Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 72

February 2005

Husain v. Italy (dec.) - 18913/03

Decision 24.2.2005 [Section III]

Article 6

Article 6-3-a

Information in language understood

Information given in a language not understood and interpreter appointed to translate it orally: inadmissible

Article 6-3-e

Free assistance of interpreter

Oral assistance of interpreter

The applicant was convicted in absentia in Italy and sentenced to life imprisonment. The prosecutor’s office subsequently issued an enforcement order, ordering the applicant’s arrest and appointing official counsel for him. The applicant was arrested in Greece and extradited to Italy. On his arrival in Italy, the authorities served him with a copy of the enforcement order. As the applicant was a Yemeni national, an interpreter was instructed to interpret the content of the document into Arabic for him. The document stated the date of the judgment by which the applicant had been found guilty, the sentence imposed and the legal classification of the charges, and referred to the pertinent articles of the Criminal Code and the other relevant texts. The applicant complained that there was no written translation into Arabic of the enforcement order and applied unsuccessfully to have it set aside. He argued that he had been unable to understand the content of the order served on him, and had thus been unaware of his rights in Italy, which had deprived him of the option of applying for a reopening of the criminal proceedings.

Inadmissible under Article 6 § 3(a) and (b): The Court pointed out that Article 6 § 3(e) did not go so far as to require a written translation of any documentary evidence or official paper from the case file, and noted that the wording of the provision in question referred to an “interpreter” rather than a “translator”. This gave ground to consider that oral linguistic assistance could satisfy the Convention’s requirements. Nevertheless, the interpretation provided was to be such as to enable the defendant to have knowledge of the case against him and to defend himself, notably by being able to put his version of events to the court.

In the present case, since the applicant had been untraceable at the time of his trial, he had learned of the accusations against him when he was served with the enforcement order. On that occasion, he had been assisted, free of charge, by an Arabic interpreter. There was no evidence that the latter’s interpretation had been defective or otherwise ineffective. Indeed, the applicant had not challenged the quality of the interpretation, which could have led the authorities to believe that he had understood the content of the document in issue.

Through the information contained in that document, the applicant had received, in a language he understood, sufficient information concerning the charges against him and the penalty imposed. He could then have consulted his officially-appointed counsel, whose name had been cited in the document, with a view to ascertaining the steps to be taken in order to appeal against the conviction and to prepare his defence in relation to the offences with which he had been charged.

Thus, even supposing that Article 6 was applicable to proceedings to set aside the serving of an enforcement order, the application was in any event manifestly ill-founded.

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes