1. Translation Service General Secretariat of the Council Quality Policy Coordinator John BEAVEN Quality Assurance at the Council of the EU’s Translation Service The views expressed are my own and do not in any way reflect the Council’s views

2. Outline of presentation Introduction Legislative workflow (OLP) Translation quality Fitness for purpose Best Practices Quality Monitoring

3. 28 Member States 24 Official Languages 650 translators and 400 other staff (support and management) for GSC Translation Service Translates about 13 000 documents, 150 000 pages of source material per year Outputs about 1.1 million pages / year of translation Some figures - Council

4. 1 language unit per language (25 translators, Head of Unit, Quality Controller, assistants) Translators work into their own language Originally, every unit covered all source languages, no longer practical by 2004. EN (and FR) main drafting language(s) Organisation of GSC Translation Service

5. Very little is translated from scratch Mostly legislative texts through their different phases of adoption Large amount of repetition Consistency of terminology and phraseology is paramount –internal (inside document) –external (across documents) Peculiarities of GSC translation

6. Council, in order of priority : European Council conclusions legal acts agendas and minutes speeches press releases Parliament: Amendments Reports (legislative and non-legislative) Plenary documents (agenda, minutes) Commission: proposed laws, policy and consultation papers consultation documents to or from national parliaments correspondence with national authorities, companies and individuals websites and press releases Types of translated documents

7. Outline of presentation Introduction Legislative workflow (OLP) Translation quality Fitness for purpose Best Practices Quality Monitoring

8. Formerly known as “Codecision” Amended by Lisbon Treaty and now known as “Ordinary Legislative Procedure” Increased importance of Parliament: in practice, EP becomes main legislator Overview of the EU law- making process

9. Ordinary Legislative Procedure Diagram is How the European Union works http://bookshop.europa.eu/en/how-the- european-union-works-pbNA3212336/ More info: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/aboutparliament/e n/0081f4b3c7/Law-making-procedures-in- detail.html http://www.consilium.europa.eu/council/decision- making-process?tab=At-a- glance&lang=en

10. Zoom in: 1 st reading

11. Zoom in: 2 nd reading

12. Zoom in: conciliation (3 rd reading)

13. 1 st EP reading

14. Preparatory work takes place in committees MEPs are entitled to work in the official language of their choice Typically, amendments at Committee stage are translated into 10-15 languages Practical aspects - EP

15. 1 st Council reading

16. Formally, most legislation is adopted by Council and EP on proposals from the Commission in all the official languages Before that, it is discussed at COREPER level (Ambassadors) at the Council And before that, at Working Party level (Council preparatory bodies) Full multilingualism is not necessary at the lower levels In parallel, EP discusses it at Committee level before going to Plenary First reading - Practical aspects

17. EP and Council 2nd readings take place in succession (first 9-EP, then 11-Council) Council works on text as amended by EP Workflow: Tidy part

18. EP and Council first readings (4 and 6) take place in parallel. Workflow: Messy part

19. Ordinary Legislative Procedure Source: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/code/information/activity_reports/activity_report_2009_2014_en.pdf

20. Outline of presentation Introduction Legislative workflow (OLP) Translation quality Fitness for purpose Best Practices Quality Monitoring

21. An end product which transposes into the target language and by the set deadline the entire contents of the source document with clarity, fluency and precision, in terms of form and content, without any formal or material errors, and without any additions or omissions, while taking into account the nature and the relative importance of the original to be translated Translation

22. Linguistic –Clarity, fluency, precision –Without additions or omissions… Technical –Layout corresponds to that of the original –Technical and typographical conventions –Makes translations easier to recycle Quality of service –Deadlines –Special requests Three aspects

23. Outline of presentation Introduction Legislative workflow (OLP) Translation quality Fitness for purpose Best Practices Quality Monitoring

24. A translation is fit for purpose when it is suitable for its intended communicative use, follows the linguistic and technical specifications and complies with the expressed and implied requirements of the client*. *The main clients of the Translation Service are the European Council and its President, the rotating presidencies of the Council of the EU, the Council and its preparatory bodies, the requesting departments in the Directorates-General of the GSC, Member States' delegations and national administrations, other EU institutions, the EEAS, stakeholders in the subject areas concerned, and the general public. Fitness for purpose

25. Anybody can make a mistake, but you can adjust the effort devoted to spotting and correcting them to the nature of the text Taxonomy (classification) of Council documents with recommended best practices Fitness for purpose

26. Outline of presentation Introduction Legislative workflow (OLP) Translation quality Fitness for purpose Best Practices Quality Monitoring

27. Detailed taxonomy of Council texts, outlining: –Political visibility –Potential for legal / financial impact –Recommended level of revision –Minimum level of revision –Potential problems to look out for Taxonomy

28. Thorough revision (revision + review) Revision (normal bilingual revision) Light revision (review of the whole document + revision of potentially problematic or most important parts) Review (monolingual examination of the target text) Optional (no revision/review, unless the translator asks for it) Levels of revision/review

29. European Council Conclusions Political visibility –Very high Potential for legal / financial impact –Low Recommended level of revision –Thorough Minimum level of revision –Thorough Recommended BPs –(…) The members of the summit teams should, whenever possible, translate the guidelines for conclusions and preliminary drafts of the conclusions in the run-up to the summit; in any case all members of the summit team should read the draft conclusions before the summit and, where necessary, discuss the main translation issues (…). Examples of BP

30. AGENDAS FOR THE COUNCIL / COREPER / CSA / PSC Political visibility –Low Potential for legal / financial impact –Low Recommended level of revision –Optional Minimum level of revision –Optional Recommended BPs –Date and place of the meeting should be double checked. Where the reference document exists, the agenda item title should correspond to the title of the reference document, with no modifications or improvements. However, typos and serious grammar mistakes should be corrected. Examples of BP

31. Summary of Council acts Political visibility –Low Potential for legal / financial impact –Low Recommended level of revision –Optional Minimum level of revision –Optional Recommended BPs –The standard wording of repeated phrases should be ensured, either by use of CAT tools or templates. The statements should be quoted unchanged from the corresponding Council minutes, with the exception of obvious typographical, spelling and grammar errors.. Examples of BP

32. Outline of presentation Introduction Legislative workflow (OLP) Translation quality Fitness for purpose Best Practices Quality Monitoring

33. Based on random sampling of what leaves the Translation Service All pages are equally likely to be selected (cf. Monetary Unit Sampling used in auditing) Harmonised criteria across 24 languages, each with one evaluator or more (usually Quality Controller) Evaluators to work by consensus, avoiding endless discussions Ex-post Quality Monitoring

34. Decided on a case-by-case basis –Discuss with members of staff involved –Issue Corrigendum –Issue terminology note to language unit –Clarify instructions given –Best practices required –etc. Follow-up of problems

35. Most serious errors occur in routine, everyday texts, not in the ‘difficult’ ones Very useful diagnostic tool, enabling us to identify problem areas and possible corrective measures Some findings from ex-post monitoring

36. Pragmatic approach We have a tool to provide qualitative performance indicators Not aware of any other large translation organisation monitoring the quality of its output by means of systematic random sampling Summary

37. Questions / Comments? Thank you