The right to translation in Belgian criminal proceedings: Between legal obligations and practical constraints

Sara Delva, Sarah van Hoof and Katrijn Maryns
Ghent University

This article examines the implementation of the Directive 2010/64/EU, and more specifically its provisions on written language assistance, in Belgian criminal proceedings. In order to investigate both top-down regulations and on-the-ground practices, a case study was conducted at the Ghent correctional court, including a policy review, analysis of criminal case files, and interviews with judicial actors. The study finds that the right to written translation is rarely exercised. Due to the restricted transposition of the Directive provisions into national legislation, local judicial authorities do not proactively provide translated procedural documents and defendants are often unaware of their right to translation. Instead of providing written translations, judicial authorities systematically rely on oral interpretation or summaries, despite the Directive stipulating that these should be the exception rather than the norm. Although the Directive was designed to strengthen fair trial protections, its impact remains limited in practice.

Publication history

Date received: 28 February 2025

Date accepted: 27 August 2026

Published online: 24 September 2026

Table of contents

1.Introduction

To ensure a fair trial, defendants in criminal proceedings in the European Union (EU) have a number of basic procedural rights, such as the right to information and the right to legal counsel. These rights allow defendants to actively participate in the proceedings and defend themselves, but can be jeopardized if defendants do not understand the language of the proceedings, which may make it difficult for them to understand procedural documents or communicate with their legal counsel. In order to ensure that a defendant is “able to understand what is happening and to make him/herself understood”11.Resolution of the Council of 30 November 2009 on a Roadmap for Strengthening Procedural Rights of Suspected or Accused Persons in Criminal Proceedings, 2009 O.J. (C 295). the European institutions have been working since the early 2000s to develop a legal framework that guarantees the provision of language assistance in all EU member states. These efforts resulted in Directive 2010/64/EU.22.Directive 2010/64, of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 on the Right to Interpretation and Translation in Criminal Proceedings, 2010 O.J. (L280). This directive grants defendants who do not understand the language of the proceedings two types of free language assistance throughout the proceedings: (a) interpreter assistance during oral communication with the authorities and the defendants’ legal counsel and (b) translations of certain procedural documents.

In this article, we present the findings of a multimethod case study on the implementation of the Directive’s requirements at the Ghent Court of First Instance, an officially monolingual criminal court in Flanders, the Dutch-speaking part of Belgium. Our main focus is on the Directive’s requirements regarding written translations. Belgium offers an interesting context for examining this topic because of its complex language policies, which Meylaerts (2011Meylaerts, Reine 2011 “Translational Justice in a Multilingual World: An Overview of Translational Regimes.” Meta: Journal Des Traducteurs / Meta: Translators’ Journal 56 (4): 743–757. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarMeylaerts, Reine 2011 “Translational Justice in a Multilingual World: An Overview of Translational Regimes.” Meta: Journal Des Traducteurs / Meta: Translators’ Journal 56 (4): 743–757. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, 752) describes as “institutional monolingualism” at the local level “combined with institutional multilingualism” at the federal level. Language policy in judicial proceedings in Belgium is governed by the 1935 Act on the Use of Languages in Judicial Proceedings (hereafter: Act of 1935),33. Loi du 15 juin 1935 concernant l’emploi des langues en matière judiciaire [Act of 15 June 1935 on the use of languages in judicial proceedings], Moniteur Belge [Official gazette of Belgium], October 11, 2011. which requires all proceedings to be conducted exclusively in one of three official languages (French, Dutch, or German), depending on the location of the court (i.e., the territoriality principle). This monolingual policy is in stark contrast with the multilingual character of Belgian society (Meylaerts and González Núñez 2018Meylaerts, Reine, and Gabriel González Núñez 2018 “No Language Policy without Translation Policy: A Comparison of Flanders and Wales.” Language Problems and Language Planning 42 (2): 196–219. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarMeylaerts, Reine, and Gabriel González Núñez 2018 “No Language Policy without Translation Policy: A Comparison of Flanders and Wales.” Language Problems and Language Planning 42 (2): 196–219. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar). In 2025, 17.1% of the Flemish population had a migrant background and 11% was non-Belgian (Statbel 2025 2025 “36% of the Belgian Population has Foreign Background.” Accessed September 25, 2025. https://​statbel​.fgov​.be​/en​/themes​/population​/structure​-population​/origin 2025 “36% of the Belgian Population has Foreign Background.” Accessed September 25, 2025. https://​statbel​.fgov​.be​/en​/themes​/population​/structure​-population​/origin). A 2022 survey by the Belgian statistical office Statbel showed that 33% of the Flemish population had little or no knowledge of Dutch (Statbel 2022Statbel 2022 “Insufficient Knowledge of the Language is the Main Barrier on the Belgian Labour Market.” Accessed September 25, 2025. https://​statbel​.fgov​.be​/en​/news​/insufficient​-knowledge​-language​-main​-barrier​-belgian​-labour​-marketStatbel 2022 “Insufficient Knowledge of the Language is the Main Barrier on the Belgian Labour Market.” Accessed September 25, 2025. https://​statbel​.fgov​.be​/en​/news​/insufficient​-knowledge​-language​-main​-barrier​-belgian​-labour​-market).

Since the language policy in judicial proceedings in Flanders is strictly monolingual, it must be supported by a translation policy to meet the needs of a multilingual population (Meylaerts 2011Meylaerts, Reine 2011 “Translational Justice in a Multilingual World: An Overview of Translational Regimes.” Meta: Journal Des Traducteurs / Meta: Translators’ Journal 56 (4): 743–757. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarMeylaerts, Reine 2011 “Translational Justice in a Multilingual World: An Overview of Translational Regimes.” Meta: Journal Des Traducteurs / Meta: Translators’ Journal 56 (4): 743–757. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar). The Act of 1935 has therefore been amended several times over the years. Although Belgium had already incorporated provisions for linguistic assistance in criminal proceedings into its legislation prior to the introduction of Directive 2010/64/EU, the transposition of the Directive (i.e., the process of incorporating it into national law) proved to be a challenging process. Belgium missed the initial transposition deadline, and in 2021, the European Commission launched an infringement procedure for failing to meet the Directive’s requirements. These transposition challenges, combined with the tension between local monolingualism, federal trilingualism, and the multilingual reality of Flemish society, make the Ghent court a particularly interesting case for examining the implementation of linguistic rights in criminal proceedings. Although this study focuses on a single court, it is best understood as an instrumental case study (Stake 1995Stake, Robert E. 1995 The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarStake, Robert E. 1995 The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar), offering insights into how supranational legal norms are translated into national legal frameworks and applied in day-to-day judicial practice.

2.Theoretical background

This study, which examines how the right to translation is implemented in criminal proceedings, builds on the extensive body of research on translation and interpreting in police and judicial settings. Within this literature, considerable attention has been devoted to themes such as interpreter visibility, agency, and power relations (Hale 2004Hale, Sandra Beatriz 2004 The Discourse of Court Interpreting: Discourse Practices of the Law, the Witness, and the Interpreter. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarHale, Sandra Beatriz 2004 The Discourse of Court Interpreting: Discourse Practices of the Law, the Witness, and the Interpreter. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Gallai 2013Gallai, Fabrizio 2013 “ ‘I’ll Just Intervene Whenever He Finds It a Bit Difficult to Answer’: Exploding the Myth of Literalism in Interpreted Interviews.” Investigative Interviewing: Research and Practice (II-RP) 5 (1): 57–78.Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarGallai, Fabrizio 2013 “ ‘I’ll Just Intervene Whenever He Finds It a Bit Difficult to Answer’: Exploding the Myth of Literalism in Interpreted Interviews.” Investigative Interviewing: Research and Practice (II-RP) 5 (1): 57–78.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Angermeyer 2015Angermeyer, Philipp Sebastian 2015 Speak English or What? Codeswitching and Interpreter Use in New York City Courts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarAngermeyer, Philipp Sebastian 2015 Speak English or What? Codeswitching and Interpreter Use in New York City Courts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Berk-Seligson 2017Berk-Seligson, Susan 2017 The Bilingual Courtroom: Court Interpreters in the Judicial Process. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarBerk-Seligson, Susan 2017 The Bilingual Courtroom: Court Interpreters in the Judicial Process. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Verliefde and Defrancq 2023Verliefde, Sofie, and Bart Defrancq 2023 “Interpreter-Mediated Access to the Written Record in Police Interviews.” Perspectives 31 (3): 519–547. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarVerliefde, Sofie, and Bart Defrancq 2023 “Interpreter-Mediated Access to the Written Record in Police Interviews.” Perspectives 31 (3): 519–547. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar). Berk-Seligson (2017)Berk-Seligson, Susan 2017 The Bilingual Courtroom: Court Interpreters in the Judicial Process. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarBerk-Seligson, Susan 2017 The Bilingual Courtroom: Court Interpreters in the Judicial Process. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, for instance, shows how court interpreters are inevitably influenced by legal institutions and power hierarchies, with potential consequences for trial outcomes. Angermeyer’s (2015)Angermeyer, Philipp Sebastian 2015 Speak English or What? Codeswitching and Interpreter Use in New York City Courts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarAngermeyer, Philipp Sebastian 2015 Speak English or What? Codeswitching and Interpreter Use in New York City Courts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar study of interpreter-mediated hearings in a New York small claims court raises important questions about the fairness of trials for speakers of languages other than English, as it shows, for instance, how an asymmetrical distribution of interpreting modes may disadvantage foreign-language litigants. Most studies on language support in legal settings focus primarily on spoken language interpreting, examining how interpreters mediate communication between legal professionals and clients during hearings and court proceedings. By contrast, written language assistance in these contexts has, to the best of our knowledge, not yet been the subject of empirical research. This article seeks to address this gap by focusing on written language assistance in criminal proceedings, and on the interchangeability of the spoken and written translation modality.

In our analysis of top-down regulations and on-the-ground practices relating to written translation in criminal proceedings, we draw on translation policy research (Meylaerts 2011Meylaerts, Reine 2011 “Translational Justice in a Multilingual World: An Overview of Translational Regimes.” Meta: Journal Des Traducteurs / Meta: Translators’ Journal 56 (4): 743–757. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarMeylaerts, Reine 2011 “Translational Justice in a Multilingual World: An Overview of Translational Regimes.” Meta: Journal Des Traducteurs / Meta: Translators’ Journal 56 (4): 743–757. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar), and more specifically on the approach developed by González Núñez (2016) 2016 “On Translation Policy.” Target: International Journal of Translation Studies 28 (1): 87–109. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar 2016 “On Translation Policy.” Target: International Journal of Translation Studies 28 (1): 87–109. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar. In this approach, the concept of translation policy is not merely understood as a set of regulations and legislation but, by analogy with Spolsky’s (2003)Spolsky, Bernard 2003 Language Policy: Key Topics in Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarSpolsky, Bernard 2003 Language Policy: Key Topics in Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar language policy model, as encompassing management, practices, and beliefs. In this definition, management refers to “decisions regarding translation made by people who have the authority to decide the use or non-use of translation within a domain” (González Núñez 2016 2016 “On Translation Policy.” Target: International Journal of Translation Studies 28 (1): 87–109. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar 2016 “On Translation Policy.” Target: International Journal of Translation Studies 28 (1): 87–109. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, 92). Practices “come in the footsteps” of that management and concern what actually happens within a given community: what is translated and what is not, how, and by whom (ibid.). Finally, beliefs refer to the often unspoken and sometimes conflicting convictions held by participants in the domain under study (González Núñez 2016 2016 “On Translation Policy.” Target: International Journal of Translation Studies 28 (1): 87–109. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar 2016 “On Translation Policy.” Target: International Journal of Translation Studies 28 (1): 87–109. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar).

Existing publications on Directive 2010/64/EU tend to focus on the management aspect. They often adopt a doctrinal legal research perspective and focus exclusively on the theoretical transposition of the Directive’s provisions into national legislation (Amato and Mack 2015Amato, Amalia, and Gabriele Mack 2015 “The IMPLI Project, Pre-Trial Interpreting in Italy and the Transposition of Directive 2010/64 EU.” TRANS Revista de Traductología 1 (19): 43–56. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarAmato, Amalia, and Gabriele Mack 2015 “The IMPLI Project, Pre-Trial Interpreting in Italy and the Transposition of Directive 2010/64 EU.” TRANS Revista de Traductología 1 (19): 43–56. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Vanden Bosch 2017Vanden Bosch 2017 “Het recht op vertolking en vertaling in strafzaken en de omzetting van de EU-richtlijnen [The right to interpretation and translation in criminal cases and the transposition of the EU directives].” Tijdschrift voor Strafrecht [ Journal for criminal law ] 2: 79–107.Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarVanden Bosch 2017 “Het recht op vertolking en vertaling in strafzaken en de omzetting van de EU-richtlijnen [The right to interpretation and translation in criminal cases and the transposition of the EU directives].” Tijdschrift voor Strafrecht [Journal for criminal law] 2: 79–107.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Gialuz 2019Gialuz, Mitja 2019 “The Implementation of the Directive on Linguistic Assistance in Italy, between Changes to the Code of Criminal Procedure and Case-Law Resistance.” In EU Criminal Justice: Fundamental Rights, Transnational Proceedings and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, edited by Tommaso Rafaraci and Rosanna Belfiore, 27–41. Cham: Springer International. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarGialuz, Mitja 2019 “The Implementation of the Directive on Linguistic Assistance in Italy, between Changes to the Code of Criminal Procedure and Case-Law Resistance.” In EU Criminal Justice: Fundamental Rights, Transnational Proceedings and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, edited by Tommaso Rafaraci and Rosanna Belfiore, 27–41. Cham: Springer International. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Muñoz de Morales Romero 2020Muñoz de Morales Romero, Marta 2020 “Shades of Light and Darkness: The Spanish Transposition of EU Directives on the Rights of Suspected and Accused Persons.” European Criminal Law Review 10 (January): 48–65. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarMuñoz de Morales Romero, Marta 2020 “Shades of Light and Darkness: The Spanish Transposition of EU Directives on the Rights of Suspected and Accused Persons.” European Criminal Law Review 10 (January): 48–65. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar). However, several studies have suggested that analyses should not be limited to top-down rules, but should also examine how on-the-ground practices vary locally and what beliefs or ideologies different stakeholder groups hold (González Núñez 2013González Núñez, Gabriel 2013 “Translating for Linguistic Minorities in Northern Ireland: A Look at Translation Policy in the Judiciary, Healthcare, and Local Government.” Current Issues in Language Planning 14 (3–04): 474–489. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarGonzález Núñez, Gabriel 2013 “Translating for Linguistic Minorities in Northern Ireland: A Look at Translation Policy in the Judiciary, Healthcare, and Local Government.” Current Issues in Language Planning 14 (3–04): 474–489. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Meylaerts 2021Meylaerts, Reine 2021 “Language and Translation Policies in a Bilingual City with a Multilingual Population: The Case of Brussels.” In The Routledge Handbook of Translation and the City, edited by Tong King Lee. London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarMeylaerts, Reine 2021 “Language and Translation Policies in a Bilingual City with a Multilingual Population: The Case of Brussels.” In The Routledge Handbook of Translation and the City, edited by Tong King Lee. London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Jacobs 2024Jacobs, Marie 2024 “Choosing Is Losing: Language Policy and Language Choice Acts at the Asylum Law Firm.” Language Policy 23 (2): 119–145. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarJacobs, Marie 2024 “Choosing Is Losing: Language Policy and Language Choice Acts at the Asylum Law Firm.” Language Policy 23 (2): 119–145. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar). For instance, González Núñez (2013González Núñez, Gabriel 2013 “Translating for Linguistic Minorities in Northern Ireland: A Look at Translation Policy in the Judiciary, Healthcare, and Local Government.” Current Issues in Language Planning 14 (3–04): 474–489. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarGonzález Núñez, Gabriel 2013 “Translating for Linguistic Minorities in Northern Ireland: A Look at Translation Policy in the Judiciary, Healthcare, and Local Government.” Current Issues in Language Planning 14 (3–04): 474–489. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, 485), in his case study of language assistance in institutional settings in Northern Ireland, shows that “translation policies are created through a complex and fluid interaction of politics, direction from above, demographics, and local needs and interests.” Meylaerts (2021)Meylaerts, Reine 2021 “Language and Translation Policies in a Bilingual City with a Multilingual Population: The Case of Brussels.” In The Routledge Handbook of Translation and the City, edited by Tong King Lee. London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarMeylaerts, Reine 2021 “Language and Translation Policies in a Bilingual City with a Multilingual Population: The Case of Brussels.” In The Routledge Handbook of Translation and the City, edited by Tong King Lee. London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar describes how translation practices in public services in Brussels, the Belgian capital, diverge from the city’s official bilingualism, with both under-translation and over-translation occurring. Moreover, official policy offers few solutions to ensure that the city’s diverse and multilingual migrant population can access public services, leading in practice to bottom-up initiatives that fall outside the formal regulatory framework. In her research on lawyer-client communication in asylum cases, Jacobs (2024)Jacobs, Marie 2024 “Choosing Is Losing: Language Policy and Language Choice Acts at the Asylum Law Firm.” Language Policy 23 (2): 119–145. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarJacobs, Marie 2024 “Choosing Is Losing: Language Policy and Language Choice Acts at the Asylum Law Firm.” Language Policy 23 (2): 119–145. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar demonstrates that top-down regulations on language assistance in lawyer-client conversations are overruled by judicial actors in the field, who in practice make context-bound, often intuitive decisions regarding language assistance. In our study, we seek to contribute to the field by not only looking at the management dimension of translation policies (in our case, the national transposition of Directive 2010/64/EU), but also at on-the-ground practices (the concrete implementation of the rules at the Ghent Court of First Instance) and beliefs (through interviews with judiciary actors at the court).

3.Context: Genesis and transposition of Directive 2010/64/EU

Directive 2010/64/EU is the direct result of the Roadmap for Strengthening Procedural Rights of Suspected or Accused Persons in Criminal Proceedings44.Resolution of the Council of 30 November 2009 on a Roadmap for Strengthening Procedural Rights of Suspected or Accused Persons in Criminal Proceedings, 2009 O.J. (C 295). introduced in 2009 with the aim of making the minimum conditions for a fair trial described in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)55.Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, November 4, 1950, E.T.S. No. 5. more concrete (Cras and De Matteis 2010Cras, Steven, and Luca de Matteis 2010 “The Directive on Interpretation and Translation in Criminal Proceedings.” Eucrim 4: 153–162. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarCras, Steven, and Luca de Matteis 2010 “The Directive on Interpretation and Translation in Criminal Proceedings.” Eucrim 4: 153–162. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Hertog 2015Hertog, Erik 2015 “Directive 2010/64/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Right to Interpretation and Translation in Criminal Proceedings: Transposition Strategies with Regard to Interpretation and Translation.” MonTI: Monografías de Traducción e Interpretación 7: 73–100.Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarHertog, Erik 2015 “Directive 2010/64/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Right to Interpretation and Translation in Criminal Proceedings: Transposition Strategies with Regard to Interpretation and Translation.” MonTI: Monografías de Traducción e Interpretación 7: 73–100.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Riehle and Clozel 2020Riehle, Cornelia, and Allison Clozel 2020 “10 Years after the Roadmap: Procedural Rights in Criminal Proceedings in the EU Today.” ERA Forum 20 (3): 321–325. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarRiehle, Cornelia, and Allison Clozel 2020 “10 Years after the Roadmap: Procedural Rights in Criminal Proceedings in the EU Today.” ERA Forum 20 (3): 321–325. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar). That Roadmap outlines six measures to ensure that defendants are protected and can actively participate in their proceedings, including the rights to information, legal counsel, and language assistance. With the adoption of Directive 2010/64/EU, the measure on language assistance was the first to be concretized. By establishing a number of minimum standards for both oral and written language assistance, the Directive aimed to ensure and enable a number of related principles for those who are not proficient in the language of the proceedings, such as the right to understand and be understood (Orlando 2016Orlando, Daniele 2016 “Legal Translation as a Human Right: Ensuring a Fair Trial through Translation Quality and Training.” New Voices in Translation Studies 14 (1): 23–45.Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarOrlando, Daniele 2016 “Legal Translation as a Human Right: Ensuring a Fair Trial through Translation Quality and Training.” New Voices in Translation Studies 14 (1): 23–45.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar), the right to be heard (Chioni-Chotouman 2018Chioni-Chotouman, Chara 2018 “The Right to Translation and Interpretation in Criminal Proceedings: Providing a Common Code between the Defendant and the Court.” Cambridge Law Review 3: 66–85.Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarChioni-Chotouman, Chara 2018 “The Right to Translation and Interpretation in Criminal Proceedings: Providing a Common Code between the Defendant and the Court.” Cambridge Law Review 3: 66–85.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar), the right to information (Cras and De Matteis 2010Cras, Steven, and Luca de Matteis 2010 “The Directive on Interpretation and Translation in Criminal Proceedings.” Eucrim 4: 153–162. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarCras, Steven, and Luca de Matteis 2010 “The Directive on Interpretation and Translation in Criminal Proceedings.” Eucrim 4: 153–162. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar), the right to defense, and access to justice (Blasco Mayor and Del Pozo Triviño 2015Blasco Mayor, María Jesús, and Maribel del Pozo Triviño 2015 “Legal Interpreting in Spain at a Turning Point.” MonTI: Monografías de Traducción e Interpretación 7: 9–40.Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarBlasco Mayor, María Jesús, and Maribel del Pozo Triviño 2015 “Legal Interpreting in Spain at a Turning Point.” MonTI: Monografías de Traducción e Interpretación 7: 9–40.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar).

Member states were given three years (until October 2013), instead of the usual two years, to fulfil the minimum goals set by the Directive in a way they considered appropriate (European Commission 2018European Commission 2018 COM(2018) 857 final. Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the Implementation of Directive 2010/64/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 on the Right to Interpretation and Translation in Criminal Proceedings. Brussels: European Commission. https://​eur​-lex​.europa​.eu​/legal​-content​/EN​/TXT​/?uri​=CELEX:52018DC0857European Commission 2018 COM(2018) 857 final. Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the Implementation of Directive 2010/64/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 on the Right to Interpretation and Translation in Criminal Proceedings. Brussels: European Commission. https://​eur​-lex​.europa​.eu​/legal​-content​/EN​/TXT​/?uri​=CELEX:52018DC0857). In its first assessment (2018, 13) of the member states’ transposition measures, the European Commission recognized the Directive’s “added value” in protecting the rights of defendants in member states where language rights did not yet exist. However, compliance problems remained in some member states.

Belgium is one of the countries that did not meet the foreseen transposition deadline (2013) (ibid.). It transposed the Directive piecemeal — not by a single act but by a series of acts, namely the acts of 10 April 2014 (henceforth ActApr2014),66. Loi du 10 avril 2014 modifiant diverses dispositions en vue d’établir un registre national des experts judiciaires et établissant un registre national des traducteurs, interprètes et traducteurs-interprètes jurés [Act of 10 April 2014 amending various provisions with a view to establishing a national register of judicial experts and establishing a national register of sworn translators, interpreters and translator-interpreters], Moniteur Belge [Official gazette of Belgium], December 19, 2014. 28 October 2016 (ActOct2016),77. Loi du 28 octobre 2016 complétant la transposition de la Directive 2010/64/UE du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 20 octobre 2010 relative au droit à l’interprétation et à la traduction dans le cadre des procédures pénales et de la Directive 2012/29/UE du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 25 octobre 2012 établissant des normes minimales concernant les droits, le soutien et la protection des victimes de la criminalité et remplaçant la décision-cadre 2001/220/JAI [Act of 28 October 2016 further transposing Directive 2010/64/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings and Directive 2012/29/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA], Moniteur Belge [Official gazette of Belgium], November 24, 2016. and 21 November 2016 (ActNov2016).88. Loi du 21 novembre 2016 relative à certains droits des personnes soumises à un interrogatoire [Act of 21 November 2016 on certain rights of persons subject to interrogation], Moniteur Belge [Official gazette of Belgium], November 24, 2016. This transposition, however, did not fulfil the Directive’s requirements. In 2021, the Commission initiated an infringement procedure by sending Belgium and three other member states a letter of formal notice for failing to correctly transpose Directive 2010/64/EU (European Commission 2021European Commission 2021 “September Infringements Package: Key Decisions.” Accessed February 26, 2025. https://​ec​.europa​.eu​/commission​/presscorner​/detail​/EN​/INF​_21​_4681European Commission 2021 “September Infringements Package: Key Decisions.” Accessed February 26, 2025. https://​ec​.europa​.eu​/commission​/presscorner​/detail​/EN​/INF​_21​_4681). In 2023, the Commission escalated the procedure by sending a reasoned opinion, as Belgium’s response to the letter of formal notice did not adequately address the Commission’s concerns (European Commission 2023European Commission 2023 “January Infringements Package: Key Decisions.” Accessed February 26, 2025. https://​ec​.europa​.eu​/commission​/presscorner​/detail​/EN​/inf​_23​_142European Commission 2023 “January Infringements Package: Key Decisions.” Accessed February 26, 2025. https://​ec​.europa​.eu​/commission​/presscorner​/detail​/EN​/inf​_23​_142). In April 2024, Belgium responded by passing a new transposition act (ActApr2024).99. Loi du 25 avril 2024 complétant la transposition de la directive 2010/64/UE du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 20 octobre 2010 relative au droit à l’interprétation et à la traduction dans le cadre des procédures pénales, de la directive 2012/13/UE du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 22 mai 2012 relative au droit à l’information dans le cadre des procédures pénales et de la directive 2013/48/UE du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 22 octobre 2013 relative au droit d’accès à un avocat dans le cadre des procédures pénales et des procédures relatives au mandat d’arrêt européen, au droit d’informer un tiers dès la privation de liberté et au droit des personnes privées de liberté de communiquer avec des tiers et avec les autorités consulaires [Act of 25 April 2024 further transposing Directive 2010/64/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings, Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings, and Directive 2013/48/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 on the right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings and in European arrest warrant proceedings, and on the right to have a third party informed upon deprivation of liberty and the right to communicate with third persons and with consular authorities while deprived of liberty], Moniteur Belge [Official gazette of Belgium], June 17, 2024. These transposition acts will be discussed in more detail in Section 5.1.

4.Data collection and analysis methods

The case study presented in this article was conducted at the Court of First Instance in the city of Ghent, a monolingual, Dutch-speaking sentencing court located in the judicial district of East-Flanders (one of Belgium’s twelve judicial districts). A triangulated data collection strategy (Giustini 2021Giustini, Deborah 2021 “ ‘The Whole Thing is Really Managing Crisis’: Practice Theory Insights into Interpreters’ Work Experiences of Success and Failure.” The British Journal of Sociology 72 (4): 1–15. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarGiustini, Deborah 2021 “ ‘The Whole Thing is Really Managing Crisis’: Practice Theory Insights into Interpreters’ Work Experiences of Success and Failure.” The British Journal of Sociology 72 (4): 1–15. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar) was used, including a review of the legislative framework (Section 4.1), an analysis of criminal case files (Section 4.2), and an analysis of interview and survey data (Section 4.3). This approach allowed us to gain insight into the three dimensions of translation policy as defined by González Núñez (2016) 2016 “On Translation Policy.” Target: International Journal of Translation Studies 28 (1): 87–109. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar 2016 “On Translation Policy.” Target: International Journal of Translation Studies 28 (1): 87–109. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, based on Spolsky’s (2003)Spolsky, Bernard 2003 Language Policy: Key Topics in Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarSpolsky, Bernard 2003 Language Policy: Key Topics in Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar language policy model, and to describe the interplay between higher-level policies (management), actual work processes on the ground (practices), and the perceptions of the actors involved in these processes (beliefs).

4.1Review of the legislative framework

In the initial phase of our research, we focused on the management dimension by analyzing legislative and policy documents regulating the right to language assistance in criminal proceedings at both the international and the national level. The analyzed documents included Directive 2010/64/EU and associated policy documents, the European Commission’s (2018)European Commission 2018 COM(2018) 857 final. Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the Implementation of Directive 2010/64/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 on the Right to Interpretation and Translation in Criminal Proceedings. Brussels: European Commission. https://​eur​-lex​.europa​.eu​/legal​-content​/EN​/TXT​/?uri​=CELEX:52018DC0857European Commission 2018 COM(2018) 857 final. Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the Implementation of Directive 2010/64/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 on the Right to Interpretation and Translation in Criminal Proceedings. Brussels: European Commission. https://​eur​-lex​.europa​.eu​/legal​-content​/EN​/TXT​/?uri​=CELEX:52018DC0857 report on the transposition of Directive 2010/64/EU in the member states, press releases regarding the infringement procedures, Belgian legislation on language assistance in criminal matters, and preparatory documents, reports and guidelines concerning the transposition and execution of the Directive in Belgium.

4.2Analysis of criminal case files

In the second phase of data collection, we looked at policy practice by examining a sample of 482 criminal case files. Criminal case files contain “all useful intelligence related to the crime” (Van den Wyngaert, Vandromme, and Traest 2022Van den Wyngaert, Chris, Steven Vandromme, and Philip Traest 2022 Strafrecht en strafprocesrecht in hoofdlijnen [ Criminal law and criminal procedure ]. Antwerpen: Gompel&Svacina.Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarVan den Wyngaert, Chris, Steven Vandromme, and Philip Traest 2022 Strafrecht en strafprocesrecht in hoofdlijnen [Criminal law and criminal procedure]. Antwerpen: Gompel&Svacina.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, 946) and a written record of all investigative acts carried out in the course of the investigation (Bloch 2019Bloch, Alain 2019 Het strafdossier, een straf dossier [The criminal case file, quite a file]. Brugge: Die Keure.Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarBloch, Alain 2019 Het strafdossier, een straf dossier [The criminal case file, quite a file]. Brugge: Die Keure.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, 2), such as evidentiary documents and written police records following interrogations with suspects, witnesses and victims. The case file, compiled by magistrates of the Public Prosecution Service (and the investigating judge, if applicable) during the investigative pre-trial stage, forms the basis for the trial stage of the proceedings (1), during which judges base their decision on the available information (Traest 2011Traest, Philip 2011 “Het proces-verbaal van verhoor en/of aangifte [The official record of interrogation and/or complaint].” Cahiers Politiestudies 21 (4): 33–52.Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarTraest, Philip 2011 “Het proces-verbaal van verhoor en/of aangifte [The official record of interrogation and/or complaint].” Cahiers Politiestudies 21 (4): 33–52.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar). In the trial stage, information about the courtroom proceedings (indictments, interlocutory judgments, hearings of witnesses, correspondence, etc.) is also added to the case file. Since case files thus constitute a complete paper trail of both the pre-trial and the trial stage, they allow us to examine how the right to written language assistance was applied throughout the proceedings.

The case files analyzed in this study were accessed between 2021 and 2023 at the archive of the Court of First Instance in Ghent. This archive contains closed case files from different departments of the Court of First Instance, stored chronologically by decision date.1010.The analyzed case files are all files in which the defendant did not file an appeal, as those cases are stored in a different archive to which we had no access. There is a possibility that in cases where an appeal was filed, the right to language assistance was exercised more frequently. In order to create a representative sample, we used a semi-systematic sampling method which involved a two-step process. In the first step, we identified the total population of relevant case files. We limited this population to cases closed between 2018 and 2021 and to correctional cases; in other words, cases about misdemeanors (intermediate criminal offenses) and ‘correctionalized’ felonies (serious crimes downgraded for trial at a lower level). We also only took into account cases dealt with in first instance, excluding any cases in which an appeal was lodged. This resulted in a total population pool of 6610 relevant case files in the archive, as shown in Table 1.

Table 1.Overview of the (sampled) correctional case files (with a judgment) found in the archives of the Ghent court of first instance
Year Correctional case files Analyzed case files (4% per year)
2018 1520 110
2019 1638 116
2020 1565 122
2021 1887 134
Total 6610 482

In the second step, we manually selected every 25th criminal case file within each year. We only included case files that had been concluded with a judgment, since we wanted to know whether the judgment had been translated. If the file did not meet this criterion (for instance, if the suspect was deceased or unknown, preventing a judgment from being rendered, or if the case was closed with an alternative settlement), we moved on to the next file. This is why we describe our sampling technique as ‘semi-systematic sampling’ rather than ‘systematic sampling’. This process yielded 482 files, representing 7.3% of all correctional case files available in the archive within the determined timeframe (2018–2021). These case files involve various charges, of which offenses against property (34.2%), offenses against persons (24.3%), and violations of drug legislation (approximately 15.4%) are the most common categories in the sample.1111.We based the categorization of the charges on the original charges filed by the public prosecutor, without taking any potential requalifications into account. If multiple charges were present, only the first-listed charge was considered. The charges were categorized in accordance with the Belgian Criminal Code.

The 482 sampled criminal case files underwent a detailed review and coding process, in which we captured demographic data, case specifics, language preferences, and any information regarding language assistance (e.g., interpreter assistance, situations in which the defendant was informed of their right to translation, and the provision of translated documents). This coding allowed us to quantify the use of language assistance and to identify relationships between case file characteristics (e.g., between nationality or place of residence and whether or not the defendant received a translated judgment).

During this coding stage, we identified a total of 596 defendants across the sampled 482 files. Not all defendants in the dataset lived in Flanders, as the choice of a court is not necessarily related to the defendant’s place of residence but may also be related to the place where the offence was committed or where the defendant was found (Article 139 of the Belgian Code of Criminal Procedure,1212. Code d’instruction criminelle [Code of criminal procedure], Moniteur Belge [Official gazette of Belgium], November 27, 1808. hereafter referred to as the CCP). A total of 475 defendants resided in Flanders or Brussels, ten in Wallonia, and thirty-eight abroad. In seventy-three cases, the place of residence was unknown. We classified 139 (23.3%) of the defendants as defendants with limited Dutch proficiency (LDP), either because they requested to use a language other than Dutch in the legal proceedings or because they lacked sufficient proficiency in Dutch to be questioned in that language, prompting the police to assign an interpreter.1313.Belgian legislation on the right to written translations states that defendants who do not ‘understand’ the language of the proceedings are entitled to written translations of certain procedural documents. The key criterion, therefore, is understanding, not speaking. In legal provisions on oral language assistance, however, ‘speaking’ is added to ‘understanding’. Moreover, in practice, a distinction is usually not made between the two: defendants are categorized as either needing language assistance or not. For this reason, we use the more general and concise term ‘LDP defendants’, referring to any defendant who either requested or was assigned language assistance during their proceedings. In 5.5% of the cases, we could not identify the preferred language because the defendant was never questioned. Table 2 shows the distribution of languages among the LDP defendants in the dataset.

Table 2.Distribution of foreign languages among LDP defendants in the dataset
Language Count Percentage
French  26  18.7
Arabic  23  16.5
Bulgarian  18  12.9
Turkish  16  11.5
Albanian  13   9.4
Polish  10   7.2
English   9   6.5
Romanian   7   5.0
Slovak   5   3.6
Russian   4   2.9
Pashto   3    2.17
Serbian   2    1.45
Mongolian   1    0.72
Hindi   1    0.72
Spanish   1    0.72
Total 138  100.00

4.3Interview and survey data

To further examine local practices and to explore attitudes and beliefs about linguistic rights, we conducted interviews and focus groups with various actors in the Court of First Instance of Ghent, including lawyers and staff members of the court and public prosecution’s office, an overview of which is provided in Appendix 1. The interviews were conducted in two phases, spanning 2022–2023 and 2024–2025. This phased approach was necessary because the data collection process was informed by insights that emerged over time, as well as by the aforementioned changes in the legislation, which warranted additional interviews in 2024–2025. The data collection was limited to the Ghent Court of First Instance: all participants were either members of the court staff, or, in the case of lawyers, registered at the Ghent Bar. By interviewing lawyers and staff members of various services and hierarchical levels of the Ghent Court of First Instance, we covered all the actors involved in organizing language assistance in correctional proceedings.

Participants were primarily contacted through cold calling, but also through professional connections. In addition, some interviewees facilitated further recruitment by introducing colleagues and professional contacts (snowball sampling). All interviews were semi-structured and data-driven; in other words, the questions were informed by the analysis of the legislative framework and data previously collected from the case file archive. The interview guides are provided in Appendix 2. Except for the first interview, all interviews were recorded (a total of 873 minutes of audio material) and transcribed.

In addition to the interviews, we also organized a survey, distributed via cold emailing, which yielded 144 responses. For the analysis, we only retained the 102 lawyers who reported that criminal law accounts for at least half of their professional activity. The survey included both closed and open questions on the use of language assistance in criminal proceedings, including awareness of the right to written translation, frequency of use, and views on whether translations should be provided proactively. The survey was not limited to Ghent: in addition to Ghent-based lawyers, participants also included lawyers registered with other Bars in Flanders and Brussels.

The qualitative data from the interviews, the e-mail correspondence and the open-ended survey responses were analyzed thematically by the first author in multiple coding stages (Braun and Clarke 2006Braun, Virginia, and Victoria Clarke 2006 “Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology.” Qualitative Research in Psychology 3 (2): 77–101. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarBraun, Virginia, and Victoria Clarke 2006 “Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology.” Qualitative Research in Psychology 3 (2): 77–101. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar). A combination of software-assisted and manual coding was used: some interviews were systematically coded in NVivo (QSR International Pty Ltd 2020QSR International Pty Ltd 2020 NVivo. V13.Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarQSR International Pty Ltd 2020 NVivo. V13.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar), while others, along with the open-ended survey responses, were analyzed through close reading and color-coded highlighting to identify key themes. Table 3 summarizes the main themes that emerged from the thematic analysis of the interview and survey data. The codes listed under each subtheme cover both practices (i.e., observed practices as well as practices reported by the participants themselves) and beliefs. While the table is not exhaustive, it illustrates how recurring themes were identified and organized. Both the interviews and the survey were conducted in Dutch. Excerpts used in this article were translated into English by the first author.

Table 3.Overview of the recurring themes in the interview and survey data
Theme Examples of subthemes Examples of codes
Feasibility of Directive 2010/64/EU and practical constraints Time; Costs; Use of technology Translating all documents is a utopian dream; Defendants should cover translation costs (belief); Translating all documents is unaffordable (belief); Translations take too long (belief); Digitalization could facilitate translations (belief)
Use of the right to translation in practice Awareness of the right; Actual use Lawyer rarely requests translations (practice); Lawyer produces translations with MT tools (practice); Lawyer unaware of the possibility to request translations (practice)
Necessity of oral/written language assistance Need for written assistance; Need for oral assistance; Substitution of written by oral language assistance Essential documents should always be translated (belief); Oral translation of essential documents is sufficient (belief); Dutch-speaking defendants do not read their documents either (practice); Lawyer explains documents to LDP defendants in lingua franca (practice)
Alternative solutions to written language assistance Technology; Sworn interpreters; Informal interpreters; Quality of language assistance; Use of lingua franca Use of lingua franca to explain documents (practice); Defendants receive help from cellmates (practice); Cooperation with trusted interpreters (practice); Defendants bring informal interpreters (practice); Lawyers avoid cooperation with interpreters (practice)
Impact of (lack of) language assistance on defendants Role of lawyers; Access to justice; Language-related problems; Fair trial concerns LDP defendants are not disadvantaged compared to Dutch-speaking defendants (belief); Lawyers are responsible for informing defendants (belief); Current practice in Ghent constitutes a violation of fair trial rights (belief)

The survey data were analyzed quantitatively using Excel. A summary table of all closed survey questions and their response frequencies is provided in Appendix 3.

5.Results

5.1Transposition of Directive 2010/64/EU into Belgian domestic law

Directive 2010/64/EU states that defendants are entitled to a free written translation of all procedural documents (or at least excerpts of them) that are essential to ensure the right of defense and the fairness of the proceedings (Article 3(1), (9)), more specifically “any decision depriving a person of his liberty, any charge or subpoena, and any judgment” (Article 3(2)). Defendants or their legal counsel can also request translations of other procedural documents (Article 3(3)). In that case, the competent authorities must decide whether those documents are essential or not. Translations should be provided within a reasonable timeframe (Article 3(1)) and be of sufficient quality (Article 5).

As discussed in Section 1 and 3, the transposition of these Directive provisions into Belgian law has not been a straightforward process: not only did Belgium miss the initial transposition deadline, the transposition was also fragmentary and only partially completed. In this section, we analyze the dynamics of how the transposition was minimally implemented and therefore failed to meet the Directive’s requirements in 2016, how this then led to an infringement procedure (2021) and finally to a new transposition act in 2024. In our analysis and discussion, we document each of these stages of implementation based on the collected data.

5.1.1First transposition in 2016

The Directive provisions regarding written translation were transposed into national legislation by the act of October 2016 (ActOct2016) and the act of November 2016 (ActNov2016) (see Section 3), which amend a series of existing legal provisions across various acts and codes. The amended provisions appear to cover the basic right to translation as laid out in the Directive: LDP defendants are entitled to a free translation of the three essential procedural documents identified in the Directive (in Belgian correctional proceedings: the arrest warrant, the indictment, and the judgment). Defendants may also submit a reasoned request to the court registry for the translation of other non-essential documents. Vanden Bosch (2017)Vanden Bosch 2017 “Het recht op vertolking en vertaling in strafzaken en de omzetting van de EU-richtlijnen [The right to interpretation and translation in criminal cases and the transposition of the EU directives].” Tijdschrift voor Strafrecht [ Journal for criminal law ] 2: 79–107.Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarVanden Bosch 2017 “Het recht op vertolking en vertaling in strafzaken en de omzetting van de EU-richtlijnen [The right to interpretation and translation in criminal cases and the transposition of the EU directives].” Tijdschrift voor Strafrecht [Journal for criminal law] 2: 79–107.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar argues that the fragmented transposition did not warrant the conclusion that the Directive had been fully implemented. Indeed, our analysis shows that the 2016 transposition contains significant restrictions, some of which are linked to limitations and a lack of clarity of the Directive.

First, translations of essential documents are not offered proactively but only if defendants submit a request (Articles 3, 5, 9, and 18 ActOct2016; Article 7 ActNov2016). This restriction can be attributed to a lack of clarity in the Directive, which does not explicitly state whether judicial authorities are required to provide translations of essential documents automatically.

Second, the transposition laws allow judicial authorities to systematically replace written translations with oral translations or summaries. The Directive does allow using oral translations and summaries of essential documents, but only exceptionally and provided it “does not prejudice the fairness of the proceedings” (Article 3(7)). This possibility was included at the request of various member states, who argued that it would reduce delays and translation costs and that oral, on-the-spot translations are important in daily court practice (Cras and De Matteis 2010Cras, Steven, and Luca de Matteis 2010 “The Directive on Interpretation and Translation in Criminal Proceedings.” Eucrim 4: 153–162. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarCras, Steven, and Luca de Matteis 2010 “The Directive on Interpretation and Translation in Criminal Proceedings.” Eucrim 4: 153–162. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, 160; Brannan 2017Brannan, James 2017 “Identifying Written Translation in Criminal Proceedings as a Separate Right: Scope and Supervision under European Law.” JoSTrans: The Journal of Specialised Translation 27: 43–57. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarBrannan, James 2017 “Identifying Written Translation in Criminal Proceedings as a Separate Right: Scope and Supervision under European Law.” JoSTrans: The Journal of Specialised Translation 27: 43–57. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, 51). In its 2018 report, the Commission emphasized that written translations should remain the norm, which is not the case in the Belgian transposition, which even stipulates that defendants cannot request a free written translation of the arrest warrant (Article 7 ActNov2016) and the judgment (Article 5 ActOct2016) if they already received an oral translation or summary of those documents before. These provisions were deliberately included to reduce costs.1414.Belgian Chamber of Representatives. 2016. DOC 54 2029/003. Projet de loi complétant la transposition de la Directive 2010/64/UE relative au droit à l’interprétation et à la traduction dans le cadre des procédures pénales et de la Directive 2012/29/UE établissant des normes minimales concernant les droits, le soutien et la protection des victimes de la criminalité et remplaçant la décision-cadre 2001/220/JAI du Conseil [Bill further transposing Directive 2010/64/EU on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings and Directive 2012/29/EU establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA]. https://​www​.dekamer​.be​/FLWB​/PDF​/55​/2170​/55K2170003​.pdf Since interpreter assistance is mandatory for LDP defendants during court hearings and interrogations, this implies they cannot request a translated arrest warrant and can only request a free translation of the judgment if they were absent during the court session.

Third, requesting translations is bound to specific deadlines: the request for a translated arrest warrant has to be made within three days after its issuance and the request for translated non-essential documents must be submitted within eight days of receiving the indictment (in police and correctional cases; Article 16 ActOct2016) or the decision to refer the case to the Assize Court (in Assize Court cases; Article 7 ActNov2016). According to Vanden Bosch (2017)Vanden Bosch 2017 “Het recht op vertolking en vertaling in strafzaken en de omzetting van de EU-richtlijnen [The right to interpretation and translation in criminal cases and the transposition of the EU directives].” Tijdschrift voor Strafrecht [ Journal for criminal law ] 2: 79–107.Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarVanden Bosch 2017 “Het recht op vertolking en vertaling in strafzaken en de omzetting van de EU-richtlijnen [The right to interpretation and translation in criminal cases and the transposition of the EU directives].” Tijdschrift voor Strafrecht [Journal for criminal law] 2: 79–107.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, this eight-day-deadline is a violation of the rights of defense. No deadlines are set for indictments or judgments, though the term between receiving an indictment and appearing in court must be at least ten days, or at least three days for suspects in pre-trial detention (Article 184 CCP). After a judgment is issued, defendants who were not present in court have fifteen days to oppose the default judgment (Article 187 CCP). Defendants can also appeal within thirty days after the judgment (Article 203 CCP). These terms impact the possibility to request translations.

Fourth, Belgium does not require that defendants are informed of their right to translation. This obligation to provide information is not included in Directive 2010/64/EU but is stipulated in Directive 2012/13/EU,1515.Directive 2012/13, of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the Right to Information in Criminal Proceedings, 2012 O.J. (L142). which regulates the right to information in criminal proceedings and requires member states to inform defendants of their right to language assistance (Article 3).

Two other limitations are not specific to the Belgian transposition but are already embedded in the Directive itself. First, judicial authorities are only obliged to have excerpts of essential documents translated that are relevant for the defendants to be informed about the case against them (Article 3(4)), which allows member states to reduce the translated volume and the associated costs (Cras and De Matteis 2010Cras, Steven, and Luca de Matteis 2010 “The Directive on Interpretation and Translation in Criminal Proceedings.” Eucrim 4: 153–162. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarCras, Steven, and Luca de Matteis 2010 “The Directive on Interpretation and Translation in Criminal Proceedings.” Eucrim 4: 153–162. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, 160). There is no clear definition of which parts of essential documents are considered relevant and which are not, nor how this should be determined. Finally, the fact that the right to receive an automatic translation is restricted to three essential documents (Article 3(3)) could also be considered a limitation. Cras and De Mateis (2010Cras, Steven, and Luca de Matteis 2010 “The Directive on Interpretation and Translation in Criminal Proceedings.” Eucrim 4: 153–162. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarCras, Steven, and Luca de Matteis 2010 “The Directive on Interpretation and Translation in Criminal Proceedings.” Eucrim 4: 153–162. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, 159) argue that “if the right to translation is taken seriously and is linked to an effective — and not abstract — implementation of the right to be informed about the “nature and cause of the accusation” or implementation of the right to “have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of [the] defence” (see Article 6(3)(a) and (b) ECHR), evidentiary material should have been included in the list of essential documents as well. Defendants can submit a request to receive a translation of other procedural documents, such as evidentiary material, but this requires an extra administrative step which might be an obstacle for defendants. The Directive also lacks specific guidelines for judicial authorities in order to determine whether other documents are essential (Chioni-Chotouman 2018Chioni-Chotouman, Chara 2018 “The Right to Translation and Interpretation in Criminal Proceedings: Providing a Common Code between the Defendant and the Court.” Cambridge Law Review 3: 66–85.Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarChioni-Chotouman, Chara 2018 “The Right to Translation and Interpretation in Criminal Proceedings: Providing a Common Code between the Defendant and the Court.” Cambridge Law Review 3: 66–85.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar).

5.1.2Second national transposition in 2024

In April 2024, the Belgian legislature adopted a new transposition act (ActApr2024), which addresses some of the issues identified in Section 5.1.1. This act was introduced in response to an infringement procedure initiated by the European Commission in 2021European Commission 2021 “September Infringements Package: Key Decisions.” Accessed February 26, 2025. https://​ec​.europa​.eu​/commission​/presscorner​/detail​/EN​/INF​_21​_4681European Commission 2021 “September Infringements Package: Key Decisions.” Accessed February 26, 2025. https://​ec​.europa​.eu​/commission​/presscorner​/detail​/EN​/INF​_21​_4681, as Belgium was not compliant with Directive 2010/64/EU and Directive 2012/13/EU. The Commission criticized Belgium for failing to proactively provide translations, failing to inform defendants of their right to translation, and systematically replacing written translations with oral translations or summaries. These transposition issues and shortcomings also emerged from our policy review, and our data collection further demonstrates that they lead to an underuse of the right to translation at the Ghent Court of First Instance (see Section 5.2).

To solve the information issue, defendants now have to be informed of their right to translation before their first police interrogation (Article 3 ActApr2024). This aligns with Directive 2012/13/EU on the right to information. The Letter of Rights, which suspects always receive before their first police interrogation, was updated to include not only the right to interpreter assistance, but also the right to translation (see Figure 1). To address the issue of non-proactive translation efforts, the new transposition act specifies that judicial authorities must proactively provide translations of relevant excerpts of indictments, rather than only upon request (Articles 4, 7). It also eliminates the three-day deadline for requesting a translated arrest warrant (Article 11).

Figure 1.Excerpt of the standardized Letter of Rights for people who have been detained and are to be questioned as a suspect
Figure 1.

However, the new transposition act does not fully address all shortcomings. While it requires judicial authorities to proactively provide translated indictments, the revised provisions for the other two essential documents — arrest warrants (Article 11) and judgments (Article 5) — still do not explicitly mandate proactive translations. Furthermore, the provisions still allow oral translations or summaries as substitutes for written translations. Additionally, the eight-day deadline for requesting translations of non-essential documents remains unchanged. The amended provisions on translation all clearly state that translations are limited to relevant excerpts, as permitted by the Directive. This demonstrates a deliberate effort by the legislator to reduce the text volume.

5.2Application of the right to translation at the Ghent correctional court

To assess how the written translation requirements of Directive 2010/64/EU are applied in correctional proceedings in Ghent, we examined whether LDP defendants in our dataset received a free translation of essential documents. While our data collection focused mainly on the period after the first implementation in 2016, we conducted additional interviews with the judicial authorities after the introduction of the 2024 transposition act.

5.2.1Impact of the 2016 transposition acts

Our data show a minimal use of the right to translation. Of the 139 LDP defendants, only eleven (7.9%) received at least one translated essential document. These translations were all translations of indictments or judgments into French intended for a defendant residing in the French-speaking part of Belgium or in France. These translations were not requested by the defendants or their legal counsel but were offered spontaneously by the Ghent judicial authorities. Interestingly, seven of the defendants who received a French translation had chosen a different preferred language during the police investigation. This reduces the number of LDP defendants who received a translation in their preferred language to just five (3.6%). No arrest warrants were translated, and neither did we find any translations of non-essential documents.

When asked about these low percentages, the prosecution staff participating in this study confirmed that essential documents are not automatically translated for LDP defendants and are only provided upon request (see Section 5.1.1). However, and in line with our findings, they pointed to the cases of defendants residing in the French-speaking region of Belgium as an exception to the rule, as they automatically receive a French translation of their indictments. As we observed, these translations were based on the address of the defendants rather than their preferred language. This practice is laid down in the Act of 1935 (Article 38), which requires judicial authorities to add a French translation to procedural documents and judgments served in the French-speaking region (without necessarily verifying whether the recipient is actually French-speaking). The few translation efforts that are made are thus unsolicited and often unnecessary.

It should be noted that although the Ghent judicial authorities do not proactively offer translations, defendants (or their lawyers) can request translations if needed. However, this right is barely exercised: in the analyzed case files, not a single translation request was made. The prosecution staff interpret the lack of requests as an indication that LDP defendants do not need or desire written translations, assuming they usually understand the nature of their proceedings sufficiently to make translations unnecessary (as one of the staff members put it: “nine out of ten people know why they are being summoned”). The lawyers who were interviewed confirm that defendants, regardless of their language proficiency in the language of the proceedings, often show little interest in written procedural documents, as they primarily want to know their sentence or judgment outcome — information which is generally communicated orally during court sessions, or by their lawyer.

However, our analysis shows that the lack of demand might also be due to a lack of awareness. The lawyers participating in this study report that many defendants are unaware of their right to translation. That observation is confirmed by our analysis of criminal case files, which shows that defendants in our corpus are inadequately informed about their right to translation. At the beginning of the proceedings, before the first police interrogation, they receive a standard Letter of Rights. This Letter of Rights is available in fifty-nine languages and outlines a series of procedural rights, including the right to interpreter assistance and the right to obtain a free translation of the arrest warrant. The translation of other (non-)essential procedural documents is not mentioned, though, and defendants are not informed about this later in the proceedings either. Defendants therefore rely on their lawyers to obtain information about this right. However, our survey revealed that even a significant portion of the surveyed lawyers lack knowledge of this right: twenty-seven out of 102 lawyers (26.5%) were unaware of the possibility to request a free translation.

We asked staff members in our interviews whether they see the low number of translations as a problem. That is not the case: they assume that language barriers are effectively mitigated through the assistance of (sworn) interpreters, and suggest that lawyers play a crucial role in conveying the content of procedural documents to their clients. The surveyed lawyers, on the other hand, are not unanimous on the necessity of written language assistance. 24.5% of these respondents agree that there is no need to offer translations proactively. They argue that translations are only desirable if they are really necessary for the case and that oral explanations by a lawyer, possibly with the help of an interpreter, are more accessible and comprehensible than a translation. Several lawyers mention that defendants mainly want to be informed about the outcome of the proceedings, without necessarily reading all procedural documents. However, the majority (75.6%) of the surveyed lawyers do support the systematic provision of translations. They emphasize in interviews and survey responses that written translations are necessary to fully exercise the right of defense and uphold the principle of equality. As to whether the lack of translation affects the fairness of the proceedings, the lawyers indicate that “it is difficult to give a black-and-white answer to that” and that it depends on other factors, such as the quality of the interpreter assistance received (did the interpreter interpret everything or not?) and the type of offence (is it a petty theft or a sexual offence?).

5.2.2Impact of the 2024 transposition act

To determine whether the legislative amendments in 2024, following the infringement procedure, also influenced the practices of the judicial authorities in Ghent, we conducted additional interviews (as explained in Section 4.3).

These interviews reveal that internal procedures were adjusted following the entry into force of the 2024 transposition act and a related circular1616.College of Prosecutors-General. 2024. Circular No. COL 09/2024. https://​www​.om​-mp​.be​/nl​/omzendbrieven of the College of Prosecutors-General with updated instructions in June 2024. The police now use the updated Letter of Rights to ensure that suspects are informed of their right to translation. If suspects indicate a preferred language other than Dutch, the police also request an email address during the interrogation so that any translations can be sent electronically. If suspects indicate a preferred language other than Dutch at this stage of the proceedings, the prosecutor’s office will automatically send a translated indictment to the defendant. A request is no longer needed.

However, for arrest warrants and judgments, existing practices remain largely unchanged. After all, the new transposition act still does not require judicial authorities to proactively offer translations of these documents. Arrest warrants continue to be orally translated or summarized and are not provided in writing. The investigating judge who was interviewed said that they explain the motivation for the detention more extensively to defendants since the new transposition act became effective, to ensure that defendants understand the reasons for their detention. With respect to judgments, the registry of the correctional court has relevant passages of the judgment translated if neither the defendant nor their legal counsel was present during the hearing. This written translation is then served to the defendant. Conversely, if the defendant does attend the hearing, oral assistance is provided by an interpreter, and the judgment is not translated in writing.

6.Discussion: Top-down regulations versus local practices and perspectives

Our findings reveal a significant gap between the EU rules regarding written translation and their enactment on the local level. Although the national legislation has been amended several times since the Directive’s introduction in 2010, only minimal adjustments have been made to the internal operations of the Ghent judicial authorities. Similar to the context of language assistance in lawyer-client communication in asylum cases investigated by Jacobs (2024Jacobs, Marie 2024 “Choosing Is Losing: Language Policy and Language Choice Acts at the Asylum Law Firm.” Language Policy 23 (2): 119–145. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarJacobs, Marie 2024 “Choosing Is Losing: Language Policy and Language Choice Acts at the Asylum Law Firm.” Language Policy 23 (2): 119–145. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, 140), top-down language policy appears to be “overruled and resisted” by judicial actors in the field. Whereas the Directive describes the translation of essential documents as a minimum right critical to ensuring a fair trial and active participation in the proceedings, the surveyed lawyers and judicial authorities do not agree on the necessity and expediency of written language assistance.

The existing literature is not unanimous about the need for written language assistance either. According to Vanden Bosch (2017)Vanden Bosch 2017 “Het recht op vertolking en vertaling in strafzaken en de omzetting van de EU-richtlijnen [The right to interpretation and translation in criminal cases and the transposition of the EU directives].” Tijdschrift voor Strafrecht [ Journal for criminal law ] 2: 79–107.Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarVanden Bosch 2017 “Het recht op vertolking en vertaling in strafzaken en de omzetting van de EU-richtlijnen [The right to interpretation and translation in criminal cases and the transposition of the EU directives].” Tijdschrift voor Strafrecht [Journal for criminal law] 2: 79–107.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, reliable written translations are essential to ensure the adversarial principle and equality of arms, which are crucial for access to justice and a fair trial. Fingas (2019)Fingas, Maciej 2019 “The Right to Interpretation and Translation in Criminal Proceedings: Challenges and Difficulties Stemming from the Implementation of the Directive 2010/64/EU.” EuCLR European Criminal Law Review 9 (2): 175–186. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarFingas, Maciej 2019 “The Right to Interpretation and Translation in Criminal Proceedings: Challenges and Difficulties Stemming from the Implementation of the Directive 2010/64/EU.” EuCLR European Criminal Law Review 9 (2): 175–186. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar warns that the absence of written translations can undermine the right to defense. In contrast, Vogiatzis (2022Vogiatzis, Nikos 2022 “Interpreting the Right to Interpretation under Article 6(3)(e) ECHR: A Cautious Evolution in the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights?” Human Rights Law Review 22 (1): 1–25. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarVogiatzis, Nikos 2022 “Interpreting the Right to Interpretation under Article 6(3)(e) ECHR: A Cautious Evolution in the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights?” Human Rights Law Review 22 (1): 1–25. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, 12) argues that “every violation of the right to interpretation undermines the overall fairness of the proceedings,” but does not mention the right to written translation. Trechsel (2006Trechsel, Stefan 2006 Human Rights in Criminal Proceedings. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarTrechsel, Stefan 2006 Human Rights in Criminal Proceedings. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, 329) sees interpreter assistance and written translation not as prerequisites to guarantee procedural equality, but rather as “the key which opens the door of communication between the accused and the judge.” Brannan’s (2017Brannan, James 2017 “Identifying Written Translation in Criminal Proceedings as a Separate Right: Scope and Supervision under European Law.” JoSTrans: The Journal of Specialised Translation 27: 43–57. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarBrannan, James 2017 “Identifying Written Translation in Criminal Proceedings as a Separate Right: Scope and Supervision under European Law.” JoSTrans: The Journal of Specialised Translation 27: 43–57. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, 47) analysis of Strasbourg case-law further underscores this ambiguity: in Kamasinski v. Austria,1717.Kamasinski v. Austria, App. No. 9783/82, Series A no. 168 (European Court of Human Rights, 1989). the Court acknowledged that a defendant unfamiliar with the court’s language could be disadvantaged without a written translation of the indictment (§ 79). However, it also concluded that the defendant was sufficiently informed of the charges by prior police interactions with the assistance of an interpreter (§ 80).

Prosecutors and lawyers were asked for their views on the limited application of the Directive’s provisions. They do not necessarily see this as a problem. They argue not only that translations can be costly and delay proceedings, but also that the limited demand suggests that LDP defendants do not need translations and are informed of their proceedings by other means. These views are discussed in more detail in the remainder of this section.

6.1Logistical challenges

The judicial actors participating in this study describe the provision of translations as an excessive burden on criminal proceedings in terms of cost and time, especially in complex cases involving voluminous documents requiring translation into multiple languages, with rarer languages incurring higher translation fees. These costs, borne by the state, cannot be passed on to the defendants. In addition to the costs, participants also point to time efficiency: the translation process and related document exchanges slow down proceedings. Certain procedural actions, such as lodging an appeal, are bound by strict terms, making translations impractical. The lawyers we interviewed echo these practical challenges, also noting uncertainty about whether the current pool of sworn translators could handle the substantial increase in translation requests. Concerns also arise over whether there is sufficient funding to support a surge in translation needs, as even under existing conditions, Belgium struggles to compensate judicial experts such as sworn translators adequately. In recent years, sworn translators and interpreters have protested repeatedly over delayed payments (BBVT 2016BBVT 2016 “Gerechtstolken en -vertalers van de regen in de drop [Court interpreters and translators, out of the frying pan into the fire].” Accessed February 26, 2025. https://​www​.lexgo​.be​/nl​/nieuws​/2016​/09​/gerechtstolken​-en​-vertalers​-van​-de​-regen​-in​-de​-drop,106653​.htmlBBVT 2016 “Gerechtstolken en -vertalers van de regen in de drop [Court interpreters and translators, out of the frying pan into the fire].” Accessed February 26, 2025. https://​www​.lexgo​.be​/nl​/nieuws​/2016​/09​/gerechtstolken​-en​-vertalers​-van​-de​-regen​-in​-de​-drop,106653​.html, 2017 2017 “Gerechtstolken hekelen wantoestanden binnen Justitie [Court interpreters denounce mismanagement within the Justice Department].” Accessed February 26, 2025. https://​www​.jubel​.be​/gerechtstolken​-hekelen​-wantoestanden​-binnen​-justitie/ 2017 “Gerechtstolken hekelen wantoestanden binnen Justitie [Court interpreters denounce mismanagement within the Justice Department].” Accessed February 26, 2025. https://​www​.jubel​.be​/gerechtstolken​-hekelen​-wantoestanden​-binnen​-justitie/; Schouppe 2024Schouppe, Ward 2024 “Tolken protesteren aan gerechtsgebouw in Gent: ‘We zijn al sinds de zomer niet betaald’ [Interpreters protest outside courthouse in Ghent: ‘We haven’t been paid since summer’].” VRT NWS, November 29.Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarSchouppe, Ward 2024 “Tolken protesteren aan gerechtsgebouw in Gent: ‘We zijn al sinds de zomer niet betaald’ [Interpreters protest outside courthouse in Ghent: ‘We haven’t been paid since summer’].” VRT NWS, November 29.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar). In 2024, the annual budget for translators, interpreters, and judicial experts was already exhausted by September, leading to delayed payments (Romans, Depuydt, and Broens 2024Romans, Stéphanie, Piet Depuydt, and Bert Broens 2024 “Honderden experts niet betaald door tekort van 20 miljoen bij Justitie [Hundreds of experts unpaid due to 20 million shortfall at the Justice Department].” De Tijd, November 2.Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarRomans, Stéphanie, Piet Depuydt, and Bert Broens 2024 “Honderden experts niet betaald door tekort van 20 miljoen bij Justitie [Hundreds of experts unpaid due to 20 million shortfall at the Justice Department].” De Tijd, November 2.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar). One of the prosecutors who participated in the focus group noted that “in an ideal world,” everyone would be able to read their procedural documents in their own language, but practical challenges and disadvantages currently outweigh the benefits.

While the Directive provides no guidance on how member states should address these logistical challenges, 75.6% of the surveyed lawyers believe translations should be offered proactively to increase accessibility and ensure equality. Some lawyers suggest that machine translation and AI tools could accelerate the translation process and reduce costs. However, the existing literature highlights significant risks: machine translation can influence decision-making in critical legal contexts (Vieira, O’Hagan, and O’Sullivan 2021Vieira, Lucas Nunes, Minako O’Hagan, and Carol O’Sullivan 2021 “Understanding the Societal Impacts of Machine Translation: A Critical Review of the Literature on Medical and Legal Use Cases.” Information, Communication & Society 24 (11): 1515–1532. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarVieira, Lucas Nunes, Minako O’Hagan, and Carol O’Sullivan 2021 “Understanding the Societal Impacts of Machine Translation: A Critical Review of the Literature on Medical and Legal Use Cases.” Information, Communication & Society 24 (11): 1515–1532. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, 1525). Moreover, the quality of machine translation is low for the digitally lesser resourced languages (NLLB Team et al. 2022NLLB Team, Marta R. Costa-jussà, James Cross, Onur Çelebi, Maha Elbayad, Kenneth Heafield, Kevin Heffernan, et al. 2022 “No Language Left Behind: Scaling Human-Centered Machine Translation.” arXiv. https://​arxiv​.org​/abs​/2207​.04672NLLB Team, Marta R. Costa-jussà, James Cross, Onur Çelebi, Maha Elbayad, Kenneth Heafield, Kevin Heffernan, et al. 2022 “No Language Left Behind: Scaling Human-Centered Machine Translation.” arXiv. https://​arxiv​.org​/abs​/2207​.04672). Further research into this possibility would be valuable.

The issue of practical feasibility has been raised not only by lawyers and judicial authorities, but also by various scholars (Katschinka 2014Katschinka, Liese 2014 “The Impact of Directive 2010/64/EU on the Right to Interpretation and Translation in Criminal Proceedings.” In Traduzione e interpretazione per la società e le istituzioni [ Translation and interpreting for society and institutions ], edited by Caterina Falbo and Maurizio Viezzi, 105–114. Trieste: EUT Edizioni Università di Trieste.Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarKatschinka, Liese 2014 “The Impact of Directive 2010/64/EU on the Right to Interpretation and Translation in Criminal Proceedings.” In Traduzione e interpretazione per la società e le istituzioni [Translation and interpreting for society and institutions], edited by Caterina Falbo and Maurizio Viezzi, 105–114. Trieste: EUT Edizioni Università di Trieste.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Brannan 2017Brannan, James 2017 “Identifying Written Translation in Criminal Proceedings as a Separate Right: Scope and Supervision under European Law.” JoSTrans: The Journal of Specialised Translation 27: 43–57. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarBrannan, James 2017 “Identifying Written Translation in Criminal Proceedings as a Separate Right: Scope and Supervision under European Law.” JoSTrans: The Journal of Specialised Translation 27: 43–57. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Vanden Bosch 2017Vanden Bosch 2017 “Het recht op vertolking en vertaling in strafzaken en de omzetting van de EU-richtlijnen [The right to interpretation and translation in criminal cases and the transposition of the EU directives].” Tijdschrift voor Strafrecht [ Journal for criminal law ] 2: 79–107.Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarVanden Bosch 2017 “Het recht op vertolking en vertaling in strafzaken en de omzetting van de EU-richtlijnen [The right to interpretation and translation in criminal cases and the transposition of the EU directives].” Tijdschrift voor Strafrecht [Journal for criminal law] 2: 79–107.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Chioni-Chotouman 2018Chioni-Chotouman, Chara 2018 “The Right to Translation and Interpretation in Criminal Proceedings: Providing a Common Code between the Defendant and the Court.” Cambridge Law Review 3: 66–85.Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarChioni-Chotouman, Chara 2018 “The Right to Translation and Interpretation in Criminal Proceedings: Providing a Common Code between the Defendant and the Court.” Cambridge Law Review 3: 66–85.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Fingas 2019Fingas, Maciej 2019 “The Right to Interpretation and Translation in Criminal Proceedings: Challenges and Difficulties Stemming from the Implementation of the Directive 2010/64/EU.” EuCLR European Criminal Law Review 9 (2): 175–186. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarFingas, Maciej 2019 “The Right to Interpretation and Translation in Criminal Proceedings: Challenges and Difficulties Stemming from the Implementation of the Directive 2010/64/EU.” EuCLR European Criminal Law Review 9 (2): 175–186. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar). Vanden Bosch (2017)Vanden Bosch 2017 “Het recht op vertolking en vertaling in strafzaken en de omzetting van de EU-richtlijnen [The right to interpretation and translation in criminal cases and the transposition of the EU directives].” Tijdschrift voor Strafrecht [ Journal for criminal law ] 2: 79–107.Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarVanden Bosch 2017 “Het recht op vertolking en vertaling in strafzaken en de omzetting van de EU-richtlijnen [The right to interpretation and translation in criminal cases and the transposition of the EU directives].” Tijdschrift voor Strafrecht [Journal for criminal law] 2: 79–107.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar argues that human rights are not ‘luxury goods’ and that the right of defense should not be compromised for budgetary reasons. Katschinka (2014Katschinka, Liese 2014 “The Impact of Directive 2010/64/EU on the Right to Interpretation and Translation in Criminal Proceedings.” In Traduzione e interpretazione per la società e le istituzioni [ Translation and interpreting for society and institutions ], edited by Caterina Falbo and Maurizio Viezzi, 105–114. Trieste: EUT Edizioni Università di Trieste.Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarKatschinka, Liese 2014 “The Impact of Directive 2010/64/EU on the Right to Interpretation and Translation in Criminal Proceedings.” In Traduzione e interpretazione per la società e le istituzioni [Translation and interpreting for society and institutions], edited by Caterina Falbo and Maurizio Viezzi, 105–114. Trieste: EUT Edizioni Università di Trieste.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, 110) advocates for a “constructive dialogue” between professional organizations of sworn translators and interpreters and judicial authorities to develop best practices that balance pragmatism with cost-effectiveness.

6.2Shifting the responsibility to lawyers

Even though both national and European legislation clearly stipulates that the responsibility for organizing and providing language assistance lies with the judicial authorities, our findings show that in practice, lawyers play an important role in organizing language assistance. The prosecution staff that we interviewed suggest that lawyers are responsible for ensuring that their clients understand key documents by requesting translations or organizing other types of language assistance. The responsibility of the lawyers is also emphasized by the Belgian Minister of Justice in the context of the preparation of the Directive’s transposition,1818.Belgian Chamber of Representatives. 2016. DOC 54 2029/003. Projet de loi complétant la transposition de la Directive 2010/64/UE relative au droit à l’interprétation et à la traduction dans le cadre des procédures pénales et de la Directive 2012/29/UE établissant des normes minimales concernant les droits, le soutien et la protection des victimes de la criminalité et remplaçant la décision-cadre 2001/220/JAI du Conseil [Bill further transposing Directive 2010/64/EU on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings and Directive 2012/29/EU establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA]. https://​www​.dekamer​.be​/FLWB​/PDF​/55​/2170​/55K2170003​.pdf as well as in Strasbourg case-law (Brannan 2017Brannan, James 2017 “Identifying Written Translation in Criminal Proceedings as a Separate Right: Scope and Supervision under European Law.” JoSTrans: The Journal of Specialised Translation 27: 43–57. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarBrannan, James 2017 “Identifying Written Translation in Criminal Proceedings as a Separate Right: Scope and Supervision under European Law.” JoSTrans: The Journal of Specialised Translation 27: 43–57. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, 53). Much like lawyers in Belgian asylum cases, as described by Jacobs (2024)Jacobs, Marie 2024 “Choosing Is Losing: Language Policy and Language Choice Acts at the Asylum Law Firm.” Language Policy 23 (2): 119–145. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarJacobs, Marie 2024 “Choosing Is Losing: Language Policy and Language Choice Acts at the Asylum Law Firm.” Language Policy 23 (2): 119–145. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, lawyers in criminal proceedings thus appear to play a decision-making role in arranging language assistance.

Our analysis, however, shows that lawyers perceive the process of requesting translations as cumbersome and time-consuming, and consequently choose alternative ways of informing their clients. The survey results show that most lawyers seldom request translations for their clients. As mentioned in Section 5.2.1, about a quarter of the surveyed lawyers were not aware of the possibility. 28.4% request translations only occasionally and 40.2% never make such requests. This limited use is again related to practical constraints and the important role of oral communication in the criminal procedure. Instead of requesting translations, lawyers convey the content of essential documents to LDP clients through other means. If a lingua franca is available, 95.1% summarize or explain the content of the documents orally in this lingua franca. When no lingua franca is available, they orally convey the content with the assistance of a sworn or an unofficial interpreter (family, friends, or cell mates): 78.5% of the surveyed lawyers work regularly or always with sworn interpreters; 23.5% work regularly or always with unofficial interpreters. Additionally, some lawyers report that they themselves translate parts or entire sections of procedural documents for their clients. When asked if they translate (parts of) procedural documents, 25.5% report that they regularly or always do this if there is a lingua franca. If there is no lingua franca, 18.7% regularly or always translate (parts of) procedural documents.

Moreover, the judicial authorities tend to overlook the fact that not all defendants are represented by a lawyer. While defendants are entitled to legal assistance, often on a pro bono basis, they may also waive that right. One of the lawyers we interviewed highlighted the possibility that LDP defendants who are not assisted by a lawyer and do not receive translations might “let everything pass” because they do not understand the written documents they receive. As a result, they do not participate in their trial and are convicted in absentia. In our corpus of criminal case files, 43.2% of the LDP defendants were convicted in absentia. For defendants proficient in Dutch, this figure is 24%. Whether this difference is due to inadequate language assistance or to other factors cannot, however, be determined with certainty on the basis of this study.

6.3Replacing written translation with oral language assistance

Directive 2010/64/EU emphasizes written translations as the standard and allows oral translations only as an exception. Our findings in the Belgian context, however, suggest the opposite: rather than through written translations, LDP defendants are informed about their proceedings through explanations by their lawyers and through oral language assistance and sight translations of procedural documents provided by sworn interpreters at key moments in the proceedings. The prosecution staff confirm that they consider the assistance provided by a sworn interpreter during interrogations and hearings sufficient for enabling active participation in the trial. However, this assumption was criticized by the lawyers we interviewed, who pointed out that the interpreters’ accuracy is not guaranteed and that oral communication is inherently fleeting, in contrast to written records (Delva, Van Hoof, and Maryns 2026Delva, Sara, Sarah van Hoof, and Katrijn Maryns 2026 “Language Assistance in the Criminal Court: How Fair Is It to Substitute Written Translation with Oral Interpreting?” Interpreting. Published ahead of print. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarDelva, Sara, Sarah van Hoof, and Katrijn Maryns 2026 “Language Assistance in the Criminal Court: How Fair Is It to Substitute Written Translation with Oral Interpreting?” Interpreting. Published ahead of print. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar).

First, as for the issue of accuracy, the judicial authorities seem to assume that sworn interpreters act solely as ‘language conduits’ or ‘invisible translating machines’, faithfully rendering what the judge or the police say without alteration, addition, or omission (Stevens 2020Stevens, Sarah 2020 “Invisible Touch: Analyzing the Language Conduit Theory through the Lens of Translation and Interpreting Principles.” UMKC Law Review 88 (3): 771–790.Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarStevens, Sarah 2020 “Invisible Touch: Analyzing the Language Conduit Theory through the Lens of Translation and Interpreting Principles.” UMKC Law Review 88 (3): 771–790.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar). This expectation aligns with the deontological code for sworn interpreters. However, the lawyers participating in this study expressed doubts about the accuracy and neutrality of the interpretation that is provided. Previous research in Interpreting Studies has repeatedly shown that interpreters inevitably influence interactions and can therefore never be regarded purely as ‘conduits’ (Gallai 2013Gallai, Fabrizio 2013 “ ‘I’ll Just Intervene Whenever He Finds It a Bit Difficult to Answer’: Exploding the Myth of Literalism in Interpreted Interviews.” Investigative Interviewing: Research and Practice (II-RP) 5 (1): 57–78.Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarGallai, Fabrizio 2013 “ ‘I’ll Just Intervene Whenever He Finds It a Bit Difficult to Answer’: Exploding the Myth of Literalism in Interpreted Interviews.” Investigative Interviewing: Research and Practice (II-RP) 5 (1): 57–78.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Angermeyer 2015Angermeyer, Philipp Sebastian 2015 Speak English or What? Codeswitching and Interpreter Use in New York City Courts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarAngermeyer, Philipp Sebastian 2015 Speak English or What? Codeswitching and Interpreter Use in New York City Courts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Berk-Seligson 2017Berk-Seligson, Susan 2017 The Bilingual Courtroom: Court Interpreters in the Judicial Process. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarBerk-Seligson, Susan 2017 The Bilingual Courtroom: Court Interpreters in the Judicial Process. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Pavlenko 2023Pavlenko, Aneta 2023 “Language Proficiency as a Matter of Law: Judicial Reasoning on Miranda Waivers by Speakers with Limited English Proficiency (LEP).” International Journal for the Semiotics of Law / Revue Internationale de Sémiotique Juridique 37 (2): 329–357. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarPavlenko, Aneta 2023 “Language Proficiency as a Matter of Law: Judicial Reasoning on Miranda Waivers by Speakers with Limited English Proficiency (LEP).” International Journal for the Semiotics of Law / Revue Internationale de Sémiotique Juridique 37 (2): 329–357. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar). Second, the oral translations by sworn interpreters cannot be considered as complete as a written translation. The entire judgment is rarely read out in court, which implies that defendants do not receive a complete oral translation of the judgment. Moreover, interpreters often do not have sufficient time to translate everything that is said during a hearing, as courtroom interactions often consist of the reading aloud at a fast pace of written documents. As Pöchhacker (2004)Pöchhacker, Franz 2004 Introducing Interpreting Studies. London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarPöchhacker, Franz 2004 Introducing Interpreting Studies. London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar and Gallai (2013)Gallai, Fabrizio 2013 “ ‘I’ll Just Intervene Whenever He Finds It a Bit Difficult to Answer’: Exploding the Myth of Literalism in Interpreted Interviews.” Investigative Interviewing: Research and Practice (II-RP) 5 (1): 57–78.Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarGallai, Fabrizio 2013 “ ‘I’ll Just Intervene Whenever He Finds It a Bit Difficult to Answer’: Exploding the Myth of Literalism in Interpreted Interviews.” Investigative Interviewing: Research and Practice (II-RP) 5 (1): 57–78.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar show, the expectation of a complete, literal translation of such interactions is typical for institutional settings, but unrealistic. Third, the fleeting nature of oral communication and translation is another challenge. Article 6, paragraph (3b) of the ECHR emphasizes that defendants “should have the right to read the evidence of the accusation in peace and to rethink their line of defence.” Similarly, Fair Trials (2020Fair Trials 2020 Practitioners’ Tools on EU Law. Interpretation and Translation Directive. London. https://​www​.fairtrials​.org​/app​/uploads​/2021​/12​/FT​-Toolkit​-on​-Right​-to​-Interpretation​-and​-Translation​-Directive​.pdfFair Trials 2020 Practitioners’ Tools on EU Law. Interpretation and Translation Directive. London. https://​www​.fairtrials​.org​/app​/uploads​/2021​/12​/FT​-Toolkit​-on​-Right​-to​-Interpretation​-and​-Translation​-Directive​.pdf, 63) and Fingas (2019)Fingas, Maciej 2019 “The Right to Interpretation and Translation in Criminal Proceedings: Challenges and Difficulties Stemming from the Implementation of the Directive 2010/64/EU.” EuCLR European Criminal Law Review 9 (2): 175–186. Google Scholar logo with link to Google ScholarFingas, Maciej 2019 “The Right to Interpretation and Translation in Criminal Proceedings: Challenges and Difficulties Stemming from the Implementation of the Directive 2010/64/EU.” EuCLR European Criminal Law Review 9 (2): 175–186. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar note that a written version of procedural documents allows defendants to prepare their defense.

Together, these issues imply that oral translations are not a valid alternative to written translations and that judicial authorities therefore wrongly assume that, through the assistance of an interpreter, LDP defendants are informed about their proceedings in the same way as Dutch-speaking defendants.

7.Conclusion

The aim of this case study was to examine how the Ghent judicial authorities implement national and international top-down regulations on language assistance for defendants in criminal proceedings. We looked at three dimensions of translation policies (González Núñez 2016 2016 “On Translation Policy.” Target: International Journal of Translation Studies 28 (1): 87–109. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar 2016 “On Translation Policy.” Target: International Journal of Translation Studies 28 (1): 87–109. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar). We started out by critically comparing international and national regulations (management) and subsequently assessed on-the-ground practices in proceedings at the Ghent criminal court, as well as related beliefs of relevant stakeholders.

The findings of this study reveal a disconnect between the legal provisions of Directive 2010/64/EU and their implementation in Belgian criminal proceedings. The right to written translation turns out to be underutilized at the Ghent Court of First Instance: translations of essential documents are rarely provided or requested, a situation that persists due to the watered-down transposition of the Directive provisions, practical constraints, and a lack of awareness among defendants and lawyers. Written translations are consistently replaced with oral translations or summaries by sworn interpreters, even though the Directive indicates this ought to be an exceptional measure. The judicial actors participating in this study raise critical questions about the desirability and feasibility of the Directive’s provisions on written language assistance. While the Directive aims to ensure the right to a fair trial and enhance safeguards for defendants, it risks becoming merely a paper commitment if local judicial authorities are unwilling or unable to fully implement its provisions in their daily operations.

The data collection for this article was carried out from 2021 to March 2024. Some of the issues we identified were addressed following Belgium’s adoption of a new transposition act in April 2024 (ActApr2024) in response to the European Commission’s infringement procedure. As a result of this act, defendants are now informed of their right to translation. However, there is still no systematic provision of written translations for all essential documents, as required by the Directive. Whether the amendments will lead to more defendants exercising their right to translation remains to be seen.

This study has several limitations. First, due to access constraints, the study is limited to first-instance proceedings, excluding any cases that proceeded to appeal. This focus offers the advantage of examining the most ‘routine’ criminal cases, but it is possible that defendants appealing to a higher court are more likely to exercise their linguistic rights or even invoke a lack of translations as a ground for appeal. Future research could therefore include cases before higher courts. Second, the study is limited to only one of the thirteen Courts of First Instance in Belgium, which could affect the generalizability of the findings. However, criminal justice policy is determined at the federal level by the Minister of Justice and the College of Prosecutors-General, and all courts are, in principle, expected to adhere to these national policy decisions. Moreover, several lawyers who participated in the study also worked in other jurisdictions and did not report substantial differences. The findings are therefore likely relevant beyond the Ghent context, though local variation in staff attitudes and judicial culture cannot be ruled out.

These limitations notwithstanding, this study provides novel insights into the implementation of Directive 2010/64/EU, the tensions between the three dimensions of translation policies (management, practices and beliefs), and the challenges in providing written language assistance in judicial proceedings — a topic that has so far received limited attention in the academic literature. As such, it contributes to translation policy research in legal settings. Future research could broaden the scope by examining the provision of different types of language assistance at other (higher) courts or in other areas of law. Comparative studies in other EU member states would also be valuable, as they could reveal to what extent similar tensions and practices occur in different legal systems.

Funding

Open Access publication of this article was funded through a Transformative Agreement with Ghent University.

Notes

1.Resolution of the Council of 30 November 2009 on a Roadmap for Strengthening Procedural Rights of Suspected or Accused Persons in Criminal Proceedings, 2009 O.J. (C 295).
2.Directive 2010/64, of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 on the Right to Interpretation and Translation in Criminal Proceedings, 2010 O.J. (L280).
3. Loi du 15 juin 1935 concernant l’emploi des langues en matière judiciaire [Act of 15 June 1935 on the use of languages in judicial proceedings], Moniteur Belge [Official gazette of Belgium], October 11, 2011.
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 O.J. (C 295).
5.Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, November 4, 1950, E.T.S. No. 5.
6. Loi du 10 avril 2014 modifiant diverses dispositions en vue d’établir un registre national des experts judiciaires et établissant un registre national des traducteurs, interprètes et traducteurs-interprètes jurés [Act of 10 April 2014 amending various provisions with a view to establishing a national register of judicial experts and establishing a national register of sworn translators, interpreters and translator-interpreters], Moniteur Belge [Official gazette of Belgium], December 19, 2014.
7. Loi du 28 octobre 2016 complétant la transposition de la Directive 2010/64/UE du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 20 octobre 2010 relative au droit à l’interprétation et à la traduction dans le cadre des procédures pénales et de la Directive 2012/29/UE du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 25 octobre 2012 établissant des normes minimales concernant les droits, le soutien et la protection des victimes de la criminalité et remplaçant la décision-cadre 2001/220/JAI [Act of 28 October 2016 further transposing Directive 2010/64/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings and Directive 2012/29/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA], Moniteur Belge [Official gazette of Belgium], November 24, 2016.
8. Loi du 21 novembre 2016 relative à certains droits des personnes soumises à un interrogatoire [Act of 21 November 2016 on certain rights of persons subject to interrogation], Moniteur Belge [Official gazette of Belgium], November 24, 2016.
9. Loi du 25 avril 2024 complétant la transposition de la directive 2010/64/UE du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 20 octobre 2010 relative au droit à l’interprétation et à la traduction dans le cadre des procédures pénales, de la directive 2012/13/UE du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 22 mai 2012 relative au droit à l’information dans le cadre des procédures pénales et de la directive 2013/48/UE du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 22 octobre 2013 relative au droit d’accès à un avocat dans le cadre des procédures pénales et des procédures relatives au mandat d’arrêt européen, au droit d’informer un tiers dès la privation de liberté et au droit des personnes privées de liberté de communiquer avec des tiers et avec les autorités consulaires [Act of 25 April 2024 further transposing Directive 2010/64/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings, Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings, and Directive 2013/48/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 on the right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings and in European arrest warrant proceedings, and on the right to have a third party informed upon deprivation of liberty and the right to communicate with third persons and with consular authorities while deprived of liberty], Moniteur Belge [Official gazette of Belgium], June 17, 2024.
10.The analyzed case files are all files in which the defendant did not file an appeal, as those cases are stored in a different archive to which we had no access. There is a possibility that in cases where an appeal was filed, the right to language assistance was exercised more frequently.
11.We based the categorization of the charges on the original charges filed by the public prosecutor, without taking any potential requalifications into account. If multiple charges were present, only the first-listed charge was considered. The charges were categorized in accordance with the Belgian Criminal Code.
12. Code d’instruction criminelle [Code of criminal procedure], Moniteur Belge [Official gazette of Belgium], November 27, 1808.
13.Belgian legislation on the right to written translations states that defendants who do not ‘understand’ the language of the proceedings are entitled to written translations of certain procedural documents. The key criterion, therefore, is understanding, not speaking. In legal provisions on oral language assistance, however, ‘speaking’ is added to ‘understanding’. Moreover, in practice, a distinction is usually not made between the two: defendants are categorized as either needing language assistance or not. For this reason, we use the more general and concise term ‘LDP defendants’, referring to any defendant who either requested or was assigned language assistance during their proceedings.
14.Belgian Chamber of Representatives. 2016. DOC 54 2029/003. Projet de loi complétant la transposition de la Directive 2010/64/UE relative au droit à l’interprétation et à la traduction dans le cadre des procédures pénales et de la Directive 2012/29/UE établissant des normes minimales concernant les droits, le soutien et la protection des victimes de la criminalité et remplaçant la décision-cadre 2001/220/JAI du Conseil [Bill further transposing Directive 2010/64/EU on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings and Directive 2012/29/EU establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA]. https://​www​.dekamer​.be​/FLWB​/PDF​/55​/2170​/55K2170003​.pdf
15.Directive 2012/13, of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the Right to Information in Criminal Proceedings, 2012 O.J. (L142).
16.College of Prosecutors-General. 2024. Circular No. COL 09/2024. https://​www​.om​-mp​.be​/nl​/omzendbrieven
17.Kamasinski v. Austria, App. No. 9783/82, Series A no. 168 (European Court of Human Rights, 1989).
18.Belgian Chamber of Representatives. 2016. DOC 54 2029/003. Projet de loi complétant la transposition de la Directive 2010/64/UE relative au droit à l’interprétation et à la traduction dans le cadre des procédures pénales et de la Directive 2012/29/UE établissant des normes minimales concernant les droits, le soutien et la protection des victimes de la criminalité et remplaçant la décision-cadre 2001/220/JAI du Conseil [Bill further transposing Directive 2010/64/EU on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings and Directive 2012/29/EU establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA]. https://​www​.dekamer​.be​/FLWB​/PDF​/55​/2170​/55K2170003​.pdf

References

Amato, Amalia, and Gabriele Mack
2015 “The IMPLI Project, Pre-Trial Interpreting in Italy and the Transposition of Directive 2010/64 EU.” TRANS Revista de Traductología 1 (19): 43–56. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
①
Angermeyer, Philipp Sebastian
2015 Speak English or What? Codeswitching and Interpreter Use in New York City Courts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
① ② ③
BBVT
2016 “Gerechtstolken en -vertalers van de regen in de drop [Court interpreters and translators, out of the frying pan into the fire].” Accessed February 26, 2025. https://​www​.lexgo​.be​/nl​/nieuws​/2016​/09​/gerechtstolken​-en​-vertalers​-van​-de​-regen​-in​-de​-drop,106653​.html
①
2017 “Gerechtstolken hekelen wantoestanden binnen Justitie [Court interpreters denounce mismanagement within the Justice Department].” Accessed February 26, 2025. https://​www​.jubel​.be​/gerechtstolken​-hekelen​-wantoestanden​-binnen​-justitie/
①
Berk-Seligson, Susan
2017 The Bilingual Courtroom: Court Interpreters in the Judicial Process. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
① ② ③
Blasco Mayor, María Jesús, and Maribel del Pozo Triviño
2015 “Legal Interpreting in Spain at a Turning Point.” MonTI: Monografías de Traducción e Interpretación 7: 9–40.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
①
Bloch, Alain
2019 Het strafdossier, een straf dossier [The criminal case file, quite a file]. Brugge: Die Keure.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
①
Brannan, James
2017 “Identifying Written Translation in Criminal Proceedings as a Separate Right: Scope and Supervision under European Law.” JoSTrans: The Journal of Specialised Translation 27: 43–57. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
① ② ③ ④
Braun, Virginia, and Victoria Clarke
2006 “Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology.” Qualitative Research in Psychology 3 (2): 77–101. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
①
Chioni-Chotouman, Chara
2018 “The Right to Translation and Interpretation in Criminal Proceedings: Providing a Common Code between the Defendant and the Court.” Cambridge Law Review 3: 66–85.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
① ② ③
Cras, Steven, and Luca de Matteis
2010 “The Directive on Interpretation and Translation in Criminal Proceedings.” Eucrim 4: 153–162. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
① ② ③ ④ ⑤
Delva, Sara, Sarah van Hoof, and Katrijn Maryns
2026 “Language Assistance in the Criminal Court: How Fair Is It to Substitute Written Translation with Oral Interpreting?” Interpreting. Published ahead of print. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
①
European Commission
2018 COM(2018) 857 final. Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the Implementation of Directive 2010/64/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 on the Right to Interpretation and Translation in Criminal Proceedings. Brussels: European Commission. https://​eur​-lex​.europa​.eu​/legal​-content​/EN​/TXT​/?uri​=CELEX:52018DC0857
① ②
European Commission
2021 “September Infringements Package: Key Decisions.” Accessed February 26, 2025. https://​ec​.europa​.eu​/commission​/presscorner​/detail​/EN​/INF​_21​_4681
① ②
European Commission
2023 “January Infringements Package: Key Decisions.” Accessed February 26, 2025. https://​ec​.europa​.eu​/commission​/presscorner​/detail​/EN​/inf​_23​_142
①
Fingas, Maciej
2019 “The Right to Interpretation and Translation in Criminal Proceedings: Challenges and Difficulties Stemming from the Implementation of the Directive 2010/64/EU.” EuCLR European Criminal Law Review 9 (2): 175–186. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
① ② ③
Gallai, Fabrizio
2013 “ ‘I’ll Just Intervene Whenever He Finds It a Bit Difficult to Answer’: Exploding the Myth of Literalism in Interpreted Interviews.” Investigative Interviewing: Research and Practice (II-RP) 5 (1): 57–78.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
① ② ③
Gialuz, Mitja
2019 “The Implementation of the Directive on Linguistic Assistance in Italy, between Changes to the Code of Criminal Procedure and Case-Law Resistance.” In EU Criminal Justice: Fundamental Rights, Transnational Proceedings and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, edited by Tommaso Rafaraci and Rosanna Belfiore, 27–41. Cham: Springer International. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
①
Giustini, Deborah
2021 “ ‘The Whole Thing is Really Managing Crisis’: Practice Theory Insights into Interpreters’ Work Experiences of Success and Failure.” The British Journal of Sociology 72 (4): 1–15. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
①
González Núñez, Gabriel
2013 “Translating for Linguistic Minorities in Northern Ireland: A Look at Translation Policy in the Judiciary, Healthcare, and Local Government.” Current Issues in Language Planning 14 (3–04): 474–489. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
① ②
2016 “On Translation Policy.” Target: International Journal of Translation Studies 28 (1): 87–109. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
① ② ③ ④ ⑤
Hale, Sandra Beatriz
2004 The Discourse of Court Interpreting: Discourse Practices of the Law, the Witness, and the Interpreter. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
①
Hertog, Erik
2015 “Directive 2010/64/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Right to Interpretation and Translation in Criminal Proceedings: Transposition Strategies with Regard to Interpretation and Translation.” MonTI: Monografías de Traducción e Interpretación 7: 73–100.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
①
Jacobs, Marie
2024 “Choosing Is Losing: Language Policy and Language Choice Acts at the Asylum Law Firm.” Language Policy 23 (2): 119–145. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
① ② ③ ④
Katschinka, Liese
2014 “The Impact of Directive 2010/64/EU on the Right to Interpretation and Translation in Criminal Proceedings.” In Traduzione e interpretazione per la società e le istituzioni [ Translation and interpreting for society and institutions ], edited by Caterina Falbo and Maurizio Viezzi, 105–114. Trieste: EUT Edizioni Università di Trieste.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
① ②
Meylaerts, Reine
2011 “Translational Justice in a Multilingual World: An Overview of Translational Regimes.” Meta: Journal Des Traducteurs / Meta: Translators’ Journal 56 (4): 743–757. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
① ② ③
Meylaerts, Reine, and Gabriel González Núñez
2018 “No Language Policy without Translation Policy: A Comparison of Flanders and Wales.” Language Problems and Language Planning 42 (2): 196–219. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
①
Meylaerts, Reine
2021 “Language and Translation Policies in a Bilingual City with a Multilingual Population: The Case of Brussels.” In The Routledge Handbook of Translation and the City, edited by Tong King Lee. London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
① ②
Muñoz de Morales Romero, Marta
2020 “Shades of Light and Darkness: The Spanish Transposition of EU Directives on the Rights of Suspected and Accused Persons.” European Criminal Law Review 10 (January): 48–65. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
①
NLLB Team, Marta R. Costa-jussà, James Cross, Onur Çelebi, Maha Elbayad, Kenneth Heafield, Kevin Heffernan, et al.
2022 “No Language Left Behind: Scaling Human-Centered Machine Translation.” arXiv. https://​arxiv​.org​/abs​/2207​.04672
①
Orlando, Daniele
2016 “Legal Translation as a Human Right: Ensuring a Fair Trial through Translation Quality and Training.” New Voices in Translation Studies 14 (1): 23–45.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
①
Pavlenko, Aneta
2023 “Language Proficiency as a Matter of Law: Judicial Reasoning on Miranda Waivers by Speakers with Limited English Proficiency (LEP).” International Journal for the Semiotics of Law / Revue Internationale de Sémiotique Juridique 37 (2): 329–357. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
①
Pöchhacker, Franz
2004 Introducing Interpreting Studies. London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
①
QSR International Pty Ltd
2020 NVivo. V13.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
①
Riehle, Cornelia, and Allison Clozel
2020 “10 Years after the Roadmap: Procedural Rights in Criminal Proceedings in the EU Today.” ERA Forum 20 (3): 321–325. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
①
Romans, Stéphanie, Piet Depuydt, and Bert Broens
2024 “Honderden experts niet betaald door tekort van 20 miljoen bij Justitie [Hundreds of experts unpaid due to 20 million shortfall at the Justice Department].” De Tijd, November 2.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
①
Schouppe, Ward
2024 “Tolken protesteren aan gerechtsgebouw in Gent: ‘We zijn al sinds de zomer niet betaald’ [Interpreters protest outside courthouse in Ghent: ‘We haven’t been paid since summer’].” VRT NWS, November 29.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
①
Spolsky, Bernard
2003 Language Policy: Key Topics in Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
① ②
Stake, Robert E.
1995 The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
①
Statbel
2022 “Insufficient Knowledge of the Language is the Main Barrier on the Belgian Labour Market.” Accessed September 25, 2025. https://​statbel​.fgov​.be​/en​/news​/insufficient​-knowledge​-language​-main​-barrier​-belgian​-labour​-market
①
2025 “36% of the Belgian Population has Foreign Background.” Accessed September 25, 2025. https://​statbel​.fgov​.be​/en​/themes​/population​/structure​-population​/origin
①
Stevens, Sarah
2020 “Invisible Touch: Analyzing the Language Conduit Theory through the Lens of Translation and Interpreting Principles.” UMKC Law Review 88 (3): 771–790.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
①
Traest, Philip
2011 “Het proces-verbaal van verhoor en/of aangifte [The official record of interrogation and/or complaint].” Cahiers Politiestudies 21 (4): 33–52.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
①
Trechsel, Stefan
2006 Human Rights in Criminal Proceedings. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
①
Van den Wyngaert, Chris, Steven Vandromme, and Philip Traest
2022 Strafrecht en strafprocesrecht in hoofdlijnen [ Criminal law and criminal procedure ]. Antwerpen: Gompel&Svacina.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
①
Vanden Bosch
2017 “Het recht op vertolking en vertaling in strafzaken en de omzetting van de EU-richtlijnen [The right to interpretation and translation in criminal cases and the transposition of the EU directives].” Tijdschrift voor Strafrecht [ Journal for criminal law ] 2: 79–107.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥
Verliefde, Sofie, and Bart Defrancq
2023 “Interpreter-Mediated Access to the Written Record in Police Interviews.” Perspectives 31 (3): 519–547. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
①
Vieira, Lucas Nunes, Minako O’Hagan, and Carol O’Sullivan
2021 “Understanding the Societal Impacts of Machine Translation: A Critical Review of the Literature on Medical and Legal Use Cases.” Information, Communication & Society 24 (11): 1515–1532. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
①
Vogiatzis, Nikos
2022 “Interpreting the Right to Interpretation under Article 6(3)(e) ECHR: A Cautious Evolution in the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights?” Human Rights Law Review 22 (1): 1–25. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
①

Appendix 1.Overview of the conducted interviews

Description interviewee(s) Date Duration (minutes)
Clerk of the correctional court Feb. 2022 Not recorded
Staff member of the Ghent public prosecutor’s office Jul. 2022 78
Five staff members (from various hierarchical levels) of the Ghent public prosecutor’s office Feb. 2023 51
Lawyer 1 Sept. 2023 38
Lawyer 2 Sept. 2023 35
Lawyer 3 Sept. 2023 21
Lawyer 4 Sept. 2023 30
Lawyer 5 Oct. 2023 51
Lawyer 6 Oct. 2023 41
Lawyer 7 Oct. 2023 43
Lawyer 8 Oct. 2023 55
Lawyer 9 Oct. 2023 37
Lawyer 10 Oct. 2023 36
Lawyer 11 Nov. 2023 44
Investigating judge, Ghent court Oct. 2024 33
Lawyer 12 Jun. 2025 53
Lawyer 13 Jun. 2025 66
Lawyer 14 Jul. 2025 47
Lawyer 15 Jul. 2025 46
Lawyer 16 Sept. 2025 68

Appendix 2.Interview guides

Below are the interview guides used for the semi-structured interviews with different respondent groups. Only the questions relevant to the analysis presented in this article are included. Questions were adapted or followed up during the interviews, depending on the interviewee’s answers and expertise.

Court staff

  • Directive 2010/64/EU and 2012/29/EU require judicial authorities in member states to offer defendants and victims who do not speak the language of the proceedings translations of certain ‘essential’ documents. How do you guarantee this right to translation?

    • Are translations of essential documents provided proactively or only upon request?

    • Who is responsible for organizing the translations?

    • Who produces the translations, and within what timeframe?

    • Did the 2016 transposition acts change certain practices? Did they increase the workload?

  • According to the directives, defendants and victims can request free translations of additional documents if they are essential for the defense within certain time limits. Does this ever happen in practice?

    • How do you handle such requests? Can they be met on time, and do the time limits ever cause problems?

  • Previous data collection suggests that translations are sometimes provided into French for defendants residing in francophone Belgium, even when their preferred language is different. Flemish Dutch-speaking defendants living abroad sometimes receive translations in other languages. Why are these documents translated? Is residence the determining factor in assessing the need for and language of translation?

  • In your view, what constitutes an ‘essential document’?

  • Do you consider it your responsibility to enforce the right to translation, or is it up to defendants to request it?

  • Are translations checked for quality?

    • If so, what aspects are evaluated?

    • Have you ever received a translation that was incomprehensible?

    • Have you encountered cases where poor translation quality had legal consequences (e.g., a defendant claiming they did not understand the translation and requesting a new one)?

  • Do you believe the requirements regarding written translation in Directive 2010/64/EU are necessary and feasible in practice?

Investigating judge

  • How does the issuing of an arrest warrant work in practice?

  • How do you inform defendants (who do not speak the language of the proceedings) of the content of an arrest warrant?

    • Do you provide translations of arrest warrants for non-Dutch-speaking defendants?

    • Is it necessary for defendants to receive written translations?

    • Is an oral translation or summary by an interpreter sufficient?

  • A new transposition act, which became effective in June 2024, requires that arrest warrants be translated proactively for non-Dutch-speaking defendants.

    • Have internal procedures changed since the entry into force of the new transposition act in June 2024? Has the reform increased the workload?

    • Who is responsible for organizing the translations?

    • Do you consider this reform an improvement?

    • How is the translation outsourced in practice? Which translators are used? How would you describe the cooperation with translators?

Lawyers

  • In your daily practice, how often do you encounter clients who lack sufficient proficiency in Dutch to discuss their case?

  • How is communication usually managed in such cases?

    • What strategies do you use to bridge language barriers?

    • Who usually decides whether an interpreter is engaged: you or the client?

  • How do you inform clients about the content of essential documents (arrest warrants, indictments, judgments)?

  • What is your experience with the written translation of case documents?

    • Do you ever request translations of essential documents for your clients? Are you aware whether colleagues do so?

    • If translations are not provided by the judicial authorities, do you look for alternative ways to ensure that your clients understand the documents in their case files?

    • Do clients ever arrange translations themselves?

    • Do you sometimes translate case documents for your clients, either orally or in writing?

    • Have you ever used the lack of translations in a case file as part of your pleadings?

  • Do your clients generally read their case documents themselves, or do you read them and summarize the contents for them?

  • In your view, should the judiciary proactively provide written translations for non-Dutch-speaking defendants?

  • Do you think an oral translation or summary is an adequate substitute for a written translation of a judgment?

  • Do you believe the requirements regarding written translation in Directive 2010/64/EU are necessary and feasible in practice?

  • Do you think non-Dutch-speaking defendants are disadvantaged by not receiving written translations (compared to Dutch-speaking defendants)? Would you consider this discriminatory?

Appendix 3.Survey questions and results

This appendix presents the survey questions included in the analysis, together with descriptive statistics of the responses. Table A3.1 provides an overview of all survey responses. Only respondents who reported that criminal law accounts for at least half of their professional activity were retained (n = 102). Table A3.2 summarizes the demographic profile of these respondents. Table A3.3 presents the survey questions relevant to this article (Q12, Q13, Q14, Q15 and Q19) and the corresponding distribution of responses.

Table A3.1Overview of all survey responses
Category n
Total number of responses 186
Incomplete questionnaires  42
Completed questionnaires 144
I practice criminal law (almost) exclusively.  48
More than half of my workload concerns criminal law.  54
Less than half of my workload concerns criminal law.  30
I occasionally handle criminal cases.  12
Table A3.2Demographic profile of respondents (n = 102)
Years of experience 0–5 6–10 10+
  30 (29.4%)  21 (20.6%) 51 (50%)
Languages
Mother tongue Dutch Kurdish Turkish
100 (98%) 1 (1%) 1 (1%)
Knowledge of other languages No Yes
 3 (3%) 99 (97%)
If yes English French German Spanish
 99 (100%) 94 (95%)  18 (18.2%) 10 (10.1%)
Italian Turkish Thai Russian
 7 (7.1%) 2 (2%) 2 (2%) 1 (1.1%)
Hebrew Arabic Tagalog
 1 (1.1%)  1 (1.1%)  1 (1.1%)
Table A3.3Survey questions and distribution of responses
Question Response options n (%)
Q12. Defendants who do not understand the language of the proceedings are entitled under EU and national law to free translations of certain essential procedural documents (indictments, arrest warrants, and judgments). This right is related to the right to a fair trial and the right to defense. Were you aware of this right? (n = 102) Yes 75 (73.5)
No 27 (26.5)
Q13. How often do you use this possibility to request free translations of essential documents for your clients? (Only asked to those who answered ‘Yes’ to Q12, n = 75.) Regularly 5 (6.7)
Occasionally 29 (38.7)
Never 41 (54.6)
Q14. Now that you are aware of this right, would you use the possibility of requesting free translations in the future? (Only asked to those who answered ‘No’ to Q12, n = 27) Yes, certainly  6 (22.2)
Probably yes 14 (51.9)
Probably not  7 (25.9)
Q15. If a defendant wants to obtain a free translation of an arrest warrant, the request must be filed with the court registry within three days of issuance. Do you consider this deadline feasible? (n = 102) Yes 46 (45.1)
No 56 (54.9)
Q19. At the Ghent court, translations of essential procedural documents are only provided upon request, not automatically. Do you consider it desirable that such translations be provided proactively and free of charge? (n = 102) Yes 74 (72.5)
No 28 (27.5)

Address for correspondence

Sara Delva

Department of Translation, Interpreting, and Communication

Ghent University

Groot-Brittanniëlaan 45

9000 GHENT

Belgium

[email protected]
ORCiD logo with linkhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-9664-3515

Co-author information

Sarah van Hoof
Ghent University
[email protected]
ORCiD logo with linkhttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-6678-6059
Katrijn Maryns
Ghent University
[email protected]
ORCiD logo with linkhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-8919-3050
 
Authentication
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 jbe-platform.quadraat-sans-bold jbe-platform.quadraat-sans-bold-dark jbe-platform.quadraat-sans-bold-light jbe-platform.quadraat-sans-bold prag Twitter_Logo_Blue