Plenary Session 14-17 June

On trial in another European country and you don't speak the language? How can justice be done if defendants cannot follow proceedings? MEPs are expected to endorse this week a new law to guarantee minimum standards on language rights for EU citizens. "Better justice is swifter justice; it catches more criminals while respecting human rights. It is a win-win situation", says rapporteur and British Liberal MEP Sarah Ludford about providing suspects and defendants with interpretation and translation.

Sarah Ludford, why is this piece of EU legislation needed?

It's needed to strengthen the rights of suspects and defendants and to give safeguards necessary to ensure fair trials. It's been recognised for 10 years that we need these measures and they complement the European Arrest Warrant (EAW).

All EU Member States are parties to the European Convention on Human Rights so in theory they should be delivering adequate fair trial standards. But in practice, unfortunately, there has not been adequate or consistent implementation.

We're putting flesh on the bones to really strengthen and raise the quality of criminal justice across the EU, so that there are no miscarriages of justice. It will also ensure that when people are surrendered or extradited under the EAW or simply arrested in another State where they happen to be - they will be dealt with fairly.

How will the directive ensure fairer trials?

The directive says that if you become a suspect, you are arrested, questioned, or put on trial, and you don't understand the language of the country you are arrested or tried in, you have a right for interpretation and translation both for hearings, questioning and meetings with your lawyer - under certain conditions. Broadly, you got to be put in the same position as somebody who is a local and understands the local language.

This is not just about being nice to alleged criminals, but you actually get more efficient justice if you get high quality decisions in the first place. If you get all of us having confidence in all of our justice systems, then you will increase cooperation and you will catch more criminals. Better justice is swifter justice; catches more criminals while respecting human rights. It is a win-win situation.

Could you give an example of a case (where this would concern an EU citizen)?

The case of Gary Mann: In the early 2000s he was arrested and tried as an alleged football hooligan. He was dealt with in 24 hours under the fast track procedure. He had no qualified interpretation or translation. It was someone in the local cafe who attempted to assist him. After 24 hours he was told: we are giving you a sentence but if you agree to be deported and we never see you again, there will be no further consequences. That is what he understood.

Years later, Portugal issued an Arrest Warrant to summon him back to Portugal, and the UK Court sort of says that there has been a travesty of justice but we're powerless to stop it. This is simply a case of serious injustice: he did not understand what the proceedings were all about! Misunderstandings due to language were a major, probably a determining part of this travesty of justice. At the end of the day I believe in the European Arrest Warrant but we need a whole programme to strengthen citizens' rights.

Will interpretation/translation be restricted to official EU languages? What about smaller minority languages?

That is up to the Member States. It would be impossible to draw up a list of languages that must be covered. They shall insure that anyone who is prosecuted who does not understand or speak the language of the criminal proceeding is provided without delay with interpretation. You have to put them in a situation where they understand, it's a matter of individual assessment.

Who will pay for the interpretation/translation costs?

Member States will pay and this is why we had a lively debate about the strength of the requirements, the criteria and the situation in which this must be applied. They say this is going to be costly and we live in a period of fiscal stringency, but my answer to that is yes, but we've got to make better use of the criminal justice budgets we have.

If you get it right first time, you can actually save money; appeals are very costly. Getting wrong justice, in the end, is costly in money and in one's reputation. Good justice is efficient justice. You want best value justice rather than cheap justice. Cheap justice is bad justice, cheap justice is no justice.

***

MEPs will debate the new measure on Monday evening (14 June) and will hold a vote on Wednesday 16 June in their monthly sitting in Strasbourg, France.