A study of criminal proceedings at the Ghent Court of First Instance finds that oral interpreting or summaries are systematically used instead of written translations for defendants with limited proficiency in Dutch.
Published on 16 June 2026, the study examines how the Ghent Court of First Instanceimplements Directive 2010/64/EU on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings. Based on an analysis of criminal case files, interviews and survey data, the researchers found that written translations of essential procedural documents were rarely provided or requested, while oral interpreting or summaries were systematically used instead. In the case files examined, no arrest warrant had been translated in writing, while only three indictments and two judgments had been translated into the preferred language of the defendants concerned. The authors argue that oral assistance cannot always adequately replace written translation, as information may be filtered, reduced or distorted when procedural documents move from written to spoken form and between languages.
Click here for more details
CBTI-BKVT’s Perspective
Effective language rights in criminal proceedings require the right form of language assistance at the right stage. Interpreting and written translation are complementary professional activities, not interchangeable services. When written translation is legally required or necessary for a defendant to understand and exercise their rights, it should not be replaced by oral assistance merely for reasons of convenience or cost. Quality, professional standards and adequate working conditions are essential safeguards.