Gavril Covaci

The case concerns firstly the interpretation of Directive 2010/64/EU on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings. The Court ruled out that: 

"Articles 1 to 3 of Directive 2010/64/EU (…) must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings which, in criminal proceedings, does not permit the individual against whom a penalty order has been made to lodge an objection in writing against that order in a language other than that of the proceedings, even though that individual does not have a command of the language of the proceedings, provided that the competent authorities do not consider, in accordance with Article 3(3) of that directive, that, in the light of the proceedings concerned and the circumstances of the case, such an objection constitutes an essential document."

The case also concerns the interpretation of Directive 2012/13/EU on the right to information in criminal proceedings. The Court ruled out that: 

"Articles 2, 3(1)(c) and 6(1) and (3) of Directive 2012/13/EU (…) must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, in criminal proceedings, makes it mandatory for an accused person not residing in that Member State to appoint a person authorised to accept service of a penalty order concerning him, provided that that accused person does in fact have the benefit of the whole of the prescribed period for lodging an objection against that order."