In the plenary sittings of the European Parliament (EP), institutional discourse is regulated by pre-established procedures and multilingualism is guaranteed thanks to simultaneous interpreting into each official EU language. In this setting, political leaders speak in their native language when addressing other Members of the EP and are allowed to hold the floor for a specific amount of time. What happens when such rules and procedures are disrupted? This study analyses a particular breach of protocol, which triggered a number of reactions at different levels of re-contextualisation. These are discussed by considering both the micro- and the macro-context, including the interpreters’ output in 21 different languages along with the official verbatim report of proceedings and its translation into English. The results point to variability in terms of editing standards in the verbatim reports and professional practices among the interpreting booths, with potential differences in accessibility by target recipients.