a
ial wi h a na ional ci izen, whe e we ask a ques ion and immedia ely see his eac ion. I is no jus wha
is said, bu also he body language ha he judge mus also conside and, wi h his language ba ie , he
p inciple o immediacy is hinde ed. I has happened many imes ha we ask a ques ion wi h hal a dozen
wo ds and some imes he ansla ion akes one minu e’ [FGP1].
1 3
P. Je ónimo
and/o impa iali y.77 The ac ha some o he hea ings a e eco ded was men ioned
as a sa egua d agains possible sho comings in he in e p e e s’ pe o mance.78 The
use o English as hi d language was poin ed ou by judges and p osecu o s as an
unsa is ac o y solu ion o las eso 79 – which squa es well wi h he case law, whe e
he s anda d e e ence is o he de endan ’s mo he ongue80 – bu pa icipan s in he
ocus g oup wi h in e p e e s men ioned ha o en imes he cou s appoin in e p e -
e s o English p ima ily o allow he judges o unde s and he exchanges be ween he
in e p e e and he pe son being ques ioned.81
Some judges and p osecu o s showed awa eness o he si ua ional cha ac e o
linguis ic compe ences and o he complexi y o legal ansla ion, e en o expe i-
enced and skilled in e p e e s, namely due o dialec al a ia ions wi hin he same
language.82 O he s seemed less awa e, exp essing an un ese ed us in he sys em
ha he cou s ha e in place o appoin sui able and compe en in e p e e s, and e en
inc eduli y a he possibili y o in e p e e s no p o iding an accu a e ansla ion o
77 ‘We ha e many di icul ies in ha ing an accu a e ansla ion. The e a e languages in which we manage
o unde s and and manage o in e ene and we ha e some imes eplaced in e p e e s du ing a hea ing
because hey a e no p o iding an accu a e ansla ion. O he imes we a e a hei me cy, because we do
no ha e a command o he languages and hey say wha hey wan – we do no know [wha hey a e say-
ing], we a e no su e. Many imes, people ha e complained ha ha was no wha hey said and he e is no
way o e iewing i , so I hink i complica es [ he p oceedings] a lo ’ [FGJ7]; ‘Tha ansla o , well, wi h
a eeling o belonging, was ying o help he de endan who was om he same coun y as he and was
saying ha he did no know e c.…’ [IJM24]; ‘We ask a ques ion and he in e p e e , ins ead o asking he
ques ion in an objec i e and d y manne , no, he asks he ques ion and we see ha he does some hing else
and he pe son answe s and he asks ano he ques ion, ha is, we wi ness a dialogue be ween ansla o
and he pe son and i is comple ely ou o ou hands wha is happening’ [IPM32]; ‘I is ob iously o en
di icul o ind an in e p e e and a eliable one, because o en he p oblem lies he e’ [IJM29].
78 ‘I we suspec ha some hing is no igh o migh no be igh , some o hese p oceedings a e eco ded
and he image may help’ [FGP9]; ‘The ials being eco ded also some imes help us gua d agains some
de iciencies in he in e p e e ’s pe o mance, which can comp omise he accu acy o he s a emen s made’
[FGP11].
79 ‘I had many di icul ies in inding a pe son o ansla e; I e en asked he embassy, and hen we did hings
in English and I had he imp ession ha he pe son did no unde s and English well…’ [IJM12].
80 The e a e a ew judgmen s, howe e , whe e he use o English is conside ed ine i able o easons o
expediency. Tha was he case, o example, in he Lisbon Cou o Appeal judgmen o 20 Feb ua y 2019,
which conce ned a de endan whose mo he ongue was Nepali, bu who was p o icien in English, bo h
w i en and spoken. The Cou held ha he e is no obliga ion o appoin an in e p e e o he de endan ’s
mo he ongue o dialec (which, i poin ed ou , would be simply impossible in many si ua ions), bu
ins ead wha is equi ed is he use o a language ha he de endan unde s ands and is able o exp ess him/
he sel in. No hing p e en ed he e o e he appoin men o an in e p e e o he ansla ion o he accusa-
ion in English, o ano he language, p o ided he pu pose o he p o ision g an ing he de endan he igh
o be assis ed by an in e p e e is ul illed. Case No. 806/17.1PWLSB.L1-3.
81 ‘The only hing is ha , many imes, hey call an English ansla o o in e p e e o a Ge man wi ness
who speaks poo English so ha he judge can ollow. Some imes his is e y di icul because he Ge man
wi ness is unable o explain he sel in English. So, he si ua ion is un ai . I has happened o me a numbe
o imes and i is e y di icul and hey ha e he igh o an in e p e e in hei own language’ [FGI5].
82 ‘I is e y di e en , he Po uguese used in he supe ma ke o a s o e and he Po uguese o be ques-
ioned in cou , you see? E en when hey say “I speak good Po uguese”, i is always necessa y o ha e
an in e p e e ’ [IJM28]; ‘In some languages such as hose o he Chinese, Pakis ani, Hindus, in which
he e is such di e si y o languages, dialec s… i is e y di icul o a gi en ansla o o p o ide a ai h ul
ansla ion. And we some imes ealise ha ’ [FGJ9]; ‘Much in o ma ion is los along he way, no ma e
how good he in e p e e s a e’ [IJM37].
1 3
Legal T ansla ion and he Challenges o O e coming Language Ba ie s…
wha is said in he hea ings.83 I is no en i ely clea whe he he mo e us ing, op i-
mis ic es imonies came om a place o sel -p ese a ion and ins i u ional loyal y o
a e simply he esul o lack o aining on wo king wi h in e p e e s and indi e ence
as o he echnical challenges aced by in e p e e s and ansla o s. The in e p e e s
we in e iewed said ha he mos challenging aspec o wo king wi h he cou s is he
ac ha hey almos ne e ha e p io access o in o ma ion abou he legal subjec
ha will be deal wi h and a e o ced o wo k wi hou a ne , e en when he cou s
con ac hem well in ad ance (and no on he same day, as is o en he case).84 The e
seem o be many misconcep ions abou he ole o in e p e e s, including he ange
o language combina ions hey can wo k wi h, he ime needed o p epa a ion and
ansla ion o documen s, and he ex en o which in e p e e s and ansla o s can
ely on ansla ion echnology.85 Ano he misconcep ion is ha in e p e e s can, in
addi ion o in e p e ing, be expec ed o gi e cul u al in o ma ion abou he back-
g ound o he pe sons being ques ioned,86 which is p oblema ic om a deon ological
pe spec i e, since i is no he in e p e e s’ job o p o ide ha kind o in o ma ion o
he cou s [8: 145], e en hough in e p e e s and ansla o s a e ine i ably ac ing as
‘cul u al media o s’ [22: 2]. On he pa o he in e p e e s hemsel es, he e seem o
be some misunde s andings as o hei ole in c iminal p oceedings, since he exam-
ples hey olun ee ed as good wo k expe iences in cou we e he a e occasions in
which judges in i ed hem o si by hei side, which hey explained as be e han he
usual s anding side-by-side wi h he de endan bo h because i allowed hem a iew
o e he whole cou oom and o he a ious pa icipan s, and i ga e hem a able
on which o place hei wo king ma e ials.87 Howe e , his is no en i ely wi hou
83 ‘When we appoin an in e p e e , we appoin a pe son who, ob iously, is sui ed, ha is, who is eliable
in his pe o mance is-à- is he o eigne , who speaks his language’ [IJM5]; ‘The e was ne e a si ua ion
in which I was le wonde ing i ha was o was no wha was said, also because I canno e en imagine
o wha eason he ansla o , wi h wha in e es , would adul e a e any hing. I canno e en unde s and. I
ne e happened o me, I ne e had ha suspicion’ [IJM6]; ‘In e p e e s a e compe en , so, no hing ou o
he o dina y, no oubles. I always assume ha we a e all in good ai h, assume he pe sons pe o m hei
asks co ec ly’ [IJW15].
84 ‘My expe ience wi h he cou s is always o go wi hou any ne a all. I do no know i i is a whi e-colla
c ime, smuggling o goods in o he EU, I do no know wha i is abou ’ [FGI9]; ‘O en imes we go o he
cou wi hou any in o ma ion. We do no know wha we will in e p e . Tha is wha happens mos o he
ime’ [FGI8]; ‘I only emembe one ime going o he cou and he judge being so kind and pa ien o alk
o me i e minu es be o e and explained wha he subjec was. Bu e en he e, only a e I a i ed in cou !’
[FGI4]; ‘Gene ally he bigges challenge is always o ge access o he documen s, igh ? Access o he
subjec ma e ha we will be in e p e ing, igh ? Some imes we a e jus “pa achu ed” in he e…’ [FGI7].
85 ‘The wo s pa is when hey some imes ha e no idea wha i is o be a ansla o . I said: ‘I am so y bu
my languages do no include Moldo an o Russian, so… ‘Ah, bu a e you no a ansla o ?’ ‘I am a ans-
la o bu only o some languages.’ So, some imes i is di icul o explain, also because, since we wo k
inc easingly mo e wi h IT ools and ansla ion p og ammes which help a lo , bu he e is s ill he need o
he ansla o o e ise he ex and ensu e ha i is co ec . Fo in e p e a ion i is he same. Ou a ea o
wo k and ou unc ion a e sca cely unde s ood’ [FGI4].
86 ‘We o en use he in e p e e s because hey a e pe sons who know well who we a e dealing wi h cul-
u ally and cla i y wha is needed’ [IPM32]; ‘This in e p e e was also, because he knows he cul u e in
ques ion, decisi e o unde s anding all he aspec s o ha ela ionship’ [IPW18].
87 ‘The i s ime I in e p e ed in cou , I was made o si nex o he judge. I was excellen , because I go
a comple ely di e en iew and had he wi ness in on o me. The ac ha I am side by side wi h he wi -
ness is a complica ing ac o , because I do no see he a o neys and canno see he wi ness. Being a he
1 3
P. Je ónimo
p oblems, as i may aise doub s in he de endan s and o he in e ening pa ies as
o whe he he in e p e e s a e he e o assis he de endan s (as hey should) o he
cou , a po en ial sou ce o con usion al eady signalled as p oblema ic by he Eu o-
pean Commission du ing he un-up o Di ec i e 2010/64/EU [11: 531]. Wi h ega d
o he neu ali y expec ed om in e p e e s, he pa icipan s in he ocus g oup wi h
in e p e e s acknowledged ha i is clea ly a equi emen , bu also ha i is di icul
o main ain in ce ain ci cums ances,88 which con i ms he inadequacy o common
expec a ions abou in e p e e s’ neu ali y and in isibili y [1: 186; 4: 313–314] and
also he ea s exp essed by some o he judges and p osecu o s hea d.
5 Concluding Rema ks
The good news is ha Di ec i e 2010/64/EU p omp ed posi i e (i bela ed and no
ho oughly consis en ) de elopmen s in Po ugal’s s a u o y legal amewo k and
case law on he igh s o in e p e a ion, ansla ion, and in o ma ion in c iminal p o-
ceedings. The e seems o be li le doub as o he impo ance o linguis ic assis ance
o he exe cise o he igh s o de ence and a ai ial,89 which sugges s ha bla an
indi e ence o he nega i e e ec s o language ba ie s o hose who do no unde -
s and he language o he p oceedings is a hing o he pas . Howe e , despi e he
CJEU judgmen in TL and he ecen case law o he É o a Cou o Appeal, he law
in he books s ill ea s he ailu e o appoin an in e p e e as a ela i e nulli y which
can be ec i ied i no pleaded in ime, ins ead o ea ing i as an absolu e (i e e s-
ible) nulli y and making i a eason o pos poning he ac , as is now he ule o he
appoin men o sign language in e p e e s in A icle 93(2) o he Code o C iminal
P ocedu e.
Equally (i no mo e) impo an is he wo k s ill o be done o comply wi h A icles
5 and 6 o Di ec i e 2010/64/EU, o ensu e he quali y o he in e p e a ion and ans-
la ion p o ided o de endan s in c iminal p oceedings. As sugges ed by he indings
o ou in e iews, while bla an indi e ence o language ba ie s among judges and
a o neys’ o he judge’s able could help in some cases, no all’ [FGI5]; ‘Some imes, he judges ha e ha
unde s anding, ha kindness, and in i e us o be nex o hem a he able and ha is e y pleasan because
i allows o be e wo k, igh ? A be e pe o mance, bu o cou se i all depends on he judge’s sensi i i y
o in i e you o si nex o him o he ’ [FGI7].
88 ‘When I go, I am called by a law i m which wo ks o one o he pa ies, bu be o e he judge I mus
ansla e wha is said wi h he u mos neu ali y’ [FGI7]; ‘We mus hink ha some imes, pe haps, ou ole
is impo an , because we ha e o be neu al and he e a e also judges and a o neys who ha e o de end
people whom hey do no like, igh ? I is ue ha i ouches us – i is impossible no o be ouched, and i
is e y di icul o be impa ial in some si ua ions’ [FGI4]; ‘I con ess ha I also ha e some di icul ies wi h
neu ali y. I once whispe ed o a Po uguese pe son – I knew ha I shouldn’ , bu I old he man: “Don’
say ha . Say some hing else.” Because he man was going o jail. And I, well…’ [FGI9].
89 ‘People ha e he igh o unde s and wha is said o hem… no only unde s and he decision, bu also
wha goes on a he ial, so I make a poin o ha ing an in e p e e om he e y s a ’ [IJM21]; ‘I is
elemen a y o someone o be able o de end hemsel es, o unde s and wha is being said o hem.… I hink
ha is like ying o pu ou sel es in he place o he o he , someone who is in a coun y whe e he does no
ha e command o he language, who has a p oblem o sol e, who is s uck in a cou hea ing wi h all he
o mali y ha goes wi h i , is no mally ne ous and he only pe son wi h whom he can communica e is he
pe son who speaks he same language’ [IJW2].
1 3
Legal T ansla ion and he Challenges o O e coming Language Ba ie s…
p osecu o s is no common, he e a e s ill some blind spo s ega ding how well he
sys em wo ks and wha can and should be done o imp o e i . T aining o judges,
p osecu o s, and judicial s a , bu also o in e p e e s and ansla o s wo king in
judicial se ings, a o neys, and in es iga i e o icials, is key o dispelling cu en
misconcep ions abou he ole o in e p e e s and ansla o s, and o all o be e
unde s and he speci ici ies ( echnical and e hical) o legal ansla ion and he igh s
o suspec ed and accused pe sons o linguis ic assis ance and in o ma ion in c iminal
p oceedings.
Funding Open access unding p o ided by FCT|FCCN (b-on).
Decla a ions
Compe ing In e es s The a icle is an ou pu o esea ch conduc ed in he con ex o he p ojec Equali y
and Cul u al Di e ence in he P ac ice o Po uguese Cou s: Challenges and Oppo uni ies o an Inclu-
si e Socie y (Inclusi eCou s), unded by he Po uguese Science Founda ion (FCT) unde g an PTDC/
DIR-OUT/28229/2017. The au ho has no ele an compe ing in e es s o decla e.
Open Access This a icle is licensed unde a C ea i e Commons A ibu ion 4.0 In e na ional License,
which pe mi s use, sha ing, adap a ion, dis ibu ion and ep oduc ion in any medium o o ma , as long
as you gi e app op ia e c edi o he o iginal au ho (s) and he sou ce, p o ide a link o he C ea i e
Commons licence, and indica e i changes we e made. The images o o he hi d pa y ma e ial in his
a icle a e included in he a icle’s C ea i e Commons licence, unless indica ed o he wise in a c edi line
o he ma e ial. I ma e ial is no included in he a icle’s C ea i e Commons licence and you in ended use
is no pe mi ed by s a u o y egula ion o exceeds he pe mi ed use, you will need o ob ain pe mission
di ec ly om he copy igh holde . To iew a copy o his licence, isi h p : / / c e a i e c o m m o n s . o g / l i c e n
s e s / b y / 4 . 0 / .
Re e ences
1. Angelelli, Claudia. 2015. Jus ice o all?? Issues aced by linguis ic mino i ies and bo de pa ol
agen s du ing in e p e ed a aignmen in e iews. MonTI 7:181–205.
2. Bacik, I ana. 2007. B eaking he Language ba ie : Access o jus ice in he new I eland. Judicial
S udies Ins i u e Jou nal 2:109–123.
3. Ba ak, Maya P. 2021. Can you hea me now?? A o ney pe cep ions o in e p e a ion, echnology, and
powe in immig a ion cou . Jou nal on Mig a ion and Human Secu i y 9(4):207–223.
4. Cao, Debo ah. 2014. The ials and ibula ions o legal ansla ion. In The ashga e handbook o legal
ansla ion, ed. Le Cheng e al., 313–315. London and New Yo k: Rou ledge.
5. Cas elo, Higina. 2020. O Di ei o de conhece a ju isp udência. Re is a Do Minis é io Público
41(163):103–131.
6. Da is, Lynn W., and Sco A. Isaacson. 2017. Ensu ing equal access o jus ice o limi ed english
p o iciency indi iduals. Judges’ Jou nal 56(3):21–26.
7. Del Pozo,, and T i iño. Ma ibel, and Ma ía Jesús Blasco mayo . 2015. Legal in e p e ing in Spain a
a u ning poin . MonTI 7: 47–71.
8. Easley, Des inee. 2019. Can you hea me now: Due p ocess and Language ba ie s o jus ice. Jou nal
o Global Jus ice and Public Policy 5:137–162.
9. Foble s, Ma ie-Clai e, Alison Ren eln, and Dundes. eds. 2009. Mul icul u al ju isp udence: Com-
pa a i e pe spec i es on he cul u al de ense. Ox o d and Po land O egon: Ha Publishing.
10. He og, E ik, and Jan Van Guch . eds. 2008. S a us quaes ionis: Ques ionnai e on he p o ision o
legal in e p e ing and ansla ion in he EU. An we p: In e sen ia.
1 3
