Sections 135–138 of the Courts Act – Interpretation and Translation in the Courts

Sections 135–138 of the Courts of Justice Act regulate the use of interpreters and translation when language or other forms of communication may hinder proper participation in a court case.

Pursuant to Section 135, the court shall use an interpreter it has appointed or approved when a person who does not know Norwegian participates in the proceedings. In certain situations, the court may refrain from using an interpreter if the court and the persons involved understand the language in question. The exceptions must be assessed on a case-by-case basis and are narrower during investigations in criminal cases.

Pursuant to Section 136, procedural writs shall as a general rule be in Norwegian or be accompanied by a translation. The court may also require that foreign documents used as evidence be translated. The translation shall normally be certified by a publicly authorized translator or an interpreter appointed or approved by the court. The court may make exceptions when the parties concerned understand the language and the considerations of a proper and secure adjudication permit it.

Section 136 a refers to the right to use Sami pursuant to Section 3-4 of the Sami Act. Section 137 regulates how persons who, due to hearing or speech impairments, cannot give statements orally in the usual manner, may give statements in writing or with the assistance of an interpreter. Pursuant to Section 138, provisions concerning the appointment, duties, and disqualification of court interpreters apply.

The Courts of Justice Act must be viewed in conjunction with the Interpretation Act. The courts are covered by the Interpretation Act, but the special provisions of the Courts of Justice Act take precedence where they regulate the same matter. The Interpretation Act's requirements for a qualified interpreter, good interpreting practice, duty of confidentiality, and impartiality can therefore also be significant for court interpreting.

Machine translation, automatic transcription, and other AI-based language tools can be used as support in preparatory work provided that the processing is lawful and secure. Such tools do not replace the court's appointment or approval of an interpreter, the requirements for a certified translation, or the human control that the case requires.

Sections 135–138 of the Courts of Justice Act regulate how the courts are to handle interpretation, translation, and facilitated communication in legal proceedings. The provisions cover, among other things, the court's appointment or approval of an interpreter, language requirements for procedural documents, translation of documentary evidence, the use of Sami, and the duties and impartiality of the court interpreter.

Incorrect interpretation or translation can affect a person's ability to understand the case, explain themselves, and safeguard their own rights. Courts, lawyers, and providers must therefore clarify interpreter needs early on, use the appropriate level of qualification, and ensure that translated documents meet the requirements of the court.

AI-based translation or transcription cannot simply be used as a substitute for an appointed interpreter or a certified translation. Furthermore, confidential documents and information from legal proceedings must not be entered into external language tools without a lawful basis for processing, necessary security, and control over the provider.