UPC CFI LD The Hague: Double/twofold "appropriateness-test"": (i) to allow translations and (ii) to allocate their costs
30-06-2024 Print this page
Simultaneous interpretation during the oral hearing into Polish allowed, but to be decided later whether the costs thereof shall become costs of the proceedings (Article 51 UPCA, Rule 109 RoP, Rule 150 RoP).
Rule 109 RoP includes a double/twofold ‘appropriateness-test’, in the sense that it is to be decided
(i) whether allowing translations during the oral hearing is appropriate and
(ii) whether it is appropriate that the costs of such interpretation shall become costs of the proceedings.
Simultaneous interpretation will in general already be appropriate if the language of the proceedings is not a language that is sufficiently familiar to (one of) the parties or to their counsel. The threshold for allowing interpretation as such is therefore low for R. 109.1-requests. For R. 109.4-requests the threshold seems even lower: for self-paid translations the only restriction seems to be whether it is practically possible (R. 109.2 second sentence).
Generally it cannot reasonably be expected that the UPC provides translations to all languages, even if these have no relationship at all with the UPC or with one or more Contracting Member States.
It seems reasonable to interpret R. 109.5 in such a way that it does not prevent the Defendant from submitting the costs incurred for interpretation for recovery as costs of the proceedings at a later point in the proceedings, if facts and/or circumstances are established that make it unreasonable for Defendant to bear these costs.
