3.10.2.2. Raising the standards for interpretation services

EU+ countries continued efforts to improve services, while the quality of interpretation in certain cases varied across EU+ countries, within countries and among applicant profiles.
 
In various countries, civil society organisations were notified by applicants who questioned the accuracy of the interpretation provided and reported that their interpreter displayed bias and inappropriate behaviour.793  In Czechia, the civil society organisation OPU assessed that these concerns were linked to a lack of training of interpreters on sensitive issues, such as gender-based violence and LGBTIQ claims.794  Other concerns against interpreters were brought up by civil society organisations in Switzerland, where several Eritrean interpreters were suspected of working as spies for the Eritrean regime.795  Lacking confidence in interpretation may make applicants reluctant to share their stories for fear of being misinterpreted, leading to an incorrect assessment of their personal circumstances and impacting the authority’s decision on their asylum claim.796  

The quality of interpretation was examined by national courts in individual cases. For instance, the Supreme Administrative Court in Finland considered that serious doubts on the accuracy and content of interpretation during the oral hearing of an appeal at an administrative court had a detrimental effect on the understanding of the applicant’s statements and assessment of the circumstances in one case, leading the court to annul the negative decision. The Hradec Králové Regional Court adopted a similar decision in Czechia. In contrast with the court rulings in Czechia and Finland, the Supreme Administrative Court of Poland held that official languages of a country of origin can be presumed as being known by its nationals, thereby adopting a more restrictive approach towards interpretation in asylum procedures.