Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Implementation of the Directive on Linguistic Assistance in Italy, Between Changes to the Code of Criminal Procedure and Case-Law Resistance

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
EU Criminal Justice

  • 952 Accesses

Abstract

With Directive 2010/64/EU, the European Union has inaugurated a new season of awareness for the fundamental rights of the accused. It delineates a priority fundamental right compared to any other subjective position. Italy has implemented it with an incomplete manoeuvre which is particularly unsatisfactory as regards the service of interpreting and translation: on one hand, there are no guarantees on the professionalisation of language ‘experts’; on the other, no effective remedies have been introduced in criminal proceedings. The result is the Italian judiciary seems not to have recognised the reform’s importance by continuing the restrictive interpretation of the right to linguistic assistance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    On this Directive, see: Amalfitano (2011), p. 83; Arangüena Fanego (2011a), p. 1; Arangüena Fanego (2011b), p. 269; Balsamo (2014), p. 115; Bargis (2013), p. 96; Bazzocchi (2013), p. 170; Beauvais (2011), p. 642; Biondi (2011), p. 2422; Cras and De Matteis (2010), p. 153; Gialuz (2011), p. 9; Gialuz (2012a), p. 1193; Iermano (2011), p. 335; Izzo (2012), p. 313; Kalb (2012), p. 344; Katschinka (2014), p. 105; Monjean-Decaudin (2011), p. 763; Monjean-Decaudin (2012); Rafaraci (2013), p. 336; Romoli (2012), p. 32; Troisi (2014), p. 109.

  2. 2.

    See Sarah Ludford, in the sitting of the European Parliament of 14 June 2010 (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+CRE+20100614+ITEM-022+DOC+XML+V0//EN).

  3. 3.

    Litterally, V. Reding, in the sitting of the European Parliament of 14 June 2010 (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+CRE+20100614+ITEM-022+DOC+XML+V0//EN).

  4. 4.

    Resolution of the Council of 30 November 2009 on a Roadmap for strengthening procedural rights of suspected or accused persons in criminal proceedings (2009/C 295/01), in OJ, 4 December 2009, C 295, then recognized in The Stockholm Programme—An open and secure Europe serving and protecting citizens (2010/C 115/01), in OJ, 4 May 2010, C 115.

  5. 5.

    On the Proposal for a Council framework decision on certain procedural rights in criminal proceedings throughout the European Union (COM(2004)328 def.), see, among others: Arangüena Fanego (2008), p. 3042; Morgan and Csonka (2011), p. 147; Nascimbene (2011), p. 133.

  6. 6.

    During the preliminary debate, Erik Hertog spoke of “salami approach”; the same expression was then used by the head of the Department of Criminal Justice, Peter Csonka (see Impact Assessment Accompanying the Proposal for a Framework Decision on the right to interpretation and to translation in criminal proceedings, SEC (2009) 915, 8 July 2009, pp. 58 and 62).

  7. 7.

    Brannan (2012), p. 145.

  8. 8.

    According to Falbo (2013), p. 17, “the quality of interpretation and translation seems to join the inherent features of linguistic assistance in criminal proceedings”.

  9. 9.

    The document is available at http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/scic/docs/finall_reflection_forum_report_en.pdf.

  10. 10.

    See the Council document no. 14793/09, 23 October 2009. It must be reminded that, in summer 2010, the resolution was proposed to be adopted in the form of a recommendation at the same time as the Directive (Council document no. 11471/10, 24 June 2010, pp. 2 and 3).

  11. 11.

    ECrtHR, 28 November 1978, Luedicke, Belkacem and Koç v. Germania, § 46; ECrtHR, 21 February 1984, Öztürk v. Germania, § 58; as well as, ECrtHR, 20 November 2008, Isyar v. Bulgaria, §§ 45-49, and ECrtHR, 21 March 2011, Hovanesian v. Bulgarie, §§ 48-52. On the unconditional nature of free linguistic assistance in the ECHR, see Chiavario (1969), p. 330; Trechsel (2005), pp. 331–332.

  12. 12.

    ECrtHR, 28 November 1978, Luedicke, Belkacem and Koç v. Germania, § 42; and ECrtHR, 19 December 1989, Kamasinski v. Austria, § 86.

  13. 13.

    On this point, see Gialuz (2012a), pp. 1198–1199.

  14. 14.

    See Art. 8, para. 2: “During the proceedings, every person is entitled, with full equality, to the following minimum guarantees: a. the right of the accused to be assisted without charge by a translator or interpreter, if he does not understand or does not speak the language of the tribunal or court”.

  15. 15.

    See ECrtHR, 15 October 2015, C-216/14, Covaci, in Cassazione penale, 2016, p. 740, annotated by Biondi (2016), p. 745. See also Gialuz (2015), p. 100.

  16. 16.

    See http://eur-lex.europa.eu/search.html?type=advanced&qid=1399314513886&or0=DN%3D72010L0064*,DN-old%3D72010L0064*&page=1. For an overview at the expiring of the deadline (27 October 2013), see Gialuz (2013a).

  17. 17.

    See Gialuz (2012b), p. 434; Gialuz (2013b), p. 2188.

  18. 18.

    See Ballardini (2012), p. 182; Garwood and Preziosi (2013), p. 79.

  19. 19.

    Bargis (2013), p. 114. On the constant violation of European standards, see Falbo (2013), pp. 87 ss.; Garwood and Preziosi (2013), p. 79; Gialuz (2013c), p. 241.

  20. 20.

    Curtotti Nappi (2002), p. 482; Garwood (2012), p. 173; Sau (2010), p. 216.

  21. 21.

    Ballardini (2012), p. 164.

  22. 22.

    Biondi (2011), p. 2425, footnote no. 49.

  23. 23.

    Of this opinion, see Cocomello and Corbo (2014), p. 5.

  24. 24.

    Curtotti Nappi (2014), p. 124; Iermano (2011), p. 343.

  25. 25.

    This provision will allow to go beyond the restrictive case-law that used to oblige the defendant to nominate a trusted interpreter to complete procedural acts (see Bargis (2009), p. 2024; Meloni (2010), p. 3683).

  26. 26.

    Freezing orders and seizures are therefore excluded: see Court of Cassation, III, 28 May 2014, n. 33402, in Diritto e giustizia, 30 July 2014, which excluded the application of this provision to precautionary seizure.

  27. 27.

    Legislative Decree no. 32, 4 March 2014, concerning interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings, cit., par. III, b.

  28. 28.

    See, for example, ECrtHR, 13 May 1980, Artico v. Italia, § 33.

  29. 29.

    Bricchetti and Pistorelli (2014), p. 67.

  30. 30.

    See Court of Cassation, II, 7 May 2014, n. 18781, in Cassazione penale, 2015, p. 2740.

  31. 31.

    This has been sustained by Court of Cassation, III, 15 November 2007, n. 181, in Ced. Cass., n. 238605: “the lack of translation, in the language known by the defendant who does not speak Italian, of the extract of the judgment, in case of trial in absentia, determines an intermediate nullity of general order, that can be remedied where the defendants appeals the merit of the judgment”. Similarly, see Court of Cassation, II, 7 June 2011, n. 32555, in Archivio della nuova procedura penale, 2011, 654; Court of Cassation, V, 6 October 2004, n. 16185, in Ced. Cass., n. 233642.

  32. 32.

    Court of Cassation, V, 30 October 2013, n. 48782, in Giurisprudenza italiana, 2014, p. 714; Court of Cassation, sez. un., 26 September 2006, Cieslinsky, in Cassazione penale, 2007, p. 514.

  33. 33.

    See Court of Cassation, II, 9 April 2014, n. 18781, cit., according to which Legislative Decree no. 32/2014 “has not brought about any novelty concerning the consequences following the lack of translation of procedural acts”.

  34. 34.

    Of this opinion, see Recchione (2014), pp. 12, 19.

  35. 35.

    Court of Cassation, VI, 29 September 2015, n. 45457, in Ced. Cass., n. 265521.

  36. 36.

    Court of Cassation, I, 11 February 2014, n. 23608, in Ced. Cass., n. 259732; Court of Cassation, II, 5 July 2007, n. 32882, in Ced. Cass., n. 237495; Court of Cassation, III, 19 November 2003, Kryczka in Ced. Cass., n. 227849.

  37. 37.

    Court of Cassation, V, 9 October 2014, n. 52245, in Ced. Cass., n. 262101.

  38. 38.

    Court of Cassation, V, 26 October 2015, n. 11658, in Ced. Cass., n. 266550, and Court of Cassation, V, 26 October 2015, n. 1136, in Ced. Cass., n. 266069, with reference to cases decided before the entry into force of the new regime. Contrary to this approach, meaning that a similar decision of the judge of the preliminary hearing is not abnormal, see: Court of Cassation, V, 8 July 2015, n. 38109, in Ced. Cass., n. 265007; Court of Cassation, II, 11 June 2015, n. 26241, in Ced. Cass., n. 264012; Court of Cassation, I, 14 May 2014, n. 2263, in Ced. Cass., n. 261998.

  39. 39.

    Court of Cassation, I, 24 June 2015, n. 30127, in Ced. Cass., n. 264488.

  40. 40.

    Litterally, Court of Cassation, I, 8 October 2014, n. 48299, in Cassazione penale, 2015, p. 1502, annotated by Mari (2015), p. 1507.

  41. 41.

    Similarly, see Mari (2015), p. 1514.

References

  • Amalfitano C (2011) Unione europea e garanzie processuali: il diritto all’interpretazione e alla traduzione nei procedimenti penali. Studi sull’integrazione europea 1:83–110

    Google Scholar 

  • Arangüena Fanego C (2008) Proposta di decisione quadro su determinati diritti processuali nei procedimenti penali nel territorio dell’Unione europea. Cassazione penale 7:3042–3059

    Google Scholar 

  • Arangüena Fanego C (2011a) El derecho a la interpretación y a la traducción en los procesos penales. Comentario a la directiva 2010/64/UE del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo, 20 de octubre de 2010. Revista General de Derecho Europeo 24:1–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Arangüena Fanego C (2011b) Nuevas directivas sobre derechos procesales de sospechosos e imputados en el proceso penal. In: Arangüena Fanego C (ed) Cooperación judicial civil y penal en el nuevo escenario de Lisboa. Granada, Comares, pp 269–301

    Google Scholar 

  • Ballardini E (2012) Traduire devant la justice pénale. L’interpréte traducteur dans les codes de procédure pénale italiens aux XIXe et XXe siècles. Bononia University Press, Bologna

    Google Scholar 

  • Balsamo A (2014) Il contenuto dei diritti fondamentali. In: Kostoris RE (ed) Manuale di procedura penale europea, 2nd edn. Giuffrè, Milan, pp 109–171

    Google Scholar 

  • Bargis M (2009) Inammissibile l’impugnazione redatta in lingua straniera: punti fermi e lacune di sistema dopo la pronuncia delle Sezioni unite. Cassazione penale 5:2016–2034

    Google Scholar 

  • Bargis M (2013) L’assistenza linguistica per l’imputato: dalla Direttiva europea 64/2010 nuovi inputs alla tutela fra teoria e prassi. In: Bargis M (ed) Studi in ricordo di Maria Gabriella Aimonetto. Giuffrè, Milan, pp 91–117

    Google Scholar 

  • Bazzocchi V (2013) L’armonizzazione delle garanzie processuali nell’Unione europea: la direttiva sul diritto all’interpretazione e alla traduzione nei procedimenti penali. In: Civitarese Matteucci S, Guarriello F, Puoti P (eds) Diritti fondamentali e politiche dell’Unione europea dopo Lisbona. Maggioli, Rimini, pp 159–180

    Google Scholar 

  • Beauvais P (2011) Droit pénal de l’Union européenne. Revue trimestrielle de droit européen 47(3):637–658

    Google Scholar 

  • Biondi G (2011) La tutela processuale dell’imputato alloglotta alla luce della direttiva 2010/64/UE. Cassazione penale 6:2412–2426

    Google Scholar 

  • Biondi G (2016) Osservazioni a Corte Giustizia UE 15 ottobre 2015 n. 216. Cassazione penale 2:745–750

    Google Scholar 

  • Brannan J (2012) Raising the Standard of Language Assistance in Criminal Proceedings: From the Rights under Article 6(3) ECHR to Directive 2010/64/EU. Cyprus Hum Rights Law Rev 1(2):128–156

    Google Scholar 

  • Bricchetti R, Pistorelli L (2014) Atti fondamentali scritti nella lingua dell’imputato. Guida al diritto 16:64–68

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiavario M (1969) La Convenzione europea dei diritti dell’uomo nel sistema delle fonti normative in materia penale. Giuffrè, Milan

    Google Scholar 

  • Cocomello A, Corbo A (2014) Attuazione della direttiva 2010/64/UE sul diritto all’interpretazione e alla traduzione nei procedimenti penali. https://www.penalecontemporaneo.it. Accessed 10 Apr 2014

  • Cras S, De Matteis L (2010) The directive on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings. Genesis and description. EUCRIM 4:153–162

    Google Scholar 

  • Curtotti Nappi D (2002) Il problema delle lingue nel processo penale. Giuffrè, Milan

    Google Scholar 

  • Curtotti Nappi D (2014) La normativa in tema di assistenza linguistica tra direttiva europea e nuove prassi applicative. Processo penale e giustizia 5:115–132

    Google Scholar 

  • Falbo C (2013) La comunicazione interlinguistica in ambito giuridico. Temi, problemi e prospettive di ricerca. Edizioni Università di Trieste, Trieste

    Google Scholar 

  • Garwood C (2012) Court interpreting in Italy. The daily violation of a fundamental right. Interpreters’ Newsl 17:173–189

    Google Scholar 

  • Garwood C, Preziosi I (2013) Un modello per un interpretariato giudiziario efficiente e di qualità in Italia: un approccio realistico all’applicazione della Direttiva 2010/64/UE. In: Rudvin M, Spinzi C (eds) Mediazione linguistica e interpretariato. Regolamentazione, problematiche presenti e prospettive future in ambito giuridico. Clueb, Bologna, pp 79–122

    Google Scholar 

  • Gialuz M (2011) Novità sovranazionali. Processo penale e giustizia 2:9–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Gialuz M (2012a) Il diritto all’assistenza linguistica nel processo penale. Direttive europee e ritardi italiani. Rivista di diritto processuale 5:1193–1206

    Google Scholar 

  • Gialuz M (2012b) L’obbligo di interpretazione conforme alla direttiva sul diritto all’assistenza linguistica. Diritto penale e processo 4:434–440

    Google Scholar 

  • Gialuz M (2013a) È scaduta la direttiva sull’assistenza linguistica. Spunti per una trasposizione ritardata, ma (almeno) meditata. https://www.penalecontemporaneo.it. Accessed 4 Nov 2013

  • Gialuz M (2013b) La Corte di cassazione riconosce l’obbligo di tradurre la sentenza a favore dell’imputato alloglotto. Cassazione penale 6:2188–2194

    Google Scholar 

  • Gialuz M (2013c) La lingua come diritto: il diritto all’interpretazione e alla traduzione nel processo penale. In: Ruggieri F, Rafaraci T, Di Paolo G, Marcolini S, Belfiore R (eds) Processo penale, lingua e Unione europea. Cedam, Padua, pp 227–245

    Google Scholar 

  • Gialuz M (2015) Dalla Corte di giustizia importanti indicazioni esegetiche in relazione alle prime due direttive sui diritti dell’imputato. Diritto penale contemporaneo-Riv Trim 4:100–107

    Google Scholar 

  • Iermano A (2011) Verso comuni regole processuali europee: il diritto alla traduzione e all’interpretazione nei procedimenti penali. Diritto comunitario e degli scambi internazionali 50(2):335–358

    Google Scholar 

  • Izzo I (2012) Spazio europeo di giustizia e cooperazione giudiziaria. In: Kalb L (ed) “Spazio europeo di giustizia” e procedimento penale italiano. Giappichelli, Turin, pp 313–343

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalb L (2012) Il rafforzamento del diritto e gli effetti nell’ordinamento italiano. In: Kalb L (ed) “Spazio europeo di giustizia” e procedimento penale italiano. Giappichelli, Turin, pp 344–380

    Google Scholar 

  • Katschinka L (2014) The impact of Directive 2010/64/EU on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings. In: Falbo C, Viezzi M (eds) Traduzione e interpretazione per la società e le istituzioni. Edizioni Università di Trieste, Trieste, pp 105–114

    Google Scholar 

  • Mari A (2015) Il nuovo art. 143 c.p.p. e i vecchi problemi in tema di traduzione dell’ordinanza cautelare personale. Cassazione penale 4:1506–1514

    Google Scholar 

  • Meloni S (2010) Niente di nuovo sul fronte della traduzione degli atti in ambito processuale: una storia italiana. Cassazione penale 10:3683–3691

    Google Scholar 

  • Monjean-Decaudin S (2011) L’Union européenne consacre le droit à l’assistance linguistique dans les procédures pénales. Commentaire de la directive relative aux droits à l’interprétation et à la traduction dans les procédures pénales. Revue trimestrielle de droit européen 47(4):763–781

    Google Scholar 

  • Monjean-Decaudin S (2012) La traduction du droit dans la procédure judiciaire. Contribution à l’étude de la linguistique juridique. Dalloz, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan C, Csonka P (2011) A European Union framework decision on procedural rights: the short history of a failure (so far). In: Pedrazzi M, Viarengo I, Lang A (eds) Individual guarantees in the European judicial area in criminal matters. Bruylant, Brussels, pp 147–152

    Google Scholar 

  • Nascimbene B (2011) European judicial cooperation in criminal matters: what protection for individuals under the Lisbon Treaty? In: Pedrazzi M, Viarengo I, Lang A (eds) Individual guarantees in the European judicial area in criminal matters. Bruylant, Brussels, pp 123–135

    Google Scholar 

  • Rafaraci T (2013) The rights of defence in EU judicial cooperation in criminal matters. In: Ruggeri S (ed) Transnational inquiries and the protection of fundamental rights in criminal proceedings. A study in memory of Vittorio Grevi and Giovanni Tranchina. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 331–343

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Recchione S (2014) L’impatto della direttiva 2010/64/UE sulla giurisdizione penale: problemi, percorsi interpretativi, prospettive. https://www.penalecontemporaneo.it. Accessed 15 July 2014

  • Romoli F (2012) La direttiva 64/2010 sul diritto all’interprete e l’ordinamento italiano: prospettive su una zona d’ombra del diritto alla difesa. Diritto, immigrazione e cittadinanza 2:32–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sau S (2010) Le garanzie linguistiche nel processo penale. Diritto all’interprete e tutela delle minoranze riconosciute. Cedam, Padua

    Google Scholar 

  • Trechsel S (2005) Human Rights in Criminal Proceedings. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Troisi P (2014) L’obbligo di traduzione degli atti processuali tra garanzie sovranazionali e resistenze interne. Processo penale e giustizia 1:109–123

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Law, Language, Interpretation and Translation, University of Trieste, Trieste, Italy

    Mitja Gialuz

Authors
  1. Mitja Gialuz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mitja Gialuz .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Law, University of Catania, Catania, Italy

    Tommaso Rafaraci  & Rosanna Belfiore  & 

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Gialuz, M. (2019). The Implementation of the Directive on Linguistic Assistance in Italy, Between Changes to the Code of Criminal Procedure and Case-Law Resistance. In: Rafaraci, T., Belfiore, R. (eds) EU Criminal Justice. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97319-7_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97319-7_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-97318-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-97319-7

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation