{"id":1393,"date":"2024-07-11T16:36:11","date_gmt":"2024-07-11T14:36:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/continentalis.eu\/?p=1393"},"modified":"2024-07-11T16:44:33","modified_gmt":"2024-07-11T14:44:33","slug":"qa-do-i-need-sworn-translations","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/continentalis.eu\/es\/qa-do-i-need-sworn-translations\/","title":{"rendered":"Q&A: Do I need sworn translations?"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>
\"\"<\/figure><\/div>
<\/div>

Short answer<\/h2>

No. But\u2026 maybe get one anyway.<\/p>

<\/div>

Long answer<\/h2>

From your first interactions with Spain\u2019s immigration procedures until the very last step in obtaining Spanish citizenship, you\u2019ll encounter government sites and pamphlets, lawyers\u2019 websites, and gurus\u2019 blogs telling you that foreign-language documents submitted in Spain must<\/strong> be translated by sworn translators. For example, on its page<\/a> regarding non-lucrative visas, the Consulate General of Spain in Miami, Florida, USA, states that \u201cForeign ocuments must be legalized or apostilled and, where applicable, must be submitted together with an official translation into Spanish<\/strong>.\u201d<\/p>

But is this true?<\/p>

To answer this question, we need to consider:<\/p>

  1. What administrative bodies like consulates and immigration offices can require of you,<\/li>\n\n
  2. Whether any legal or regulatory language requires sworn or official translations by default, and<\/li>\n\n
  3. Some pragmatic points related to your case.<\/li><\/ol>
    <\/div>

    What can administrative bodies like consulates and immigration offices require of you?<\/h3>
    <\/div>
    \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
    <\/div>

    (The Congreso de los Diputados<\/em>, where our laws are made).<\/p>

    <\/div>

    Spanish administrative bodies, including our administration overseas \u2014e.g., consulates, embassies\u2014 are governed by Law 39\/2015, of 1 October, on the Common Administrative Procedure of Public Administrations (LCAPPA).<\/p>

    Article 1.2 of LCAPPA<\/a> states that \u201cOnly by law, when it is effective, proportionate, and necessary for the attainment of the specific ends of the procedure, and in a reasoned matter, shall additional or different procedures than those contemplated in this law be included.\u201d Additionally, article 53.1.d) LCAPPA<\/a> says that an interested party, an applicant, has the right \u201cTo not present information and documents not required by the norms applicable to the procedure in question (…).\u201d<\/p>

    It\u2019s true that article 15.1 LCAPPA<\/a> says that \u201cThe language of procedures processed by the General Administration of the State shall be Castilian. It\u2019s also true that the first additional disposition to LCAPPA<\/a> states that actions and procedures \u201cin the matter of immigration and asylum\u201d are regulated first by matter-specific legislation, and only subsidiary by LCAPPA.<\/p>

    <\/div>

    Does any legal or regulatory language require sworn or official translations by default?<\/h3>

    Curiously, both<\/strong> the vertebral subject matter law, Organic Law 4\/2000<\/a>, of 11 January, on the rights and liberties of foreigners in Spain and their social integration, and<\/strong> its regulation, Royal Decree 557\/2011<\/a>, of 20 April, mention translations of any type exactly zero times<\/strong>. If they don\u2019t mention translations, it should be clear that they also don\u2019t require official or sworn translations.<\/p>

    While Instruction DGI\/SGRJ\/06\/2008<\/a>, on the provision of foreign public documents for processing in procedures in foreigners and immigration matters, does<\/strong> state in its first point that \u201cAll document provided within a procedure provided for in the Regulation of Organic Law 4\/2000 (…) in force shall be, accordingly, translated to Castilian or a co-official language<\/strong>,\u201d this instruction raises four interesting points:<\/p>

    1. An instruction is neither a law or nor a regulation, but rather an \u201corder\u201d from a hierarchical superior to their hierarchical inferior regarding how the latter should behave, and is inapplicable to you \u2014unless you\u2019re the hierarchical inferior of the Director general of Migration\u2014 (remember article 1.2 LCAPPA<\/em>);<\/li>\n\n
    2. This particular instruction is prior to LCAPPA and thus isn\u2019t imbued with the spirit of simplification LCAPPA promotes;<\/li>\n\n
    3. This particular instruction, in its very title, applies to foreign public documents<\/strong>, and not all documents lodged in your application will be foreign public documents (e.g., bank statements); and<\/li>\n\n
    4. This particular instruction mentions \u201cofficial\u201d or \u201csworn\u201d translations exactly zero times<\/strong>.<\/li><\/ol>

      For citizenship by residence procedures \u2014which are regulated in a different area of law\u2014 neither the Civil Code, nor the specific regulation, Royal Decree 1004\/2015, of 6 November, nor Order JUS\/1625\/2016, of 30 September, require official or sworn translations.<\/p>

      No law or regulation on general administrative procedure, general immigration procedure, or citizenship by residence procedure require sworn or official translations?<\/strong><\/p>

      Where, then, can we turn for an answer if neither general administrative law (LCAPPA) nor subject matter legislation say anything about translations?<\/p>

      While this isn\u2019t the time or the place to explain the process of systemic legal interpretation, suffice it to say that, given the lacunae in the aforementioned legislation, we must turn to Spain\u2019s law on civil procedure, applicable to court procedures of all types, Law 1\/2000, of 7 January<\/a> (LCP). LCP answers our underlying question in article 144<\/a>:<\/p>

      \u201c1. All documents drafted in a language other than Spanish or, as the case may be, the official language of the Autonomous Community in question, shall be accompanied by a translation thereof.<\/p>

      2. Said translation may be made privately and, in that case, if any of the parties should contest it within five days of service, stating that they do not consider it to be true and accurate and stating the reasons for the discrepancy, the Court Clerk shall order the official translation of the document, at the expense of the party who has submitted it, in respect of the party to whom there is a discrepancy.<\/p>

      However, if the official translation made at the request of the party should prove to be substantially identical to the private translation, the costs arising therefrom shall be borne by the party who requested it.\u201d<\/p>

      \"\"\/<\/figure><\/div>

      (In this work, Thomas (bottom right) is shown doubting Jesus\u2019s (center left) private translations (invisible)).<\/em><\/p>

      <\/div>

      \ud83d\udc41\ufe0f\u200d\ud83d\udde8\ufe0f<\/strong>. What LCP states is that, by default, a private translation is sufficient, unless one of the parties in the procedure questions the validity of the translation, in which case the court clerk or, in our case, the Administration, may order the obtainment of a sworn translation. However, if the two translations turn out to be essentially identical, the doubting Thomas must pay for the translation<\/strong>. If only he\u2019d had but a little faith\u2026<\/p>

      <\/div>

      Being practical<\/h2>
      <\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>

      Here\u2019s the thing:<\/p>