FUNCTIONALITY OF INTERLINGUAL MEDIATION IN INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION AND MIGRATION PROCEDURES
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.46763/Schlagwörter:
interlingual mediation, international protection, migration procedures, procedural fairness, translation qualityAbstract
This study examines the functionality of interlingual mediation in
international protection and migration procedures in the Republic of
Slovenia, focusing on its implications for procedural fairness and the
effective exercise of fundamental rights. While the right to
interpretation and translation is formally guaranteed under European
and national legal frameworks, its practical implementation remains
insufficiently effective.
The empirical part of the study is based on an analysis of texts translated
from Slovene into Macedonian as a non-dominant language pair. The
findings indicate that the analysed texts achieve an average
comprehensibility level of approximately 50%, revealing significant
limitations in ensuring accurate and comprehensible communication.
Since interlingual mediation in practice includes both translation and
interpreting — often performed by the same person — these limitations
point to structural weaknesses affecting the quality and reliability of
communication in legal proceedings.
To verify whether these findings extend beyond a single language pair,
questionnaires and interviews were conducted with applicants for
international protection and decision-makers. The results confirm
similar patterns across other non-dominant languages, suggesting that
the problem is systemic rather than language-specific.
The study concludes that such limitations may undermine procedural
safeguards under the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European
Union and the Asylum Procedures Directive, particularly the right to be
heard and the right to effective participation in proceedings.
Downloads
Literaturhinweise
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative
Research in
Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed
methods research (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
European Union. (2012). Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Official Journal of
the European Union, C 326, 391–407.
European Union. (2013). Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 26
June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing
international protection. Official Journal of the European Union, L 180, 60–
95.
Furlan-Rus, A. (2014, February 25). Vodja hudodelske združbe obsojen na štiri leta
in pol zapora.
Delo.
Gole Ašanin, S., & Pokrivač, V. (2009). Vključevanje v slovensko družbo: Informacije
za tujce. Ministrstvo za notranje zadeve Republike Slovenije.
Hale, S. (2007). Community interpreting. Palgrave Macmillan.
Hegeduš, J. (2013, March 14). Mirwais – begunec iz Afganistana. UNHCR Slovenija.
Hertog, E., & van der Veer, B. (2006). Taking stock: Research and methodology in
community interpreting. Intersentia.
Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). InterViews: Learning the craft of qualitative
research interviewing (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Määttä, S. K. (2015). Interpreting the discourse of reporting: The case of screening
interviews with asylum seekers and police interviews in Finland. Translation
& Interpreting, 7(3), 21–35. https://doi.org/10.12807/ti.107203.2015.a02
Nord, C. (1997). Translating as a purposeful activity: Functionalist approaches
explained. St. Jerome Publishing.
Orlić, N. (2022). Funkcionalnost medjezikovnega posredovanja v migracijah in
mednarodni zaščiti (Doctoral dissertation, University of Ljubljana, Faculty
of Arts).
Orlić, N. (2023). Kakovost tolmačenja v državah EU+ na področju mednarodne
zaščite. In Odvrženi plašč nevidnosti: Jubilejni zbornik ob 50-letnici ZKTS
(pp. 104–110). Združenje konferenčnih tolmačev Slovenije.
Pöchhacker, F. (2004). Introducing interpreting studies. Routledge.
Pöllabauer, S. (2004). Interpreting in asylum hearings: Issues of role, responsibility
and power. Interpreting, 6(2), 143–180.
Principles on Effective Interviewing for Investigations and Information Gathering
(Méndez Principles). (2021). Retrieved from
https://interviewingprinciples.com
Stojiljković, B. (2014, March 21). Pretihotapil 33 beguncev iz Madžarske v Slovenijo.
Dnevnik.
Tipton, R. (2008). Reflexivity and the social construction of identity in interpretermediated asylum interviews. The Translator, 14(1), 1–19.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2008.10799247
Tipton, R., & Furmanek, O. (2016). Dialogue interpreting: A guide to interpreting in
public services and the community. Routledge.
Vermeer, H. J. (1989). Skopos and commission in translational action. In A.
Chesterman (Ed.), Readings in translation theory (pp. 173–187). Oy Finn
Lectura Ab.
Wadensjö, C. (1998). Interpreting as interaction. Longman.
Zabukovec, M. (2017, April 7). Ljubljansko ogledalo: Skupaj ustvarjajo drugi dom.
Delo. https://old.delo.si/novice/ljubljana/skupaj-ustvarjajo-drugi-dom.html
Legal Sources / Case Law
UPRS, Judgment and Order No. I U 1490/2019-92.
VSRS, Judgment I Up 31/2016 of 31 May 2017.
UPRS, Judgment I U 1558/2018-44 of 28 March 2019.
VSRS, Judgment I Up 208/2016 of 1 February 2017.
CJEU, Judgment of 5 November 2014, Sophie Mukarubega v Préfet de police and
Préfet de la Seine-Saint-Denis, C-166/13, EU:C:2014:2336.
CJEU, Judgment of 11 December 2014, Khaled Boudjlida v Préfet des PyrénéesAtlantiques, C-249/13, EU:C:2014:2431.
