Article page checkbox is not checked in page info.
Use and challenges of national sign languages in EU Member States
Use and challenges of national sign languages in EU Member States
Silvia Kotanidis, Members' Research Service
Summary
One million deaf people who use sign language and a further 51 million hard-of-hearing people, some of whom also use sign language, live in the EU. International obligations and the need for greater equality for the deaf community have attracted the attention of the EU institutions in recent years, with increasing engagement from national and EU policymakers. Three European Parliament resolutions in 2016 and 2018 addressed the role of sign language in ensuring equality.
This comparative analysis is based on information obtained from national parliaments in the framework of the European Centre for Parliamentary Research and Documentation (ECPRD), a community of parliamentary knowledge, inter-parliamentary cooperation and information exchange.
This briefing explores the extent of sign language use as a means of communication for deaf and hard-of-hearing persons in national parliaments, courts and administrations. On the one hand, legal recognition has improved the position of sign language, because interpreting is widely admitted and used in courts and dealings with national administrations. On the other hand, the submission of petitions to national parliaments remains predominantly excluded from this possibility. Even where sign language interpreting is provided in official settings, it encounters various obstacles which prevent users from exercising their full rights and enjoying full equality.
Introduction
The EU is committed to encouraging the accommodation of sign users' needs, particularly in the work aimed at implementing the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), which the EU ratified in December 2010.
Pursuant to Article 21 of the CRPD, States Parties must take all appropriate measures to ensure that persons with disabilities can exercise their right to freedom of expression and opinion, to accept and facilitate the use of sign languages and to promote the deaf community's linguistic identity. Article 21(b) of the CRPD requires States Parties to accept and facilitate the use of national sign languages in official interactions and Article 21(e) obliges States Parties to recognise and promote the use of national sign languages.
The recognition of the rights of persons with disabilities and the desire to comply with international obligations prompted the European Parliament to issue a resolution in July 2016 stressing the need to guarantee 'access to information and communication in accessible formats and technologies appropriate to different kinds of disabilities, including sign languages'. Furthermore, a Parliament resolution of November 2016 reported that, in the EU, approximately one million deaf citizens and many of the 51 million hard-of-hearing citizens used sign languages, and highlighted that the availability of sign language interpreting varied among Member States. The November 2016 resolution stressed the importance of qualified and professional sign language interpreters and suggested ways to increase numbers and improve their professional training. The resolution also mentioned the need to guarantee accessibility, within reasonable limits, and strategies to improve the accessibility of information.
In November 2018, a resolution on minimum standards for minorities affirmed the need to pay special attention to people using sign language. As stated in the Parliament resolution of November 2016, sign languages are languages in their own right, with their own rules, grammar, syntax and lexicon. In addition, they are specific to each country: for example, French Sign Language in France differs from French Belgian Sign Language. In the same country, several sign languages may exist, such as Catalan Sign Language, Galician Sign Language and Spanish Sign Language in Spain.
Furthermore, increasing focus has been put on the needs of deaf and hard-of-hearing people in relation to public institutions. In 2016, a petition (1056/2016) was filed on behalf of the European Union of the Deaf, requesting that deaf and hard-of-hearing sign language users be given the possibility of tabling petitions in sign languages.
The Union's 2021‑2030 strategy for the rights of persons with disabilities also states the importance of guaranteeing participation in democratic life for persons with disabilities, including through information and communication, and improving the accessibility of audiovisual communications and graphic design, thereby expanding the use of sign language.
In a position paper of September 2024, the European Union of the Deaf advocated recognising the 29 national s ign languages as official EU languages by amending Regulation 1/1958, which determines the languages to be used in the European Union. The European Union of the Deaf argues that while all Member States have recognised their national sign languages as full languages, with a complete structure, including vocabulary, grammar and syntax, which enable comprehensive communication and expression, the recognition of their official legal status varies among Member States. While Member States are responsible for recognising sign languages as national languages, the European Union of the Deaf believes that, as a State Party to the CRPD, the EU has an obligation to fully implement the convention and put sign languages on an equal footing with spoken languages. The position paper also lists the laws recognising sign languages in Member States (Annex I ), and the website of the World Federation of the Deaf contains information on sign languages' state of recognition at global level.
Submission of petitions to national parliaments
National legal framework
The overwhelming majority of Member States do not provide for the possibility to submit petitions to national parliaments in sign language. This often means that the petition must be submitted in writing.
One of the main reasons for sign language not being used in such petitions is that in several Member States, according to national law or parliament's rules of procedure, petitions can only be submitted in writing (Belgium, Bulgaria, Czechia, Germany, Estonia, Spain, Italy, Cyprus, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Austria, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia and Slovakia). In Austria, the right of petition in any form is recognised at constitutional level, although parliamentary petitions as a specifically regulated form of petition in the rules of procedure of the parliamentary chambers can only be submitted in writing.
In Latvia, a pragmatic approach is followed, whereby there is an obligation to record submissions in writing in accordance with the law on submissions where submissions would be transcribed. In Greece, the issue of submission of petitions in sign language has been the object of serious parliamentary debate: some parliamentary groups have submitted both a formal written and oral request to the president of parliament, urging all parliamentary sessions (including plenary and committee meetings) to provide interpreting in Greek Sign Language.
In two countries, specific arrangements are possible. In Ireland, a member of the public may contact the committee secretariat or the clerk to the committee to organise appropriate sign language interpreting. In Romania, the recognition of sign language by law no 27/2020 as the native language of deaf and hard-of-hearing people has created a legal framework. For example, Article 8 provides for the right to be assisted by an authorised interpreter for 'official matters', which may include, in addition to obtaining a driving licence, the submission of a petition assisted by an interpreter.
In Poland, although petitions to the lower house must be submitted in writing, the Polish Association of the Deaf has submitted three petitions requesting the amendment of three pieces of legislation to accommodate the needs of deaf and hard-of-hearing people. Following these developments, a decision was reached to submit a draft bill incorporating some of the proposed changes.
In Sweden and Finland, the national legal system does not provide for petitions to the national parliament.
Alternative forms of communication for the submission of petitions other than sign language
The practice of Member States when sign language is not allowed varies widely.
In some Member States there is no real alternative to the written form for the submission of petitions (Denmark, Estonia, Spain, France, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Hungary and Austria). In the two Belgian chambers, only the written form is accepted, but the Belgian Chamber of Representatives does allow for assistance if the principal petitioner or any other petitioner has the right to be heard by the responsible committee. This is the case where the petition has sufficient support (25 000 natural persons resident in Belgium aged at least 16 years old, of whom at least 14 500 are resident in the Flemish region, 2 500 in the Brussels-Capital Region and 8 000 in the Walloon region). In the context of such a hearing, a deaf, hearing-impaired or deaf-mute petitioner could be assisted by a sign language interpreter (normally external providers).
In Bulgaria, the state provides free interpreting to and from sign language, while in Cyprus, it is expected that where needed, public authorities will provide reasonable accommodation to persons with disabilities in accordance with the national law on persons with disabilities 127(I)/2000. In Germany, if petitions cannot be submitted in writing, the petitions committee normally attempts, in individual cases and in close consultation with petitioners, to find an alternative solution.
In a number of Member States, the written form required by law is deemed to be respected via online submissions. For example in Czechia, Malta, Netherlands and Slovakia, the national legal system permits the submission of online petitions (called ePetitions, online petitions, etc.). In a few countries, it is possible to submit petitions either online (Belgium, France, Italy, Latvia and Poland) or by email (Belgium, Italy and Slovenia). In Italy, physical submission by hand is also allowed.
In Slovenia, the act on the use of Slovenian sign language establishes the right to use Slovenian Sign Language interpreters in proceedings before a state or local body, or public service provider. The entitled person must apply to the social work centre, which will decide and issue an ID card and voucher for interpreting services. Specific rules apply to the number of hours to which a person is entitled. For proceedings before the state or local institutions and public service providers, the entitlement is unlimited.
In Poland too, the matter is dealt with by recourse to interpreting to and from sign language. In Poland, several attempts have been made to accommodate the needs of deaf and hard-of-hearing people; for example, in 2018 a draft law sought to introduce an obligation for public administrations to accept communication in sign language or to guarantee remote access to an interpreter. In 2021, a proposal was made to submit petitions in whole or in part in audiovisual format in Polish Sign Language. However, both these initiatives were discontinued.
In Romania, petitioners with hearing impairments may be assisted by authorised interpreters.
National sign language(s) in court proceedings
National legal framework
In all Member States it is possible to interact in court proceedings through interpreters. The relevant provisions may be found either in the civil, criminal or administrative procedure codes, in the laws recognising the national sign language or in general statutes governing procedures in courts in a Member State.
Normally, interpreters must be certified and sworn to perform the service on behalf of the court; this is the case, for example, in Belgium and Austria. The provision of interpreting services during court proceedings appears to be free in all or almost all the cases.
Almost half of Member States have adopted rules on the use of interpreting for sign language. This is the case for Ireland, Greece, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Hungary, Malta, Netherlands, Austria, Poland, Romania, Slovenia and Finland. In Croatia, beneficiaries who use Croatian Sign Language have the right to use all forms of communication systems for deaf and deaf-blind persons, or support in the form of a communication intermediary in all life situations and with state administration bodies, local and regional self-government units, and legal entities in public authorities. This suggests the possibility of using sign language also in courts.
In other countries, the use of sign language (with interpreting) is possible at least in criminal and civil procedures, such as in Belgium, Germany and France. In Italy, in addition to civil and criminal procedures, sign language may also be used for the tax jurisdiction, and in Estonia, Spain, Latvia and Sweden also in the administrative jurisdiction. In Slovakia, alongside civil and criminal procedures, sign language is allowed in procedures before local or district courts. In some countries, such as Bulgaria, Czechia, Denmark, Cyprus and Portugal, sign language may only be used in the criminal jurisdiction.
In Greece, under the civil procedural code, communication with a deaf person during a hearing or procedural act should primarily take place through written text, with the person choosing to respond either orally or in writing. The judge may appoint one or two interpreters, preferably individuals familiar with communicating with the person. The Greek code of penal and administrative procedure also provides for the possibility to appoint interpreters.
In Latvia, the association Apeirons (Organisation of People with Disabilities and their Friends) and the Latvian judicial training centre have produced a handbook on Court Standard On Court Proceedings Involving Persons with Disabilities (in Latvian). This is available to court staff and sets out recommended ways to communicate with people with disabilities, including those with hearing impairments.
In Poland, the websites of common courts offer online sign language interpreting services via an internet platform operated by the Polish Association of the Deaf or other private entity. The use of such a system does not replace a sworn sign language interpreter in court proceedings, but it does significantly facilitate communication with the courts.
Activities allowed in court using sign language
Many Member States provide an interpreter for court proceedings. The regimes in force in different Member States enable a wide range of activities that can be undertaken with the assistance of specialised interpreters, although several differences persist.
In 14 Member States (Bulgaria, Germany, Estonia, Ireland, Spain, France, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Austria, Romania and Finland) the legal system does not explicitly mention which activities are allowed in court, but incorporates a general clause encompassing a variety of acts. This type of formulation offers more flexibility and can be adapted to people's actual needs as they arise during the procedure.
Other countries define more precisely the judicial activities in which sign language can be used.
Belgian and Hungarian law, for example, mentions sign language use in hearings. In Slovenia and Sweden, in addition to hearings, sign language is allowed for accessing documents. In Croatia, along with interactions with the judge, the law expressly provides for the possibility to swear the oath (246 civil procedure act). In Czechia and Denmark, sign language can be used in hearings and in activities related to judicial proceedings, such as during legal consultations between the party and the legal advisor. In Greece, the use of sign language is generally not allowed and communication must be in written form, except where this is not possible because the person cannot read or write, in which case the judge appoints one or two interpreters. In Poland, sign language can be used for witnesses, assistance during hearing and mediation. In the Netherlands, sign language can be employed in court proceedings, for oaths, promises or affirmations, and where a person has to speak in an official capacity, for example due to their job or in a hearing. In Portugal, the law expressly allows the submission of testimony with the assistance of an interpreter for deaf and hard-of-hearing persons. Slovakian law contains a general clause: in a civil procedure, a deaf or hard-of-hearing witness may provide written evidence, and during a criminal procedure interpreting may extend to assistance during consultations with the legal counsel.
Alternative forms of communication in court other than sign language
In the overwhelming majority of Member States there are no particular alternative forms of communication stipulated where sign language with interpreting is not admitted in court. The likely reason is that Member States largely provide for sign language interpreting in court proceedings.
In a few Member States, alternatives are nevertheless provided. For example, in Sweden if an authorised interpreter cannot be employed, another interpreter can be assigned. In Estonia, written and electronic communication is also possible. In Hungary, the deaf or hard-of-hearing party is permitted to make a written statement in lieu of interpreting. In Italy, tactile sign language and other non-specified technical solutions are potentially available. In Poland, some court websites offer an online sign language interpreting service via an internet platform operated by the Polish Association of the Deaf or other private entity. The use of this system does not replace a sworn sign language interpreter in court proceedings, although it does significantly facilitate communication with the courts. In Portugal, the applicable law mentions lip reading and the written form, as being appropriate, together with sign language interpreting.
Croatia and Slovakia offer a comprehensive range of alternatives. In Slovakia, when sign language interpreting is not possible, a few alternatives can be considered, such as:
-
use of articulation interpreters (for deaf and hard-of-hearing persons who do not use sign language);
-
use of technical means (video or audio transmission for remote interpreting);
-
written communication (written examination).
In Croatia too, a broad set of options are in principle possible, such as simultaneous sign-speech communication, manual alphabets, subtitling or typing, face and lip reading, palm writing, and technical aids.
Sign language in addressing the administration
National legal framework
When interacting with the public administration (e.g. lodging a complaint, submitting a request or any other official activity), all Member States have in place either specific rules or rules of a general scope providing for the protection of rights of the deaf and hard-of-hearing persons through the use of sign language interpreting. However, rules and practices differ widely.
In Belgium, federal, communal and regional legislation does not explicitly provide for addressing the administration in sign language, but some administrations offer websites in sign language, for example the directorate-general for persons with disabilities of the federal public service social security (available in Dutch, French and German). Cyprus and Sweden offer the option to use sign language interpreting provided by the state, subject to reasonable accommodation and proportionality.
In Denmark, complaints, applications and other submissions to the administration must be made in writing.
In Spain, rules specify that the public administration shall guarantee interpreting, video interpreting and guide interpreting services in Spanish Sign Language in relations with the administration (including the state security forces and corps, the military emergency unit and tax agency, the social security and public employment service, notarial acts, administrative procedures and judicial procedures).
In Germany, the tenth book of the social code (SGB X) specifies the concept of official language to the effect that deaf and hard-of-hearing persons may use sign language, speech accompanying signs and other forms of communication in administrative proceedings. In addition, the website of the federal government commissioner for matters relating to persons with disabilities offers a contact option in German Sign Language via the 'signing question and answer tool' (SQAT programme). The SQAT service translates sign language into and out of written language. Several federal ministries provide the content of their websites in video form using sign language 'authority number 115', a service that also offers communication via a sign language telephone. For contact with the administration, particularly at local level, the video interpreting service Tess Relay can also be used.
In France, when dealing with central and local state authorities, people are entitled to the simultaneous written and visual translation of any oral or audio information which concerns them. Deaf and hard-of-hearing persons can access telephone services for receiving calls from users via a simultaneous written and visual translation service.
In the Netherlands, the law does not mention any use other than for court proceedings. However, there is a free service allowing deaf and hard-of-hearing people to use an interpreter to communicate in Dutch Sign Language, for example to contact a bank or the tax authorities.
In Austria, applications to the public administration are also possible verbally in certain cases and citizens have the right to address the state bodies in any form.
In Poland, the eligible person must specify their preferred method of communication at least three days before any prospective interaction. The interpreting provided accompanies the eligible person throughout the whole process. The notion of administration encompasses a broad set of bodies, from ministries, central and local administration, and a wide range of public entities in general.
In Portugal, sign language is used in contacts with the national administration, and several public services' websites are facilitated with sign language (such as the emergency national service (112), the National Health Service, justice services, social services and the institute of employment and vocational training).
In Romania, explicit rules establish the use of sign language as a right for deaf and hard-of-hearing persons in filing requests, complaints and receiving information from public administration bodies or entities. The state is therefore obliged to provide interpretation free of charge to those eligible.
In the Netherlands, the law does not mention any further use than that mentioned for court proceedings. However, there is a free service allowing deaf people to use an interpreter so that they can still communicate in Dutch Sign Language. It can be used, for example, to contact a bank or the tax authorities.
Alternative forms of communication with the administration other than sign language
At least 17 Member States do not specify alternative methods to communicate with public bodies, which indicates that sign language is generally assumed as the means of communication with administrative authorities. In the Netherlands, however, the free phone service is used as an alternative. In Lithuania, Malta, Portugal and Finland, the written form is always possible for any interaction with the state administration, while Malta and Finland allow the use of online forms. In Portugal, a particular application called Serviin provides a real-time video interpreting service that establishes contact between deaf and hard-of-hearing persons and hearing individuals. In Slovakia, if sign language is not possible, the following forms of communication are considered: articulation interpreting, tactile interpreting or other specialised interpreting services; online interpreting or video-mediated communication to facilitate interaction with public authorities; and the simultaneous transcription of spoken language into text for persons who do not use sign language.
Main obstacles to the use of sign language in official procedure
Barriers to the use of sign language vary across Member States.
The majority of Member States flag up a shortage of trained interpreters (Bulgaria, Germany, Estonia, Ireland, Greece, Spain, Croatia, Malta, Austria, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Finland). In Germany, one reason for such a shortage is the lack of development of sign interpreters as a profession due to the fact that training for this profession only started in the 1970s. The shortage is evident in Austria, for example, which has only seven listed court-certified interpreters, and in Estonia, where there are only 25 interpreters despite around 100 being needed.
The shortage of interpreters is often linked to a lack of formal professional training for communication intermediaries.
Some Member States also cite failings by administrations. For example, in Spain, a study was carried out in 2023 which recommended raising social awareness of the need for sign language interpreting in public life.
In France, training should be improved for those involved in implementing the rules on the use of sign language (judges, police, civil servants, court staff), while in Greece those same actors often lack training in disability rights. In Malta, there appears to be insufficient administrative capacity, and in Spain better coordination within the administrations would be needed.
Several Member States cite burdensome bureaucracy to obtain interpreting and a lack of awareness of the issue, which holds up recourse to interpreting.
In Poland, interpreters are not permanent employees of the public administration and are therefore employed depending on need. The fact that they must be 'reserved' three days in advance makes it difficult to use them regularly. There is no unified system of certification of sign language interpreters either, a problem also highlighted by the Polish Association of the Deaf.
Costs and lack of a clear budgetary line are also deemed to be an obstacle, for example in Greece.
In Romania, a further range of reasons has been identified in addition to the general shortage of interpreters, such as interpreters often being concentrated in major urban centres, which makes access for people in rural areas or small towns difficult. Although costs are covered by the public sector, the budget is not allocated on a regular basis, which makes reimbursement slow and disincentivises the use of interpreting services. In Romania, bureaucracy for requesting interpreting can be labour-intensive and time-consuming, which creates further obstacles in urgent situations.
In Greece, an additional hindrance is the fact that civil and administrative jurisdictions rely mainly on written text for communication with deaf and hard-of-hearing people, treating interpreters as the exception rather than the rule. In Romania, this applies generally for contact with public institutions.
In 2022, the Advisory Board for Dutch Sign Language in the Netherlands issued a letter listing some of the major obstacles to the use of sign language, such as: lack of information in Dutch Sign Language by authorities and state departments; information available only in written Dutch; shortage of interpreters; differences in the use of interpreters by police and the judiciary, leading to a difference in treatment; lack of awareness among many civil servants as to the importance and nature of Dutch Sign Language; lack of training programmes for Dutch Sign Language interpreters; and no standard guidelines for translating Dutch text into Dutch Sign Language videos.
In Sweden, a special committee was created which issued a report in 2022 identifying a number of aspects, such as an inconsistent system with too many actors involved in Sweden's interpreting services, the need for clearer regulation and division of responsibilities among different interpreting services, and a lack of staff and financial resources, especially predictable funding.
Annex: Table summarising the use of sign language in Member States
| Country | Sign language and submission petitions | Alternative forms of communication | Sign language in court proceedings | Activities allowed in court proceedings | Alternatives to sign language in court proceedings |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Belgium |
No |
– But online and email submission possible |
Civil, criminal |
Hearing |
– |
|
Bulgaria |
No |
Interpreting |
Criminal |
General |
– |
|
Czechia |
No |
– Online submission possible |
Criminal |
Hearing Legal consultation
|
– |
|
Denmark |
No (pragmatic solution possible) |
No |
Criminal |
Hearing Legal consultation |
– |
|
Germany |
No | Solution to be found
|
Civil, criminal |
General |
– |
|
Estonia |
No |
No |
Civil, criminal and administrative |
General |
Written and electronic communication |
|
Ireland | No (interpreting for hearings) |
– | General | General | – |
|
Greece |
No |
– |
No Interpreter only if written communication is not possible | – | – |
|
Spain |
No |
No |
Civil, criminal and administrative
|
General |
– |
|
France |
No |
Online submission possible |
Civil, criminal |
General |
– |
|
Croatia |
No |
– |
General |
Interaction Oath |
Simultaneous sign-speech Manual alphabets Subtitling or typing Face and lip reading Palm writing Technical aids |
|
Italy |
No |
– Online, email and hand-delivered submission possible |
Civil, criminal and tax |
General |
– |
|
Cyprus |
No |
Reasonable accommodation |
Criminal |
– |
– |
|
Latvia |
No (obligation to record submissions in writing) |
– Online submission possible |
Civil, criminal and administrative |
General | – |
|
Lithuania |
No |
No |
General |
General |
– |
|
Luxembourg |
No |
No |
General |
General |
– |
|
Hungary |
No |
No |
General |
Hearing |
Written statement |
|
Malta |
No |
– Online submission possible |
General |
General |
– |
|
Netherlands | No |
– Online submission possible |
General |
Oath Promise Affirmation Official capacity Hearing |
– |
|
Austria |
No |
No |
General* |
General |
– |
|
Poland |
No |
– Online submission possible and Interpreting |
General |
Witness Hearing Mediation |
Online sign language interpreter |
|
Portugal |
No |
Interpreting |
Criminal |
Testimony |
Lip-reading Written form |
|
Romania |
Yes (interpreting) |
Interpreting |
General |
General |
– |
|
Slovenia |
No |
Interpreting |
General |
Hearing Documents |
– |
|
Slovakia |
No |
– Online and email submission possible |
Civil, criminal and local |
General Legal counsel |
Articulation interpreters Technical means Written communication |
|
Finland |
N/A |
N/A |
General |
General |
– |
|
Sweden |
N/A |
N/A |
Civil, criminal and administrative |
Hearing Documents |
Alternative interpreter |
* 'General' indicates a general clause potentially encompassing all types of jurisdictions.
Data source: Information provided by national parliaments within the European Centre for Parliamentary Research and Documentation (ECPRD).
|
Country |
Sign language in interactions with public administration |
Alternatives to sign language in interactions with public administration |
M ain obstacles to the use of the national sign language(s) in official procedures |
Opportunities arising from recognition of national sign language |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Belgium |
Websites in sign language |
No |
– |
– |
|
Bulgaria |
Interpreting |
No |
Shortage of interpreters |
Better protection of rights of deaf and hard-of-hearing persons |
|
Czechia |
Interpreting |
No |
– |
Better protection of rights of deaf and hard-of-hearing persons |
|
Denmark |
Complaint and submissions only in written form |
No |
– |
– |
|
Germany |
Sign language, SQAT, authority number 115, Tess Relay |
No |
Shortage of interpreters |
Better protection of rights of deaf and hard-of-hearing persons, clearer framework for costs |
|
Estonia |
Interpreting |
No |
Shortage of interpreters |
– |
|
Ireland |
Interpreting |
No |
Shortage of interpreters |
– |
|
Greece |
No |
No |
Shortage of interpreters Wide use of written form Costs and limited dedicated funding Lack of training for state employees dealing with deaf and hard-of-hearing persons |
Increased awareness of public administration |
|
Spain |
Interpreting |
No |
Shortage of interpreters, insufficient coordination among administrations, unregulated academic training and qualifications for interpreters, lack of social awareness |
Better protection of rights of deaf and hard-of-hearing persons |
|
France |
Written and visual translation |
No |
Lack of awareness from administration |
Better protection of rights of deaf and hard-of-hearing persons, clearer status of interpreters |
|
Croatia |
Interpreting |
Simultaneous sign-speech communication, manual alphabets, subtitling or typing, face and lip reading, palm writing, technical aids |
Shortage of interpreters |
– |
|
Italy |
Interpreting |
– |
– |
– |
|
Cyprus |
Interpreting |
No |
– |
Better protection of rights of deaf and hard-of-hearing persons |
|
Latvia |
– |
No |
– |
– |
|
Lithuania |
Interpreting by some services |
Written form |
– |
Better protection of rights of deaf and hard-of-hearing persons |
|
Luxembourg |
Interpreting |
No |
– |
Better protection of rights of deaf and hard-of-hearing persons, clearer framework for costs |
|
Hungary |
Interpreting |
No |
– |
Better protection of rights of deaf and hard-of-hearing persons, clearer status for remuneration of interpreters |
|
Malta |
Interpreting |
Written form, online and email |
Shortage of interpreters, insufficient administrative capacity |
Better protection of rights of deaf and hard-of-hearing persons, promotion of interpreting training |
|
Netherlands |
Free interpreting service and some websites available in sign language |
Free phone services |
Too little information in Dutch Sign Language by authorities, shortage of interpreters, insufficient training, difference in treatment in the use of interpreters by police and the judiciary |
Better protection of rights of deaf and hard-of-hearing persons |
|
Austria |
Interpreting |
No |
Shortage of interpreters |
– |
|
Poland |
Interpreting |
No |
Shortage of interpreters, lack of a unified system of certification for interpreters |
Better protection of rights of deaf and hard-of-hearing persons |
|
Portugal |
Interpreting |
Written form and Serviin application |
– |
– |
|
Romania |
Interpreting |
No |
Shortage of interpreters, concentration in urban centres, no dedicated budget, slow reimbursement, bureaucracy for requests, reliance on written communication, lack of official video content in Romanian Sign Language to explain complex procedures |
Better protection of rights of deaf and hard-of-hearing persons, legal basis for advocacy |
|
Slovenia |
Sign language possible |
No |
No obstacles |
– |
|
Slovakia |
Interpreting |
Articulation interpreting, tactile interpreting, online interpreting or video-mediated communication, simultaneous transcription of spoken language into text |
Shortage of interpreters, administrative inefficiency |
Better protection of rights of deaf and hard-of-hearing persons |
|
Finland |
Interpreting |
Written form and online |
Shortage of interpreters |
Better protection of rights of deaf and hard-of-hearing persons, clear rules on funding |
|
Sweden |
Interpreting |
No |
Too many actors involved in Sweden's interpreting services, unclear regulation and unclear division of responsibilities, shortage of interpreters and financial resources |
Better protection of rights of deaf and hard-of-hearing persons |
Data source: Information provided by national parliaments within the European Centre for Parliamentary Research and Documentation (ECPRD).
Classification
Policy areas: Gender Issues, Equality and Diversity | Democracy
Regions: European Union
Committees: Constitutional Affairs (AFCO)
Statement on the use of AI
Any AI-generated content in this text has been reviewed by the author.
Disclaimer
This document is prepared for, and addressed to, the Members and staff of the European Parliament as background material to assist them in their parliamentary work. The content of the document is the sole responsibility of its author(s) and any opinions expressed herein should not be taken to represent an official position of the Parliament.
Copyright
© European Union.
The reuse of this document is authorised under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC-BY 4.0) licence.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en
To use or reproduce elements that are not owned by the European Union, permission may need to be sought directly from the respective rightsholders.