Help us make the FRA website better for you!

Take part in a one-to-one session and help us improve the FRA website. It will take about 30 minutes of your time.

YES, I AM INTERESTED NO, I AM NOT INTERESTED

Belgium / Constitutional Court / 115/2020

M.D., Council of Ministers
Deciding body type
National Court/Tribunal
Deciding body
Constitutional Court
Type
Decision
Decision date
24/09/2020

Europos Sąjungos pagrindinių teisių chartija

Title VI: Justice

Article 47 - Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial

Title VI: Justice

Article 48 - Presumption of innocence and right of defence

  • Belgium / Constitutional Court / 115/2020
    Key facts of the case:
    After having requested additional investigative acts, the defendant (M.D). requested the Public Prosecutor's Office to translate into French the documents of the criminal file, which were drawn up in German. The prosecutor rejected this request because the official reports drawn up for other cases showed that the M.D. had sufficient knowledge of German. By judgment, the correctional court later granted the defendant's request to conduct the proceedings in French. By judgment of 20 November 2017, M.D. was found guilty of several breaches of social legislation. On appeal, M.D. argued that the lack of a legal remedy against the refusal of the Public Prosecutor's Office to grant his request for translation of the procedural documents had irrevocably deprived him of his rights of defence since, notwithstanding the partial translation ordered by the judgment court, he was no longer able to exercise the rights open to him prior to his referral to the judgment court, namely the right to challenge the investigating judge or to raise the irregularity of the proceedings before the investigating court. The fact that he has no legal remedy against the refusal to have the procedural documents translated also deprives him of his right to an effective legal remedy, which would have enabled him to prove that he does not have sufficient German to have access to the documents in the investigation file on which he must base his defence. The Court of Appeal of Liège referred a preliminary question to the Constitutional Court to determine the compatibility hereof with M.D.’s right to a fair trial, the rights of the defence and with the right to an effective remedy.
    Key legal question raised by the Court:
    The key legal question was whether Article 22 of the Law of 15 June 1935 on the use of languages in court proceedings, as in force before 1 June 2017 violated Articles 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the Constitution, whether or not read in conjunction with, inter alia, Articles 47 and 48(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in so far as, in the course of a judicial enquiry, the defendant who requested a translation of the case file or certain documents in a national language other than that of the enquiry was obliged to make that request to the Public Prosecutor's Office which, in the subsequent course of the criminal proceedings, assumed the role of prosecutor, without a decision by the Public Prosecutor's Office refusing the translation requested being subject to effective jurisdictional control.
    Outcome of the case:
    Article 22 of the Act of 15 June 1935, as it was in force before 1 June 2017, does not violate Articles 10, 11 and 13 of the Constitution, read in conjunction with Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights or otherwise, Articles 47 and 48(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 3(5) 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”.
  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    The compatibility of the provision at issue with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, read in conjunction with Articles 10 to 13 of the Constitution, may be reviewed by the Court only to the extent that the provision at issue implements European Union law in accordance with Article 51(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CJEU, Grand Chamber, 26 February 2013, C-617/10, complainants, paragraphs 17 et seq.).

    Under Article 9 of Directive 2010/64/EU, Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with that Directive by 27 October 2013 at the latest. From that date, the effect of the Directive was that the provision at issue, which deals with a matter covered by that directive, falls within the scope of European Union law (ECJ, Grand Chamber, 19 January 2010, C-555/07, Kücükdeveci, paragraph 25). Accordingly, Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must also be taken into account in the assessment of the contested provision. In that regard, the Court of Justice recalls that Article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union corresponds to Article 6(2) and (3) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECJ, 5 September 2019, C-377/18, A.H. et al, point 41) and that the first and second paragraphs of Article 47 of the Charter correspond to Article 6(1) and Article 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECJ, Grand Chamber, 19 November 2019, C-585/18, C-624/18 and C-625/18, A.K. and others, point 117). In accordance with Article 52(3) of the Charter, it is therefore for the Court to ensure that the interpretation which it gives to Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter “is such that the level of protection thereby afforded does not run counter to that afforded by Article 6 ECHR, as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights” (ECJ, 29 July 2019, C-38/18, Gambino and Hyka, paragraph 39). Directive 2010/64/EU “lays down common minimum rules to be applied in the field of interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings in order to improve mutual trust between Member States” (recital 12). This Directive respects the rights guaranteed by Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and by Articles 47 and 48(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (Recital 5).
  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)

    De bestaanbaarheid van de in het geding zijnde bepaling met artikel 47 van het Handvest van de grondrechten van de Europese Unie, in samenhang gelezen met de artikelen 10 tot 13 van de Grondwet, kan slechts door het Hof worden onderzocht in zoverre de in het geding zijnde bepaling het Unierecht ten uitvoer brengt overeenkomstig artikel 51, lid 1, van het Handvest van de grondrechten van de Europese Unie (HvJ, grote kamer, 26 februari 2013, C-617/10, klagaren, punten 17 e.v.). (…) Krachtens artikel 9 van de richtlijn 2010/64/EU doen de lidstaten de nodige wettelijke en bestuursrechtelijke bepalingen in werking treden om uiterlijk op 27 oktober 2013 aan die richtlijn te voldoen. Vanaf die datum had de richtlijn tot gevolg dat de in het geding zijnde bepaling, die een materie behandelt die onder die richtlijn valt, binnen de werkingssfeer van het recht van de Unie valt (HvJ, grote kamer, 19 januari 2010, C-555/07, Kücükdeveci, punt 25). Aldus dient bij de beoordeling van de bestreden bepaling ook rekening te worden gehouden met artikel 47 van het Handvest van de grondrechten van de Europese Unie. Het Hof van Justitie brengt in dat verband in herinnering dat artikel 48 van het Handvest van de grondrechten van de Europese Unie overeenstemt met artikel 6, leden 2 en 3, van het Europees Verdrag voor de rechten van de mens (HvJ, 5 september 2019, C-377/18, A.H. e.a., punt 41) en dat de eerste en de tweede alinea van artikel 47 van het Handvest overeenstemmen met artikel 6, lid 1, en met artikel 13 van het Europees Verdrag voor de rechten van de mens (HvJ, grote kamer, 19 november 2019, C-585/18, C-624/18 en C-625/18, A.K. e.a., punt 117). Overeenkomstig artikel 52, lid 3, van het Handvest dient het Hof van Justitie bijgevolg erop toe te zien dat de uitlegging die het aan de artikelen 47 en 48 van het Handvest geeft, « zodanig is dat het daardoor geboden beschermingsniveau niet in strijd komt met datgene wat wordt geboden door artikel 6 EVRM, zoals uitgelegd door het Europees Hof voor de Rechten van de Mens » (HvJ, 29 juli 2019, C-38/18, Gambino en Hyka, punt 39). In de richtlijn 2010/64/EU « worden gemeenschappelijke minimumregels [...] vastgesteld die op het gebied van vertolking en vertaling in strafprocedures moeten gelden, om het wederzijdse vertrouwen tussen de lidstaten te vergroten » (overweging 12). Die richtlijn eerbiedigt de rechten die worden gewaarborgd door artikel 6 van het Europees Verdrag voor de rechten van de mens en door de artikelen 47 en 48, lid 2, van het Handvest van de grondrechten van de Europese Unie (overweging 5)