Two ways with one start and end: The position of court interpreters and translators in the Czech and Slovak Republic

Zuzana Guldanová, Marketa Štefková, Pavlína Knap-Dlouhá, Comenius University, Bratislava, Slovakia

The paper provides a short summary of the original juridical regulations in the field of court interpretation and translation in the Czech Republic and in Slovakia.

The contribution touches as well the issues of institutionalizing of translating for government bodies and courts. And in this context we will elaborate further on the establishing of interpretation institutions and the activity of professional organizations operating independently of the government bodies.

Finally, the paper gives a summary of the main issues of court interpretation and translation and the possible perspectives of its solutions on a pan-European level, via international professional organizations.

Legal interpreting and translating under the new Dutch Law on Sworn Interpreters and Translators

Han von den Hoff, Raad voor Rechtsbijstand, 's-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands

On january 1st 2009 in the Netherlands the Law on Sworn Interpreters and Translators became effective. This legislation aims to modernize existing rules on sworn translators (that dated from 1878) , but also to guarantee and improve continually the quality of legal interpreting and translating in criminal and refugee procedures.

The department Sworn interpreters and translators of the Dutch Legal Aid Board is made responsible for executing this legislation and also to obtaining the objectives the law strives to reach. Mr. Han von den Hoff is manager of this department. He has been caretaker of an earlier Quality Register of legal interpreters and translators (since 2002) and has been active in several national and European initiatives on the subject of legal interpreting and translating.

This paper sketches in general terms the objects of the law, the most important instruments of the law, their contribution to obtain these goals, but also other mechanisms that start to develop as a spinoff of this new legislation.

The system forces the most important stakeholders to determine and specify the competences which are relevant to achieve a high level of legal interpreting and translating in criminal and asylum procedures. But it also provides mechanisms to ensure that translators and interpreters actually obtain the required competences in an active way.

The law on sworn interpreters and translators forces several commissioners to use only sworn interpreters and translators in criminal and asylum cases. To be sworn in, professionals have to prove to meet the quality standards the legislation mentions.

Therefore the legislation might make interpreters and translators aware of what quality is and how to make it measurable but also of the necessity to work on quality in a continuous and structured way. Until 2009, despite several initiatives, this has not yet be accomplished in a satisfactory manner.

As a result of this law, the demand for training and testing programs will grow fast, which makes it interesting for training institutes to develop new programs. The government can support this development in several ways.

To maintain registration and therefore access to work within the justice domain, interpreters and translators are forced to undergo continuous education. Again by creating a demand for continuous education, more programs will be offered.

A study by the Leiden University in end terms and specifications of competences of several existing training institutes that provide bachelor diplomas in interpreting and translating prove that there is still much to be won in defining the quality of interpreting and translating in general and make it measurable in particular.

The same goes for additional skills and knowledge that should be required for specialized legal interpreters and translators. Stakeholders have very different interests concerning the availability and quality of specialized translators and interpreters and therefore have very different views on the additional competences that specialists should have.

The paper will shortly go into a earlier study on the requirements for court interpreters.

Finally it will contain a plea not only to focus on interpreting and translating skills, but also on the influence of other stakeholders on the quality of translating, but especially interpreting.

Déontologie de la traduction et de l’interprétation en milieu judiciaire

Monique Rouzet Lelievre, Expert Traducteur agréé par la Cour de Cassation et Interprète près la Cour d'Appel de Versailles

Les experts traducteurs interprètes français doivent respecter les mêmes règles de déontologie que les traducteurs et interprètes professionnels, tant au niveau de leurs compétences que de leur comportement face aux personnes concernées et au travail à accomplir.

Mais étant donné l’importance de la tâche qui leur incombe et le niveau de responsabilité qui sous-tend leurs interventions, ils sont soumis à des règles de déontologie plus strictes encore.

Nous proposons donc d’examiner les devoirs que l’expert traducteur interprète a en tant qu’intervenant (compétences linguistiques, juridiques, culturelles et techniques; indépendance, impartialité, précision), mais aussi envers les différents acteurs du monde judiciaire (juges d’instruction, procureurs, avocats, etc.), les parties concernées (demandeurs, défendeurs, témoins, parties civiles, etc.) et ses confrères.

Accessing justice through an interpreter in Ireland’s District Courts

Kate Waterhouse, School of Social Work and Social Policy, Trinity College Dublin

By the early 2000s Ireland had become, for the first time, a country of net immigration. By 2006-2007 the flow of immigration was at about 100,000 per year, the third highest rate in the EU. The criminal justice system found itself dealing with increasing numbers of non-Irish nationals for many of whom English was not their first language; between 2006 and 2008 around one third of all committals to prison were non-Irish nationals, and the Courts Service went from spending €103,000 on translating and interpreting services in 2000, to €2m in 2007. Immigrants were from a diverse range of countries, speaking an estimated 167 languages.

The Irish courts system did not have the infrastructure in place to cope with the linguistic variety of defendants coming before the courts, and accounts of interpreting provision during the early years of the 2000s depict scenes of haphazard services and general mayhem, with interpreters literally scrambling for and fighting for cases as they were heard in the District Courts. In 2006 Lionbridge won the contract to become sole service provider for interpreting and translating in the courts, and a degree of control ensued. The situation remains far from satisfactory, however; there is still no regulation of services; agencies are given complete discretion with regard to recruitment, monitoring, and training; no guidelines are provided for those working with interpreters, and so on.

This paper considers Ireland’s response to the rapid rise of limited English proficient (LEP) immigrants in the courts system since the early 2000s, looking specifically at how the provision of interpreting services has developed and evolved. It will examine the consequences of contracting out the service provision of court interpreting, with a particular focus on the relationship between the organisational and administrative perspective and the impact on the right of the LEP immigrant to an interpreter. To this end it will compare official reports and accounts of provision with accounts obtained through interviews with court interpreters and legal professionals.

The function of a “court interpreter and/or translator” in the Federal Republic of Germany - preconditions, qualifications, compensations and legal basis

Helena Piprek, IGBG

The paper is dealing with the role and the function of a “court interpreter and/or translator” in the Federal Republic of Germany. The regulations of the ECHR European Convention on Human Rights (1950), which Germany underlies as well, are quite clear regarding the translation and/or interpreting process in the fields of “civil law matters” and “prosecution issues” - translation and/or interpreting services have to be provided “most detailed”. This can only be guaranteed by providing professionally educated translators and/or interpreters with a “double-competency”, i.e. having an additional good or very good command of the very specialized legal terminology. Furthermore, the ECHR has been followed by a range of German and European decisions consolidating the obvious connection between the high qualification of court interpreters and/or translators and guaranteeing fundamental rights. 

This is the theory – the practice is completely different in Germany.

Justice: Unfortunately, we don´t have one comprehensive federal law regulating access, basic qualifications, compensations, etc. for court interpreters and/or translators. This is due to the federal system of Germany. The 16 German federal states are revising or passing its “Court Interpreter and/or Translator Laws” at the moment, some have already managed. The results we will be faced with are: Completely different preconditions, qualifications, compensations, etc. on the level of the German federal states which will be illustrated by some examples. Furthermore, current developments regarding compensation are not satisfying. Although we have a federal law (JVEG) regulating the compensation of translators and/or interpreters in the field of justice throughout Germany, more and more federal states are offering their own contracts having much worser financial conditions.

Internal affairs authorities (including police): Here, the situation is even more confusion. We don´t have to make special mention of what this means for the legal certainty and judicature concerning translation and/or interpreting services in Germany.

Finally, the speaker summarizes the most important demands from the IGBG point of view concerning the situation of court interpreters and/or –translators in Germany and with regard to the development on an EU level.