ABSTRACT

1 INTRODUCTION

Judicial translation is one of the most important judicial guarantees for litigants in criminal and civil cases, as it enables them to perceive and understand everything that is happening around them. This has been affirmed by many international instruments, including the European Union. Some national legislation affiliated with the European Union and others have also included specific regulations governing the work of judicial translators, including the Polish Sworn Translator Law of 2004 and its amendments, and the UAE law, the Federal Decree-Law No. (22) of 2022.

This study presents a comparison of judicial translation in light of the European Union's general rules, the law governing sworn translators in Poland and the UAE, and judicial practice in both countries. This is done by determining whether the use of a translator is right or an obligation. Then we discuss the supervision of judicial translators and the responsibilities that arise from it to ensure a fair trial.

2 METHODOLOGY

This study adopts a multidisciplinary research approach focused on problem-solving, grounded in the concept of judicial translation as a guarantee of procedural justice and a fair trial. The study combines formal, institutional, and comparative legal methods to analyse the impact of the legal regulation of sworn translators in Poland and the regulation of the translation profession in the UAE on the accuracy of translation and its guarantees before the courts of both countries. It also evaluates their effectiveness as a tool for ensuring integrity and equality among litigants before the judiciary, regardless of language differences.

The comparative analytical approach constitutes the core of the study, allowing examination of the legislative frameworks governing the judicial translation profession in both countries, as well as the structures of the institutions overseeing it. The analytical method focuses on deconstructing and interpreting the legal texts related to the subject of the study in both countries, preceded by the deconstruction and interpretation of certain European directives relevant to the subject, considering them as general rules. The focus is on procedural rules related to the registration of translators, the oath-taking mechanism, and the translator’s liability in Poland and the UAE in its three forms (disciplinary, civil, and criminal). This examination is complemented by evaluating the performance of the relevant institutions in both countries, such as the Ministry of Justice and the committees responsible for monitoring translators, to test their effectiveness in managing judicial translation work and their efficiency in providing oversight channels over translators’ work, all aimed at achieving the primary objective of judicial translation.

The comparative approach in this study achieved its intended purpose by framing the legislative variation in the Polish sworn translator law as a European model and the UAE translation profession regulation law as an Arab model. This choice comes in line with what previous legal studies have demonstrated regarding its effectiveness in identifying legislative shortcomings and providing advanced drafting alternatives, such as the study by Ali & Algane¹ and the study by Byrne.² These studies confirmed that systematic legislative comparison is the best means to address legal gaps and understand the legislator's intent. The study relied on objective criteria that served the research goal, presenting the Polish system as a solid European example with a stable and precise framework for preparing and selecting sworn translators in accordance with common European standards of justice. Meanwhile, the UAE system reflects legislative responsiveness to the demands posed by economic growth and cultural diversity, without compromising the guarantees of justice. The methodological comparison between these two systems enables the identification of points of convergence and divergence in the philosophy of protecting defence rights and equality among litigants before the judiciary, and the determination of suitable legal and structural models to guide the development of the national system.

3 SEEKING THE HELP OF A TRANSLATOR: A RIGHT OR DUTY

While translation is of great importance across all fields, its significance within the judiciary is even greater.³ A fair trial cannot be realised where there is ignorance of the language of the court, even if such ignorance is remedied only through the assistance of an interpreter.⁴ The role of the interpreter in judicial proceedings is confined exclusively to translation; the interpreter may not assume the role of a judge or a lawyer. A judge is not authorised to perform the function of an interpreter,⁵ nor may a lawyer act as an interpreter for their client or for the opposing party, given the evident conflict of interest inherent in such a situation.⁶ Since the right to seek the assistance of an interpreter is guaranteed to all, not merely as a fundamental human right, but as an integral component of procedural justice,⁷ the use of interpreters at all stages of litigation in the United Arab Emirates is of paramount importance, as it relates to matters of public order. Consequently, failure to engage an interpreter during litigation procedures may be invoked at all stages of the proceedings, including before the highest court, and the court may raise this issue proprio motu. Some international and national laws require the use of a translator in the judiciary, and these laws differ in the details of how a translator is used.

If judicial translation is this important, is it the responsibility of the translator, or of the state or the judicial authority? Does it differ between criminal and civil cases? Is it limited to oral translation, or does it also extend to written translation? And finally, what effect do all these differences have on the right to defence and a fair trial?

To answer these questions, we need to start with the international framework that forms the general basis for the right to use judicial translation, then explain how this is reflected in Polish and Emirati law and determine whether the use of translation is a right for individuals, a duty for the state or judicial authorities, or a combination of both. For European Union countries, there are several legislations that affirm the right to translation, including Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights,⁸ which confirms the right to a fair trial, and Article 6.3e of the European Convention on Human Rights,⁹ which requires all EU countries to provide judicial translation in criminal cases.

As stated in Article 1 of the European Directive EU/2010/64 regarding the scope of this directive,¹⁰ it sets out the general rules concerning the right to oral and written translation in criminal proceedings and in the execution of a European arrest warrant. While the European framework set the general rules on using a translator, it is necessary to look at the legal nature of using a translator in national comparative laws (Polish and Emirati).

On this basis, European Union countries have adopted judicial translation in their national laws for criminal cases and, in addition, for civil cases, with some differences in its use. In Polish national law, a translator must be used before the criminal and civil courts in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Code of Civil Procedure, in addition to the general rules regarding translation in the Sworn Translator Profession Law.¹¹ The national law in the UAE allows the use of judicial translation in criminal courts under the criminal law and in civil courts under the civil procedure law, in addition to the general rules for translators stated in Federal Decree-Law No. (22) of 2022,¹² which regulates the translation profession. It is clear from this that, in each system, the use of a translator is linked to its legal basis and framing, whether as an individual right or as a duty of the state or judicial authorities.

From the above, we can infer that the European Union directives consider the use of judicial translation both a right for individuals and a duty for states, but only in criminal cases. As for comparative legal systems, the Polish legal system tends to consider the use of a translator in criminal cases as an obligation for the authorities to protect individuals, enable their understanding, and guarantee the right of defence, whereas its scope is narrower in civil cases, where it is considered an obligation for the court only in specific situations. In contrast, the use of a translator in Emirati law is regarded as a duty of the relevant authorities rather than a right of individuals, even though translation here serves the interests of both the state and individuals.

If determining the legal nature of seeking the assistance of a translator reveals whether it is a right or a duty, this alone is not sufficient, as it is necessary to define the limits and controls of this right or duty in terms of the persons covered, the types of cases, and the type of translation, whether written, oral, or just one of them.

3.1. Limits and Regulations for Using Translators in Legal Cases: Immediate (Oral) Translation

Immediate (Oral) Translation We previously concluded that translation in the European Union is considered a right for individuals and an obligation for the EU. The specifics of this are outlined in Article 2 of the European Directive EU/2010/64, which obliges the member states of the European Union to ensure that suspects or defendants have access to an interpreter. An interpreter must be provided for any suspect or defendant who does not speak or understand the language of the criminal proceedings, as well as for those who have hearing or speech disabilities, and for anyone in need of interpreter assistance. This requirement applies during the interrogation stage, throughout the sessions, upon filing appeals, and, more generally, before investigative authorities and judicial authorities.

Under Polish law, Article 72 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires the use of an interpreter for those who are not sufficiently proficient in the Polish language at all stages of criminal proceedings, and the defendant and their lawyer may request the use of an interpreter for communication between them. Article 265 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires the court to appoint an interpreter if the witness does not speak Polish . Polish jurisprudence holds that the use of oral translation during litigation, as an application of that text, serves as an essential tool through which the court simplifies its supervision of the proceedings, including the examination of the parties and the hearing of witnesses who do not speak Polish.¹³ The use of an interpreter in Emirati courts is addressed in Article 8 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which limits the use of an interpreter to the immediate translation of the statements of the defendant, witnesses, and others in the event that any of them do not know Arabic, the language of litigation in the United Arab Emirates. The same concept is established in the Code of Civil Procedure under Article 5, which stipulates that if any of the parties, witnesses, or others do not know Arabic, the use of an interpreter is mandatory.

From this, we infer that the use of translators for simultaneous interpretation is similar in Polish and Emirati criminal law, whereas civil procedure law is broader in terms of simultaneous interpretation than in Polish law, as it includes everyone: the accused, the parties, the witnesses, and others, not just the witnesses as stated in the Polish law; this may be due to the diversity of nationalities in the United Arab Emirates.

3.2. Written Translations

As for written translations, EU member states also adhere to this requirement under the European Directive EU/2010/64, which applies only to essential documents related to criminal proceedings. This is done within a reasonable time for suspects or defendants who do not understand the language of the criminal proceedings, so they can exercise their right to defend themselves based on a clear understanding of the charges against them. This includes decisions that can deprive a person of their liberty, indictments, judgements, and other necessary documents.

As stated in EU Regulation 2020/1784,¹⁴ which is a regulation that governs the service of judicial and non-judicial documents in civil and commercial matters between the member states of the European Union, it indicates the right of the recipient of the documents to refuse receipt if the documents are in a language other than the one they understand or in a language other than the official language of the place of service.

In the third chapter of the Polish Certified Translator Act,¹⁵ it is emphasised that the translator’s license should include performing written translations, verifying the accuracy of translations prepared by others, and approving them. This is closer to regulating the profession than to providing procedural protection to the parties in a lawsuit, as is the case under the European directive. Therefore, the Polish courts and judicial authorities rely only on licensed translators, and judges are not allowed to accept any written translation unless it is stamped by a translator who has been previously licensed and registered with the Ministry of Justice.¹⁶ As for translating documents for submission to the UAE judiciary or other courts, this is done by the person submitting the document, whether the case is criminal or civil. Translation is made by licensed translators or authorised translation agencies in accordance with the specific rules set out in the Decree Regulating the Translation Profession.

Since Polish law considers written translation as an integral part of the work of a sworn translator, the Polish Sworn Translator Law obliges licensed translators to perform translations whenever requested by the competent authorities. A translator may only refuse to do so for justified reasons. Article (15) of Chapter Three of the Polish Translation Law stipulates that sworn translators are not allowed to refuse translation and or interpretation in proceedings conducted under the law, when requested by a court, the public prosecutor, the police, or public administrative authorities, unless there are very compelling reasons justifying such refusal.

The details of any refused translation are recorded in the translator's register in accordance with paragraph (7) of Article (17.1). This ensures the continuous provision of written translation whenever necessary to maintain the continuity of legal proceedings.

In contrast, written translation under the UAE law is conducted by licensed translators and translation offices, and the legislator did not address the notion of refusing written translation in the law regulating the translation profession.

From this, we can conclude the clear disparity between Polish law and its Emirati counterpart regarding the refusal to perform written translation tasks. Polish law demonstrates evident flexibility that helps maintain translation quality, as forcing a translator to produce written translations might compromise it due to time constraints. In contrast, Emirati law is strict, treating written translation as an obligation that the translator cannot refuse. Thus, Polish law is considered more consistent with the philosophy of protecting justice, given that Emirati law does not mandate a written translation in court but requires the parties to have their documents translated by a licensed translator outside the court.

Although the right to translation before the courts is of particular importance in criminal proceedings, as emphasised by all international instruments and domestic laws, translation is equally important in civil proceedings.¹⁷ This is grounded in constitutional and domestic legal provisions that typically affirm the right of all persons to have access to the courts and to seek the assistance of an interpreter without restricting such a right to a specific type of case, that is, without confining it solely to criminal proceedings to the exclusion of civil cases.¹⁸ From the above, it can be concluded that the European Union’s international legislation has recognised the issue of document translation, but only for essential documents and at all stages in criminal matters. Translation is a right for suspects and defendants, but not for the opposing parties in civil cases. This translation includes everything necessary to protect suspects or defendants from the risk of misunderstanding and failing to comprehend the contents of those documents and their implications for them. Meanwhile, the Polish legislator has moved towards establishing professional regulation of written translation by sworn translators and preventing them from refusing such translations except for valid reasons. On the other hand, the Emirati legislator has mandated the translation of all documents submitted to both the criminal and civil courts of the UAE and organised this in the Federal Decree regulating the translation profession. It is noteworthy that the purpose here is to ensure the judiciary's understanding of the documents' contents, not the other way around. Translation is carried out for what is submitted to the judiciary, not what is issued by it; thus, the state is not obliged to translate what it issues against individuals in both criminal and civil cases, even if any of them are unaware of the Arabic language in which those documents are issued.

This variation shows that the problem is not just recognising written translation in the judiciary but also extends to how it is done and the limits of relying on the tools used to achieve it. So, the question here is about leveraging technological advances in remote translation and artificial intelligence to help countries meet their obligations regarding judicial translation?

Article 2(6) of EU/2010/64 provides for the possibility of using remote interpretation when necessary, allowing remote communication technologies such as video conferences, telephone, or the Internet, provided that the physical presence of the interpreter is not required to ensure the fairness of the proceedings. Accordingly, Article 151 of the Polish Code of Civil Procedure permits hearings to be held remotely via audiovisual means, and an interpreter may be employed in the same manner. Meanwhile, we did not find a clear provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding the possibility of using a remote interpreter. However, Article 177(1)(a) provides for the use of technological means with the witness, yet this provision alone cannot be considered sufficient to indicate the use of an interpreter through technological means, as the interpretation serves the witness.

In the United Arab Emirates, Article (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure¹⁹ stipulates that the assistance of a translator, at any stage, may be provided by any technical means approved by the Ministry of Justice or the local judicial authority. As for the Code of Civil Procedure,²⁰ it includes a specific section on the use of remote communication technology in proceedings, without specifying the stage or type of proceedings. However, we did not find any provision in the law regulating the translation profession that confirms the permissibility of conducting translation by technical or remote means.

Can these provisions be considered as evidence of the possibility of using artificial intelligence in judicial translation?

The truth is that all of these texts emphasise the possibility of using electronic means and remote communication to interact with translators and carry out translation, and there is no mention of the possibility of utilizing artificial intelligence for translation, except for the text of Article (8) of the UAE Code of Criminal Procedure, which can be relied upon for the possibility of using artificial intelligence in translation as one of the technological means. As for the rest of the texts, they all relate to methods of communicating with the translator, enabling remote communication rather than traditional attendance. This indicates the need for international and national legislation to establish a legal framework for the use of artificial intelligence in translation, and even to require disclosure of reliance on a human translator, whether in written or oral translation conducted remotely, to ensure accuracy, correctness, and compliance with legislation.

The risks arising from the use of artificial intelligence in judicial translation stem from the machine's lack of a full and accurate understanding of legal terminology, which some consider a high-risk application. Linguistic errors committed by intelligent systems can distort content and intended meaning, thereby undermining the foundations of the rule of law, affecting the right to a fair trial, and violating the professional confidentiality required in the judiciary.²¹ While human translation entails certain risks, including inaccuracy, lack of precision, and the potential influence of the translator’s emotions or biases, among others,²² AI-based translation is not free from some of these risks,²³ in addition to ethical and cultural risks.²⁴ The risks associated with AI-based translation before the judiciary are particularly significant due to their potential impact on procedural justice,²⁵ which serves as a guarantee of integrity.²⁶ It should be noted that Polish jurisprudence is divided into two schools of thought regarding judicial translation using artificial intelligence. One school considers it necessary to prohibit the use of artificial intelligence in judicial translation, on the grounds that a trustworthy person must make the translation. Since artificial intelligence does not possess legal personality, it cannot be held legally responsible for perjury or incorrect translation. Additionally, documents translated by artificial intelligence are invalid as they are not subjected to human review and approval, thereby lacking official status.²⁷ The second school of Polish jurisprudence permits the use of artificial intelligence in judicial translation solely for drafting purposes to expedite procedures, provided that this is done under human supervision and review of the translation. Nevertheless, Polish jurisprudence raises issues regarding the use of artificial intelligence in judicial translation, including the leakage of litigants' data and judicial deliberations, which constitutes a violation of the confidentiality of such data and information.²⁸ The general success of AI applications in expediting judicial procedures does not necessarily imply their independent success in producing accurate and reliable translations that effectively contribute to the realisation of justice.²⁹ The effectiveness of AI in case management varies depending on the field and the stage at which it is employed.³⁰ Consequently, the adoption of hybrid translation models becomes indispensable,³¹ in which AI-based translation provides speed and a high degree of accuracy, followed by human review to verify and validate outputs, ensuring more precise results at lower cost. In other words, full reliance on AI for judicial translation is not yet feasible,³² while it remains essential to provide comprehensive support to personnel through training and empowerment in the use of AI translation tools.³³ Therefore, we see the necessity of having a solid and precise legal foundation for using the smart system in legal translation before the courts,³⁴ which should include legal rules defining the responsibility of this system and those in charge of it. The system should be used under human management and supervision, with professional translators verifying its outputs to ensure accuracy, correctness, and suitability. Professional translators should also rely on their own legal knowledge to avoid errors in smart translation.

3.3. The Role of the Translator in Achieving Judicial Justice

The quality of translation depends on many factors,³⁵ Integrity imposes upon the translator before the judiciary, legally, ethically, and professionally, the duty to perform translation work with accuracy and honesty, without distortion, addition, exaggeration, or omission of the meaning intended to be conveyed.³⁶ The quality of translation constitutes a fundamental requirement for court translators,³⁷ and judicial translation requires a high degree of precision in conveying terminology and content, which in turn necessitates specialised training.³⁸ This does not preclude benefiting from modern technologies that contribute to performing translation tasks in a more effective and accurate manner.³⁹ This obligation is considered one of the most important duties of the translator, particularly when engaged before the judiciary and required to translate into a language unfamiliar to the court. In such cases, the translator may be the sole person capable of assessing the accuracy and correctness of the translation, and it is certain that the court will base its decision or judgement on the content of the translation provided.

In this regard, the Federal Supreme Court of the United Arab Emirates affirmed that the translator, being a public employee, had taken the oath prior to assuming their duties, and that the presumption is that procedural requirements have been duly observed. Consequently, the burden of proving otherwise lies with the party alleging non-compliance. Likewise, the burden of proving that the translator did not perform their duties with honesty and integrity rests upon the party making such an allegation.⁴⁰ So, the purpose of having a translator in legal cases is to achieve justice, since the translator is considered one of the judiciary's aides. This happens through the understanding and awareness of the people and the court of what is going on and of the documents presented and issued. This will not be possible unless various laws establish rules governing the use of translators in court. Therefore, our discussion of the translator’s role in achieving justice will not be limited to the concept as an abstract idea, but rather to the legal obligations imposed by comparative law, with reference to the European framework.

For that reason, European Union legislation has recognised the right of suspects and defendants to have necessary documents interpreted and translated. It is also a responsibility of the EU member states to ensure it happens. To ensure this is implemented, Directive EU/2010/64 requires member states, in Article 4, to establish a mechanism or procedure to determine whether suspects or defendants need assistance from a translator and to ensure they understand the language of criminal proceedings.

To ensure that the translator contributes to achieving judicial justice, the aforementioned directive emphasised in Article 2(8) and 3(9) the necessity for translations to be of sufficient quality to guarantee the right of suspects or defendants to understand the charges against them, enabling them to exercise their right to defend themselves. To this end, national laws have established a set of legal rules that help achieve judicial justice regarding translation, including taking an oath, maintaining confidentiality, and committing to continuous professional development.

3.4. Taking the Oath

Accordingly, translators in Poland are required to take an oath. Article 7.1 states that certified translators must take the following oath in front of the Minister of Justice: 'Recognizing the importance of my words and my responsibility before the law, I hereby confirm that I will perform the duties of the certified translator assigned to me with the utmost care and impartiality, while keeping state secrets and other legally protected secrets, and also adhering, in my conduct, to the rules of honesty and professional ethics.' The same law also emphasises confidentiality as part of the translator’s obligations in Article 14.2.

In this way, the Polish translator takes the legal oath once before the Polish Minister of Justice, after which they are registered. Legal scholars emphasise that this legal oath is what confers legal validity on judicial acts, without the need to repeat it.

Skipping this step can result in the loss of the legal value of the translations they provide in court, including the nullification of rulings based on that translation.⁴¹ As a result of this right, the UAE legislator has mandated that translators take a legal oath as one of their most important general obligations after registering in the translators' register and before commencing their professional practice. The oath is taken before one of the competent chambers of the Court of Appeal, and the legislator has specified the wording of the oath as follows:

“I swear by Almighty God that I will perform the work of my profession with accuracy, honesty and sincerity, and in a manner that preserves its dignity and consideration, taking into account the principles and traditions of the profession.” A minute of the oath shall be drawn up, and this minute shall be kept in the translator’s file at the competent department.

In this way, Polish law focuses on oath-taking on the translator’s neutrality, confidentiality, and professional ethics, while UAE law focuses on accuracy, honesty, loyalty, and the dignity of the profession.

3.5. Confidentiality

It is noted that the oath taken by a certified translator in Poland includes the obligation to keep state secrets and other confidential information confidential. This is also part of the translator's obligations in the text of duties. In contrast, the legal oath in UAE law does not include this. The translator's obligation in UAE law falls outside the oath, meaning it is stated in the texts related to the translator's responsibilities; in this case, the translator must keep the information they have accessed confidential.

Thus, both Polish and Emirati laws affirm the principle of confidentiality in judicial translation, albeit in different ways. The Polish law granted confidentiality a clearer status by including it in the oath and in the translator's obligations, whereas the Emirati law recognised it within the translator's obligations outside the form of the oath.

3.6. Language

A sworn translator under the Polish Sworn Translator Law obtains a license to translate from Polish into a foreign language and vice versa, according to Article 13 of the law. Regarding the sworn translator's obligation to the language they are licensed to translate from and to, under Article 18 of the same law, the sworn translator is required to use a stamp with their name and the licensed language on the translations they do. They get this stamp from the Ministry of Justice at their own expense, and they must document the translations they have made in their personal register.

Since a translator’s registration in the translators' register under UAE law and their license are specific to certain language(s), they must translate only from and into those languages. Their seal must include the language for which they are licensed, along with their name and registration number. They also need to include their name, registration number, and the name of the translation office they work for on all publications, correspondence, certificates, and reports they sign. If they change offices, they must inform the relevant authority within one month of the change. Additionally, they should keep a personal record of all the translation work they complete.

Thus, both Polish and Emirati laws impose a restriction on translators by requiring them to translate in the language or languages for which they are licensed. While Polish law highlights this through the stamp and registry, Emirati law adds the concept of registration data, the name of the translation office, and administrative obligations, thereby reinforcing closer monitoring of translation work. Additionally, Polish is considered in Polish law as one of the original languages from and into which translations are made, whereas UAE law does not specify Arabic as the original language, the language from which and into which translations are made, even though it is the language of the courts. This is because the UAE's Translation Profession Law is not limited to judicial authorities in the UAE, but is a general law for all fields, covering all translators and translation offices in the country.

3.7. Professional Development

As joining a new position or continuing in an existing one over a prolonged period both require diligence on the part of individuals and the institutions for which they work, continuous professional development is regarded as an essential requirement of translation practice,⁴² whether initiated by the employer or driven by personal motivation. Such development enhances existing skills and contributes to the acquisition of new ones,⁴³ through the improvement of various competencies, including communication skills, error management, and the use of modern technologies, in order to address common challenges in the field of translation in general.⁴⁴ Given that professional development opportunities are now more accessible than ever before due to the availability of the internet and various social media platforms.

Accordingly, the translator is obligated under Article 14.3 of the Polish Sworn Translator Law to improve their professional qualifications, and the law provides no further details on this.

On the other hand, the UAE law includes the same obligation, with more detail and a register that records details of completed translation assignments.

Every translator, pursuant to the Decree-Law under study, is obliged, throughout the duration of his registration in the list, to exercise due diligence in updating his translation skills by attending specialised courses and training programmes organised by the Ministry of Justice. The translator must also keep pace with developments in the field of translation in general, and in the specific language(s) licensed for translation in particular. Attendance at least one course per year constitutes the minimum requirement for updating the skills of a translator registered in the List of Translators. As the legislator did not specify whether attendance at such courses must be in person, there is no impediment to virtual attendance, notwithstanding the risk of limited benefit, particularly regarding the practical application components of translation during courses or workshops.

There is no doubt that oral interpretation before judicial authorities requires advanced skills in cognitive processing, interactive management, and a high level of translation competence and linguistic knowledge.⁴⁵ Accordingly, if the purpose of attending training courses and programmes is to develop skills and capabilities and to acquire new competencies, the translator must be keen to attend them not merely to fulfil a registration requirement, but to achieve the objective intended by the legislator in imposing such a condition.

We can conclude that Polish law establishes a general obligation for professional development and assumes it remains in effect once the required exam is completed and throughout the licensing period. On the other hand, UAE law details this obligation specifically for translators in the UAE and ties it to clear training requirements. This reflects the administrative regulation in the UAE and its adherence to proactive quality standards, while showing legislative flexibility in Poland. This necessitates intervention by the Polish legislator to legally require sworn translators to engage in professional development rather than leave it to a personal commitment, and to establish a form of continuous oversight to ensure the ongoing updating of Polish translators' knowledge.

3.8. Stopping Work

We did not find in the Polish Sworn Translator Law a provision authorising the temporary suspension of a translator's work at their request, even though the sworn translator has the option to be removed from the register. As for stopping work in the UAE, the law concerning the practice of the translation profession, temporary or permanent suspension of work is permissible. In such a case, the translator must submit their translation card and seal to the competent authority, which is the organisational unit responsible for translators' affairs within the Ministry. The translator is also required to submit their card and translation seal to the same authority in the event of the cancellation of their registration and removal from the translators' register. This ensures that the translator does not engage in translation activities during the suspension period, especially given the ongoing technical inspection introduced by the decree, as we will see later.

From what we have mentioned, it can be inferred that UAE law includes more detailed provisions regarding a translator temporarily or permanently ceasing work; this reinforces the concept of oversight over the use of the translator's title and powers, whereas such clarity does not appear in Polish law.

4 JUDICIAL TRANSLATION TO ENSURE A FAIR TRIAL: OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

Both Polish and Emirati judicial scholars agree that a judge's personal proficiency in a foreign language does not entitle them to forgo requesting a sworn translator in a case. Comparative law aims to uphold the concept of justice by separating judicial authority from technical expertise and protecting trial procedures by maintaining the judge's neutrality, a key principle of litigation.

While translation is, in general, a complex process, it becomes significantly more intricate when it is legal in nature, as its impact extends beyond the translator and the client to the administration and realisation of justice. A notable example is the translation of the Warsaw Convention, which was rendered from French into English in a manner that distorted the meaning between the two versions. This flawed translation produced outcomes inconsistent with the provisions of the Convention, making reliance on the English version alone untenable in practice. Consequently, practitioners and authorities applying the Convention were compelled to refer to the French version to resolve ambiguities and verify the translated text's conformity with the original. Such translation breaches the legal rules enshrined in the Convention and adversely affects the attainment of justice in judicial applications related thereto.⁴⁶ Given that translation is a complex process requiring a meticulous methodological approach and presupposing a high degree of integrity and honesty,⁴⁷ The Polish sworn translator law imposed a simple type of oversight on the work of sworn translators and expanded the legal rules related to the translator's responsibility, while it introduced the UAE legislator, under the Decree-Law under consideration, introduced a system for the oversight of translators registered in the List of Translators at the Ministry of Justice. This system subjects translators to technical inspections and an annual evaluation process. Moreover, translators, like practitioners of any other profession, are subject to disciplinary and criminal accountability for errors or offences committed in the course of their professional activities. They may also, as a matter of course, be held civilly liable in accordance with the general rules governing civil liability in its various forms.

It is certain that ensuring judicial justice is achieved not solely by carefully selecting the translator, but also by monitoring their work and holding them accountable for any breach of their professional duties.

4.1. Supervision of Translators to Ensure the Quality of Legal Translation

of Legal Translation To ensure oversight of translators, the EU Directive EU/2010/64 required member states of the European Union, in Article 26 of the preamble, to change the translator if the quality of the translation is not sufficient, and to emphasise the importance of translation quality in Articles 2.8, 3.9, and 5.1. It also requires national laws to guarantee defendants the right to complain about the quality of both oral and written translation, and to challenge the decision if oral or written translation is deemed unnecessary, in Articles 2.5 and 3.5.

To activate the role of monitoring translators, the EU Directive EU/2010/64, in Article 5.2, requires EU member states to establish a register or registers of translators through which the work of translators can be monitored.

4.2. Supervision of Translators in the Polish Sworn Translator Law

Based on those general rules for supervising translators, the Polish sworn translator law requires translators, in Article 17, to keep a record of their translation work. This record should include the date the translation request was received and the date it was delivered, the identity of the person requesting the translation, a description of the translated document (issuing authority, language, date, nature, description), the work done by the translator, the language of the translation, the number of pages and copies. If the translation is done on the spot, it should describe the translation and specify its location, date, the time taken, and the fee the translator received. If the translation is refused within the limits allowed by law under Article 15, the translator must specify the date of refusal, the name of the authority requesting the translation, and the reason for refusal.

The oversight of the translator's work, recorded in that register and elsewhere, is authorised by the Polish Sworn Translators Law in Article 20, where the governors responsible for the translators in their area of residence ensure the reliability of their record-keeping and that they receive the set translation fees as legally determined. The oversight of a sworn translator's work in Poland is conducted according to the Sworn Translator Law in Poland in the three steps outlined in Table 1.⁴⁸ to the Polish Sworn Translators Act It is worth noting that the supervision of the work of the sworn Polish translator is considered a formal administrative oversight, represented in verifying the existence of records and the registration of translation work in them with its details. It does not include technical supervision of the translator's work by technical inspectors who verify the accuracy and correctness of the translation, whether oral or written.

Additionally, there is the concept of monitoring the translator's performance in oral interpretation, as Polish jurisprudence emphasises the necessity for the judge to respond immediately to any procedural objection raised by the parties or the defence regarding the accuracy of the translation provided by the sworn translator. Accordingly, the court may refer the audio and video recording of the session in which the translation occurred to another expert translator to provide an assessment of the quality and fidelity of the interpretation. If a significant deficiency is confirmed, this leads to the annulment of the translation procedures conducted and the initiation of disciplinary measures against that translator.⁴⁹

4.3. Oversight of Translators in the UAE Translation Profession Regulation Law

in the UAE Translation Profession Regulation Law In view of the significant role played by translators within the judiciary and the impact of translation on the achievement of judicial justice,⁵⁰ the UAE legislator has established a graduated system for the oversight of translators registered in the List of Translators at the Ministry of Justice. The first stage is periodic and conducted by technical inspectors; the second stage is annual and conducted by the organisational unit responsible for translator affairs; and the final stage is conducted by the Translators' Affairs Committee at the Ministry of Justice. It is noteworthy that this oversight process is conducted primarily by translators themselves, ensuring that supervision is exercised by specialists in the field.⁵¹ Oversight is conducted in stages, as detailed in the following table (Table 2).⁵² at the Ministry of Justice

First Stage: Periodic Evaluation: A translator must possess extensive skills that enable the effective fulfilment of the entrusted translation's purpose.⁵³ To achieve the objectives of the first stage, the UAE legislator has authorised the Minister of Justice to appoint translators within the Ministry of Justice who possess expertise and proficiency in the field of translation to carry out periodic technical inspections, in accordance with the standards and technical requirements established by the Translators' Affairs Committee. Technical inspectors perform their duties by examining samples of work produced by translators and translation houses, on the basis of which they assess the quality and accuracy of performance . They also conduct unannounced and urgent inspections of translators and translation houses to verify specific facts, conduct, or any violations that may be attributed to either.

Technical inspectors are responsible for reviewing complaints made against translators or against translation agencies. They are expected to provide advice and guidance on unintentional errors and prepare reports on those complaints, which are presented to the Translators' Affairs Department and then to the Translators' Committee. This reflects the wisdom behind requiring them to be experienced translators themselves, knowledgeable in the field of translation.

Second Stage: Annual Evaluation: At the second stage of oversight of translators registered in the List of Translators at the Ministry of Justice, the annual evaluation is conducted by the organisational unit responsible for translator affairs at the Ministry of Justice. The UAE legislator has specified criteria for assessing translators and preparing the annual report. These criteria include determining the overall technical level of the translation work completed by the translator, as well as the complaints registered against the translator or the translation house. Given the legislator’s emphasis on the necessity of continuous professional development, the annual report must also address the extent of the translator’s compliance with such development requirements, in addition to their adherence to and application of the Code of Ethics for Professional Translators. Furthermore, the report must include the translator’s overall rating based on the technical inspectors’ assessments.

To safeguard the confidentiality of reports pertaining to translators, the legislator has prohibited access to such reports by any person other than the translator concerned, the organisational unit concerned with the affairs of translators, and the Translators’ Affairs Committee. Accordingly, no person, regardless of capacity, is entitled to review translators’ reports unless they fall within the categories expressly authorised by law.

Third Stage: Decisions Based on the Evaluation of Translators: Pursuant to the Decree-Law under consideration, a committee affiliated with the Ministry of Justice, known as the Translators’ Affairs Committee, is established to undertake the functions stipulated therein and in its executive regulations. The Committee is vested with several competencies, including the evaluation of translators and translation houses. This section focuses exclusively on these competencies and does not address other powers that fall outside the scope of this study.

The Translators’ Affairs Committee is responsible for handling complaints filed against a translator or translation agencies. In such cases, the committee has the authority either to dismiss the complaint or refer it to the public prosecutor to initiate disciplinary proceedings before the Disciplinary Council, as we will see later.

The committee also oversees grievances, deciding whether to reject them or modify the evaluation results being challenged, and must do so within thirty days of the grievance's submission. The committee’s decision on the grievance, whether to reject it or make changes, is final and cannot be appealed to any authority.

As for the committee’s authority over annual evaluation reports on translators and translation agencies, the legislator cited motivations such as sending a thank-you message to the translator, addressing issues, and ensuring accountability based on the annual reports’ results.

From the above, we can conclude that there are differences in the strictness and oversight mechanisms between the two legal systems. Polish law tends to focus on control through administrative documentation, record-keeping, and data review, while UAE law leans towards multi-stage, tiered institutional oversight.

4.4. The Responsibility of Translators to Ensure Judicial Fairness

The translator, in practising the profession of translation, bears disciplinary, civil, and criminal responsibility. However, since European guidelines focus on the necessity and quality of judicial translation to protect human rights and achieve a fair trial without imposing any type of responsibility on the translator, leaving that to the national laws of the member states, Polish legislation has defined the responsibility of the translator, just as Emirati legislation has defined the responsibility of the translator in the United Arab Emirates. Accordingly, we will address below the types of responsibilities (criminal, civil, and disciplinary) imposed on the translator in Poland under Polish legislation, as well as the corresponding responsibilities imposed on the translator in the United Arab Emirates under Emirati legislation.

4.5. Disciplinary Responsibility of the Translator

The Polish Sworn Translator Law outlines the translator's responsibilities in Article 21, stating that a translator may face disciplinary action if they fail to perform their duties in accordance with the law or do so improperly or dishonestly. In such cases, the translator may face the following disciplinary measures: 1. Reprimand, 2. Blame, 3. A financial penalty of at least one-tenth of the average wage in the national economy is legally mandated, 4. Suspension of the right to practice as a sworn translator for a period ranging from 3 months to a year, 5. Deprivation of the right to work as a sworn translator. In this case, they can apply for re-licensing after at least two years of deprivation and after passing the exam again.

In application of this, a Polish court fined a sworn translator 1,000 zlotys for delaying the delivery of a translation and for refusing to answer the court's phone calls. The court did not accept her argument of heavy workload and limited time in the appeal, and the appellate court upheld the penalty on the grounds that the translator violated her duty of cooperation and loyalty to the judiciary.⁵⁴ A disciplinary case can be initiated by the Minister of Justice or the governor against the Professional Responsibility Committee. The affected translation-requesting party can also submit a request to the Minister of Justice or the governor to initiate a disciplinary case against the sworn translator. The procedures proceed whether the violating translator attends or not, without an acceptable excuse. The translator has the right to be assisted by another translator, a lawyer, or a legal consultant. The committee issues its decision of punishment, acquittal, or dismissal, and both the translator and the complaining party have the right to appeal that decision. The appeal ruling is considered final and cannot be challenged further.

It should be noted that Article 22 of the Polish law sets a three-year limitation period for bringing disciplinary proceedings against a sworn translator. If a disciplinary case is initiated within that period, the penalty limitation period is extended by an additional two years after the first period expires. However, if the translator's conduct constitutes a criminal or financial offence, the disciplinary responsibility only expires once the criminal offence itself is no longer prosecutable under Polish criminal law.

Under the UAE translation profession law, a translator is subject to disciplinary action if a complaint is filed against them for violating their professional duties. This complaint goes to the Translators' Affairs Committee, which can either keep it or refer it to the Public Prosecution to bring a disciplinary case against the translator before the Translators' Disciplinary Board, all in accordance with the prescribed procedures. Naturally, the law allows the board to conduct any investigations it deems appropriate or appoint one of its members for this task. The board also has the authority to temporarily suspend the translator or the translation office until the case is resolved.

The disciplinary hearings against the translator are held in private, with the translator themselves or the legal representative of the translation company present. The council must inform the offending translator or the translation company of the violation and the supporting evidence, and summon them to attend, giving them the chance to prepare their defence. Either of them can submit their defence in writing or through a lawyer.

Accordingly, the Disciplinary Council issues its ruling either in the parties' presence or in their absence, after verifying the notification’s correctness. Since reasoning is a prerequisite for the validity of disciplinary sanctions, as derived from statutory provisions,⁵⁵ The legislator decided that rulings must be reasoned and granted the right to appeal this ruling before the Court of Appeal to the Public Prosecution, the translator, and the translation office. Disciplinary penalties range from a warning to a suspension of registration for up to one year, culminating in removal from the register.

It should be noted that the UAE legislator did not specify in the Translation Profession Regulation Law and its e the procedures for notification or appealing rulings, other than what we mentioned, related to the translator's disciplinary case, nor did it refer to any general rules regarding this or to any other procedures found in the Civil Procedures Law, which should have been taken into account to avoid any shortcomings in the procedures necessary to implement what is stated in that law and its executive regulations.

From the above, we can deduce that Polish law follows an administrative accounting system for disciplining translators, granting the committee the authority to admonish or remove them, while imposing a re-examination requirement to return to the profession. In contrast, UAE law is considered a strict system in which the translator is held accountable before a judicial authority, and substantial financial fines may be imposed, as well as suspension or removal from the register.

4.6. Civil Liability of the Translator

The Polish law on sworn translators and the UAE law regulating the translation profession do not explicitly address the translator's civil liability, which is governed by the general rules on this matter set out in the civil law of both countries. However, obtaining a civil liability insurance policy remains optional for the Polish sworn translator, whereas it is mandatory for translators in the UAE. UAE law requires translators to obtain professional liability insurance, with an exception only for translators working within translation offices, provided that the translation office's insurance policy covers professional errors of the translators employed there. Translators working in government entities are also exempt, as their translation work is limited exclusively to those entities.

It is noteworthy that the Court of Appeal in Katowice decided that the translator is considered an official assistant of the court and not a party to the case, and it rejected a compensation claim filed directly against the translator, emphasising that responsibility for the translator's mistakes falls within the scope of the public treasury's liability. In this way, according to Polish courts, a sworn translator's civil liability is removed and transferred to the state's responsibility for judicial actions.⁵⁶ This difference between Polish law and UAE law regarding the civil liability of translators highlights a proactive feature of the UAE system: significant financial safeguards to protect litigants, while Polish law relies on traditional judicial rules and personal compensation, which delays the recovery of rights.

4.7. Criminal Liability of the Translator

The Polish Code for Sworn Translators does not specify criminal penalties based on the translator's criminal liability. However, Article 22 refers to the Polish Penal Code, and Article 233 of the Penal Code stipulates that the Polish legislator imposes a prison sentence of between one and ten years if the translator provides false testimony or a false translation. If the false translation is unintentional and results from gross negligence, the prison sentence can be up to three years. For an incorrect fact of legal significance in an official document, the sentence ranges from three months to five years.

As for the UAE Translation Profession Regulation Law, it includes provisions that impose criminal penalties and refer cases under the UAE Crimes and Punishments Law, applying the severest penalty if it exists. Accordingly, the UAE legislator decided in Article 30 of the Translation Profession Regulation Law that the penalty would be imprisonment for no less than one year and no more than two years, and a fine ranging between 50,000 and 100,000 dirhams, or one of these penalties, if: the translator practices the profession without being registered in the schedule, or after being removed from it, or while suspended from work, or in the case of deliberately changing the truth, damaging documents, gross negligence, or disclosing professional secrets.

The difference between the two laws regarding the criminal liability of the translator is that the Polish Sworn Translator Law contains no criminal penalties and refers to the general rules of the country's Penal Code. In contrast, the UAE law regulating the translation profession, in addition to referring to the general provisions of the Penal Code, contains specific provisions on the translator's criminal liability, imposing penalties such as imprisonment and fines.

5 CONCLUSION

This study has proven that employing translators in court is indispensable, as it constitutes one of the legal rights guaranteed to all individuals engaging with the judiciary, regardless of their language. The European Union has organised this through general rules, and EU countries, including Poland, have structured translation practices within their national laws under the Sworn Translator Act No. 24 of 2004 and its 2019 amendments. Similarly, the UAE legislator has regulated the translation profession in various respects under Federal Decree-Law No. 22 of 2022 and its executive regulations. However, achieving the objective of regulating the translation profession in national laws requires consideration of the following:

• To ensure procedural justice and a fair trial, the general legal rules in UAE legislation must include provisions recognising the right of litigants who are not fluent in Arabic to judicial translation.
• To ensure the confidentiality of information accessed by the translator in the UAE, the stipulated legal section must include confidentiality provisions.
• The Polish Sworn Translator Law should include legal provisions requiring the Ministry of Justice to prioritise translators’ professional development by mandating that they attend workshops and courses related to their profession, rather than relying solely on the results of the initial exam for their appointment.
• Additionally, it is necessary not to limit oversight to formal administrative control, but to move towards continuous technical supervision concerning the Polish sworn translator. The law should include legal provisions for the monitoring of translation work by technical inspectors, matching translation outputs to the original documents using randomly selected samples.
• The directives of the European Union and the comparative laws of Poland and the UAE do not include legal rules regulating translation using artificial intelligence, which requires legislative intervention, at least at the level of national legal rules, to regulate this type of translation. It is necessary for the cyber framework to be closed to maintain confidentiality, and for a certified translator to supervise the intelligent system's outputs (translations) to ensure precise legal terminology, which the intelligent system must adhere to.

FOOTNOTES

REFERENCES

AUTHOR’S INFORMATION

RIGHTS AND PERMISSIONS

EDITORS

ABOUT THIS ARTICLE

DETAILS FOR PUBLICATION

AI DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

АНОТАЦІЯ

ABSTRACT IN ARABIC⁵⁷