The translator’s oath

The oath is the act that turns a translation into a sworn translation. The translator appears before a public officer and declares, with a formula fixed by practice, to have performed the task well and faithfully for the sole purpose of making the truth known. From that moment the translated text is no longer a private paper but an act for which an identified person answers before the law. This page explains what is sworn, before whom, what value the result has and what consequences fall on anyone who swears falsely. The way the oath is taken in practice is described on the pages on swearing a translation at the Court of Rome and on the rules of the Italian courts.

The source: a rule of 1922 still in force

Italian law does not regulate sworn translation with a dedicated statute. The translator’s oath rests on article 5 of Royal Decree 1366 of 9 October 1922, which entrusts the clerk of the court with receiving affidavits and the records of oath of out-of-court expert reports. The rule survived the general repeal of pre-1970 legislation because it was expressly kept in force by Legislative Decree 179 of 1 December 2009. Translation has been assimilated to the out-of-court expert report from the beginning: in both cases a private person with technical competence produces a document outside proceedings and attests its correctness under oath.

The rule draws no distinction between clerks. The Ministry of Justice clarified the point with note 1622/99/U of 16 June 1999: the power to receive the oath belongs to all clerks of judicial offices, those of the Justice of the Peace included, without territorial limits. The oath may also be received by a notary, in the exercise of the notary’s function as a public officer. What matters is not the place but the presence of someone with the power to document the declaration: swearing alone, or before a person without that quality, produces no legal effect.

What the translator declares

The formula is the same throughout Italy: the translator swears to have well and faithfully performed the task entrusted, for the sole purpose of making the truth known. The translator does not swear that the translated document is authentic, nor that the facts it reports are true. The oath concerns the translator’s own work: the translation reproduces the source text completely and faithfully, without additions, undeclared omissions or interpretations. The record of the oath, signed by the translator and by the public officer and registered under a chronological number, documents this declaration and binds it permanently to the document and to the translation, which remain joined in a single bundle.

For this reason the oath is personal and cannot be delegated. The person who swears must be the person who translated, because only that person knows the content and can answer for it, and must be unconnected with the document: the clerk’s office does not admit to the oath the person concerned or that person’s relatives, since whoever has an interest in the outcome cannot guarantee the fidelity of the text. The law does not require a qualification in order to swear, but the qualification matters to whoever receives the bundle: the official translator entered in the register of court experts records the particulars of the registration in the record, and the receiving authority knows who signed and in what capacity.

What the translation becomes after the oath

A precise distinction is needed here, because imprecise formulas circulate on the point. The record of the oath is a public deed, since it is drawn up by a public officer in the exercise of official functions, and it is conclusive evidence, unless challenged as a forgery, of what the clerk attests: that on that day that person, identified by that document, took that oath on that bundle. The translation, on the other hand, remains an act of a private person. The oath does not make it a public deed and does not certify its correctness with the authority of the State: it gives it a certain authorship and a precise liability. That is the difference between any translation, which nobody guarantees, and a sworn translation, which an identified person has declared faithful, accepting the consequences.

Before the public administration this guarantee is sufficient and is required as a formal condition: the comune that transcribes a birth record, the university that assesses a qualification, the police headquarters that issues a residence permit, the notary who receives a foreign power of attorney accept the sworn translation because they know who answers for it. In civil proceedings the position is different. The Court of Cassation has held repeatedly, among others in judgment 1902 of 11 February 2002 of the Third Civil Division, that an out-of-court expert report, even if sworn before the clerk, remains a defensive allegation of the party producing it: the judge may take it into account but is not bound to follow it or to give reasons for disagreeing. The same principle applies to a sworn translation produced by a party, and explains why the judge, when the translation of a document is contested, may appoint a court translator under article 123 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The liability of the person who swears

Whoever makes a false declaration to a public officer in a deed intended to prove the truth of what it attests commits the offence provided for by article 483 of the Criminal Code, false statement by a private person in a public deed, punished with imprisonment of up to two years. In the case of a translation the fact attested is the fidelity of the text: a translation deliberately altered, with parts omitted to favour the person concerned, dates or amounts changed, qualifications invented, constitutes the offence at the moment the oath is taken, regardless of the use later made of it, because the law protects the public trust placed in the deed and not only the result.

The offence requires intent: the translator must know that the statement is false and intend it. An error made in good faith, an oversight or a terminological inaccuracy is not an offence, but it is not without consequences. In civil law the translator answers for the damage the error has caused, and in practice the authority that detects the error rejects the bundle and asks for a new asseveration, with the costs and delays that follow. That is why a serious firm rereads every translation before the oath and corrects at its own expense what depends on it. A very low price for a sworn translation usually reflects the weight the signatory gives to this liability.

Oath, asseveration and certification

Oath and asseveration indicate the same act seen from two sides: the oath is what the translator takes, the asseveration is what the translation receives. The asseverated translation is therefore the sworn translation. Certification is different: with it the official translator attests under signature, without a public officer, the fidelity of the text. It is the form accepted in the countries of the common law tradition, where the oath before the clerk does not exist, and it is treated on the page on certified translations. Legalisation is different again: it does not concern the translator but authenticates the signature of the public officer who received the oath, so that the bundle can be used abroad.

How the firm works

The oath is taken by the firm’s translators, entered in the register of court experts of the Court of Rome since 1995 and in the roll of experts of the Chamber of Commerce. The client sends a scan of the document by email or on WhatsApp at +39 335 679 2461 and names the authority the translation is intended for. The firm replies with a written quote within one working day, translates, swears and delivers the bundle at the office by appointment or by courier throughout Italy and abroad, and where needed continues with the legalisation or apostille. The person commissioning the translation does not attend the court and signs nothing.

Frequently asked questions

Does the translator swear to the content of the document or to the translation?

To the translation. The translator swears to have translated the text received completely and faithfully. The translator does not attest that the document is authentic or that the facts it reports are true: those who issued it and those who present it answer for that.

Does the oath make the translation a public deed?

No. The public deed is the record drawn up by the clerk, which proves that the oath was taken by that person on that bundle. The translation remains an act of a private person, for which the translator answers personally.

Is a translation error made in good faith an offence?

No. The offence under article 483 of the Criminal Code requires the intention to attest something false. A good-faith error entails civil liability for the damage caused and, in practice, the rejection of the bundle by the authority and the need for a new asseveration.

Is a judge bound by a sworn translation produced by a party?

No. According to the Court of Cassation a sworn out-of-court expert report, and with it a party’s sworn translation, is a defensive allegation that the judge assesses freely. If the translation is contested the judge may appoint a court translator, as article 123 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides.

Can the oath be taken remotely or by proxy?

No. The translator must appear in person before the clerk, the Justice of the Peace or the notary, be identified with an original identity document and sign the record in the officer’s presence. There is no electronic form of oath and no delegation to third parties.

What happens if the translated document turns out to be forged?

The liability falls on whoever produced or presented the forged document, not on the translator, who swore only to the fidelity of the translation. That is why the record states that the office does not answer for the authenticity of the translated document, and why the firm translates from originals or from copies whose provenance the client declares.