11/11/2019
Cross-border service: Should a translation into French be provided and served with the original legal paperwork?
The French CPR solely require that a translation be attached and served with the Court paperwork. In that respect, the French Ministry of Justice has issued a circular confirming that there is no need for the translator to be a Court-accredited one. Paragraph 5.6.3 entitled "La traduction de l’acte refusé", provides the following "Quant au choix du traducteur, il convient d’observer que ni le règlement ni les dispositions du droit interne ne requièrent le recours à un traducteur assermenté ou à un expert". This translates into "As for the choice of translator, it should be noted that neither the regulations nor the provisions of national law require the use of a sworn translator or an expert".
A free translation into French therefore is acceptable for the purpose of ensuring compliance with the rules on cross-border service. Having said that, ensuring that the translation gets issued by a certified, Court-accredited translator, is a wise precaution.
It should be noted that the translation requirement only derives from rules governing service of judicial documents across-EU member states, or States which are members of the Hague Convention of . In this context, translations are provided for information purposes only, to comply with relevant international regulations. The Defendant, having instructed Counsel and acknowledged service, will consider the original Summons in English. So should the Court in the jurisdiction where legal action takes place.
What about the exhibits?
The Court of Justice of the European Communities has held that the addressee of a document instituting proceedings, translated into a language referred to in Article 8, but accompanied by untranslated documents, is not entitled to refuse it where such documents are not essential to understand the subject matter and cause of the application.
Should one have a translation done and served if the Defendant has shown, in previous correspondence with Claimant, that she/he/it understands the language in which the Summons is drafted?
- For service of Court documents across the EU, the European Court of Justice considers that the fact that the addressee of a document served has agreed in a contract concluded with the applicant in the course of his business that correspondence is to be conducted in the language of the Member State of transmission does not give rise to a presumption of knowledge of that language, but is evidence which the court may take into account in determining whether that addressee understands the language of the Member State of transmission.-
- Article 8(1) of Regulation No 1348/2000 is to be interpreted as meaning that the addressee of a document served may not in any event rely on that provision in order to refuse acceptance of annexes to the document which are not in the language of the Member State addressed or in a language of the Member State of transmission which the addressee understands where the addressee concluded a contract in the course of his business in which he agreed that correspondence was to be conducted in the language of the Member State of transmission and the annexes concern that correspondence and are written in the agreed language.d. (ECJ, 8 May 2008, C14/07 OJEC C158 of 21 June 2008 page 5).
