1. Interpreting Quality at Courts in Germany TRAFUT-Workshop, Ljubljana, 25.11.2011 Martin Wenning-Morgenthaler, Presiding Judge at the Landesarbeitsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg, Spokesman of Neue Richtervereinigung (NRV), Germany

2. 1.Current situation 2.Problems from a judge’s perspective 3.Objective requirements from the court’s perspective which the interpreter must meet 4.Need to improve the cooperation between interpreters and courts

3. 1.Current situation a.When lawyers (that means every jurist) study and train in Germany, they are not taught the essential aspects to apply when recruiting an interpreter. b.As a rule, the lawyer/defence counsel determines whether and for what language an interpreter is needed, or this is established on the basis of the investigation file. Normally, judges don’t engage in any investigations themselves. c.For the normal course of business, forms for assigning interpreters to a case are available, which indicate for what language an interpreter is needed. Usually, further details are not provided. d.Interpreters contact a central court service where they are admitted to a list. The list does not contain further details concerning their qualifications, except for their working languages. e.As a rule, the administrative services of the court choose the interpreter, either on the basis of personal preferences or according to abstract criteria such as sequence in the list, so that every registered interpreter is recruited regularly. f.As a rule, the judge will only find out at the hearing who is the interpreter in the pending case.

4. 2. Problems from a judge’s perspective 1.A feeling of unease if the foreign party speaks at great length and the interpreter simply interprets by saying “he said ‘yes’”. 2.Situations where the judge understands at least some of what the foreign party is saying, but where the actual interpretation of the words does not seem to correspond to what was said. 3.No information about the background, qualifications and quality of the interpreter. 4.Insufficient knowledge about the specific problems of the litigating party such as, for example, gender-specific needs that may influence the choice of a male or female interpreter. Nationality alone does not facilitate conclusions on the adequacy of the language skills.

5. 3. Objective requirements from the court’s perspective which the interpreter must meet a.Interpreters are more than mere translators. Judges expect reliability, neutrality and competences. b.Interpreters are language communicators, on the one hand. They must be able to clearly communicate to the foreign parties what judges would like to hear from them, or what a German-speaking party has said, so that they can actively participate in the proceedings and explain to the court in detail what they wish to be taken into account. c.Interpreters are also experts on culture, on the other hand, explaining to the court verbal utterances and non-verbal behaviour. This includes explaining what significance a certain concept has in the culture of the foreigner. It also requires competences to explain to the judge intercultural variances such as speaking to the point or speaking in vague terms, formulating precisely or expressing oneself in broad terms, dependence upon a person and dependence upon a role, rationality and intuition. This also includes providing information about the importance or insignificance of gestures and symbols. d.Interpreters should also have the necessary technical knowledge. They should have mastered the legal contexts just as much as they need to be familiar with any required technical subject (e.g. medical, psychological, technical vocabulary).

6. 4. Need to improve the cooperation between interpreters and courts a.Courts need more detailed information about the skills and qualifications of interpreters. b.There should be regular – person-to-person – contacts between the court and the interpreters in order to learn more, on a mutual basis, about needs and problems. c.Judges should treat interpreters with respect and consideration for their situation and needs. d.Regular breaks should give interpreters an opportunity to relax whenever interpreting assignments take up a long time. e.When assigning an interpreter to a case, the summons should at least give a brief description of the case, including the aspects mentioned in item 3, as well as the estimated length of the hearing. In complicated cases the judge/court may give the interpreter a short brief of the case over the telephone. f.Copies of important documents should be handed to the interpreter.

7. Thank you for your attention.