11 Jun The decision on the inadmissibility in the case concerning the right to an interpreter in criminal proceedings

The European Court of Human Rights unanimously declared the application inadmissible, in the case Pula v. North Macedonia (application no. 48835/13, 06.06.2019) concerned the requirement for an interpreter in criminal proceedings. 

The applicant, Zenelabedin Pula, is an Albanian national, who lives in Tirana. In 2004 Mr Pula was involved in a head-on collision in North Macedonia that resulted in the death of the other driver. In 2006 the investigating judge requested a report on the accident. During the trial this report was read aloud and the applicant was given a copy. Additionally, he was provided with an Albanian-speaking interpreter for court hearings. In April 2010 the trial court found the applicant guilty, and sentenced him to eight months’ imprisonment. This decision was upheld on appeal. Mr Pula lodged an extraordinary review appeal with the Supreme Court alleging that he had not been provided with an interpreter before the trial court on 3 February 2010. The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts’ decision, stating that it was apparent from the case file and a note submitted by the trial judge that there had been an error in the record of 3 February 2010 and that an interpreter had in fact been provided to the plaintiff at all court hearings.

Relying in particular on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (e) (right to a fair trial / right to an interpreter) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), Mr Pula complained that the 2006 report and the trial court’s judgment had not been translated into Albanian and that he had been deprived of the right to an Albanian interpreter at one of the hearings on his case.

The Court found that the applicant had raised no complaints on appeal or in his request for extraordinary review about a lack of translation into Albanian. He had submitted a complaint about the lack of interpreting for one of the hearings on his case. However, the trial court judge had submitted a note explaining that an error had been made in the record for that hearing and that an interpreter had in fact been provided on that day. The Court therefore found that Mr Pula’s complaint was manifestly ill-founded. 

References from the European Court of Human Rights