The question about the scope of action for court interpreters and neutrality they have to preserve has been asked more frequently because of the possible consequences for the trial, as well as for other participants of the court hearing. This question has been asked by lawyers, translation and law scholars. For example, many attorney?s and clients believe that each source language assertion can be rendered by its complete equivalent in the target language. That is why court interpreters are stipulated to interpret neutrally. However, it is not possible to always maintain this ?neutrality? or ?impartiality?.On the one hand, translation processes are subjective per se, on the other hand, different participants have different ideas and expectations about the interpreted communication process, as well as about the definition of neutrality. Besides, at court, all participants are trying to attain their goals by all available means, or rather, to attain them by the power they have. Court interpreters find themselves in this area of conflict during their activity as interpreters. This means that they always have to make complex decisions about the interpretation and about the scope of intervention or scope of impartiality during the court hearing. That is why different roles which court interpreters take during their activity are also considered in this study.The empirical part of the study analyzes the perspectives of the Austrian criminal court judges in relation to the practice of the court interpreter. Interview guide was used for the empirical part of the study. After that, the results were compared to other already existing study results. In doing so, common linguistic, cultural and ethical aspects connected to court interpreting were also examined.