Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Linguistic Comparison within CJEU’s Decision-Making: A Debunking Exercise

  • Published:
International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

It has long been noticed that there is no predetermined meaning of legal terms. Rather, meaning depends on the context and the interpreter (Engberg in Brook J Int Law 29:1135, 2003. https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/bjil/vol29/iss3/6). While this assertion holds true for both unilingual and multilingual legal environments, the Court of Justice of the European Union (hereinafter: CJEU) openly acknowledges it, by stating that no legal consequences can be based on the terminology used. Accordingly, by virtue of the principle of equal authenticity, when interpreting EU law courts cannot rely on a single language version. Adjudicating legal disputes involving linguistic matters in a multilingual environment-i.e. cases of discrepancies between different language versions of an EU legislative text-the CJEU has been given a fascinating role insofar as its interpretative moves include linguistic comparison, which in turn bears ramifications on uniformity and equal authenticity, as well as on effectiveness of EU law. With a view to unmasking the nature of the linguistic comparison carried out by the CJEU, this study examines settled case law, asking the following questions: What are the central moves of linguistic comparison? What role does it play in the process of CJEU’s decision-making? Has it changed over time?

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. ECJ, Case 30/77, Regina v Bouchereau [1977] ECR 1999.

  2. Case 19-67, Bestuur der Sociale Verzekeringsbank v J. H. van der Vecht [1967] ECR 00345.

  3. Case C-219/95, Ferriere Nord SpA v Commission of the European Communities [1997] ECR I-04411.

  4. As convincingly argued by Brand [7], EU law is not enforced coute que coute and its uniformity may be sacrificed in the interests of divergence and ultimately unity.

  5. According to the Court’s case-law, all language versions have the same standing in principle (para. 11), with the result that no inferences can be drawn from the fact that the majority of the language versions use a certain variant of the provision. Where there is divergence between the language versions of an EU legal text, the provision in question must be interpreted by reference to the purpose and general scheme of the rules of which it forms part (para. 12). ECLI:EU:C:2018:624.

  6. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en (Accessed: 7 November 2019).

  7. Interestingly, the search has identified 30 opinions of Advocates General (hereinafter: AGs) pertaining to linguistic comparison in the same period. Other research into language cases focused on identifying the languages consulted in these cases or, to elicited the best translation strategies from the Court’s methods of resolving language discrepancies [1]. Most scholars agree that it is however, impossible to predict which interpretative methods and which languages the court uses. Baaij [1] points to the special role of English in interpretation and advocates institutionalizing English as the principal EU language. Van der Jeught [28] says French was used in all language cases (according to his investigation, in a total of 13 cases in 2017). Baaij [1] reports that the Court compared language versions in merely 4.2% of preliminary rulings between 1960 and 2010. Furthermore, in the same period the Court compared all language versions only in 1.4% of all judgments [1].

  8. See para. 25 of case C-627/17 ZSE Energia a.s. v RG. ECLI:EU:C:2018:941.

  9. CJEU Case 29/69 Stauder v City of Ulm [1969] ECR 419, ECLI:EU:C:1969:57. Also see [2, 3].

  10. See Cilfit and Others (283/81, EU:C:1982:335), para. 18:

    1. 1.

      Community legislation is drafted in several languages and the different language versions are all equally authentic. An interpretation of a provision of Community law thus involves a comparison of the different versions.

    2. 2.

      Community law uses terminology which is peculiar to it.

    3. 3.

      Legal concepts do not necessarily have the same meaning in Community law and in the law of the various Member States.

    4. 4.

      Every provision of Community law must be placed in its context and interpreted in the light of the provisions of Community law as a whole, regard being had to the objectives thereof and to its state of evolution at the date on which the provision in question is to be applied.

    See also EMU Tabac and Others (C-296/95, EU:C:1998:152, para. 36); Givane and Others (C-257/00, EU:C:2003:8, para. 36); and Kyocera (C-152/01, EU:C:2003:623, para. 32).

  11. Case C-239/17 Gert Teglgaard and Fløjstrupgård I/S v Fødevareministeriets Klagecenter. ECLI:EU:C:2018:597.

  12. The Commission confirmed that the year during which the supervisory authority became aware of a breach must be regarded as the year of the finding of non-compliance with cross-compliance rules to which the penalty resulting therefrom must be applied (para. 25). Subsequently, the paying agency reduced the direct payments received by the appellants in the year during which the non-compliance with the cross-compliance rules was found by the supervisory authority (2011) (para. 26). The appellants then turned to the Eastern Regional Court alleging the invalidity of those decisions (para. 28).

    Mr Teglgaard relied on the wording of Art. 6(1) of Regulation No. 1782/2003 to argue that the year of reduction of the direct payments is that of the non-compliance with the cross-compliance rules, whereas Regulation No. 73/2009 cannot serve as the basis for a request to reduce aid resulting from events occurring before its entry into force (para. 29). He further argues that there would be unpredictable consequences for him in that the penalty could be increased by a considerable sum due to the increase of the area eligible for direct payments between the year of that non-compliance and the year of the finding thereof (ibid.).

    Fløjstrupgård submits that Art. 23 of Regulation No. 73/2009 does not indicate clearly whether the reduction in direct payments must relate to those received in the year during which the non-compliance with the cross-compliance rules occurred or to those received in the year in which the non-compliance was found (para. 30).

  13. Case 13/61 Kledingverkoopbedrijf de Geusen Uitdenbogerd v Robert Bosch GmbH and Maatschappij tot voortzetting van de zaken der Firma Willem van Rijn [1962] ECR 47, 70.

  14. See for a poignant argumentation (paras. 47–55 of the Judgment, and paras. 87-101 of the AG’s Opinion). That said, AG’s linguistic analysis additionally clarifies the rationale of the Court’s decision. In her trenchant analysis of the words ‘compute’ and ‘impute’ (para. 60), that are central to the interpretation of the meaning of the word ‘applied’, AG Sharpston contests the Commission’s interpretation of ‘applied’ as meaning both ‘computed’ and ‘imputed’. Seeing no linguistic reason for such a reading, AG Sharpston puts forward that ‘applied’ as a general and abstract word can mean impute to, but also compute. However, it cannot be said to mean both compute and impute to (para 76). While AG used these words in answers to the questions of the referring court (see para. 109 of Opinion), the Court only mentions ‘calculate’. We believe that the answers of the AG offer a more nuanced view and provide for more clarity and understanding, which is in line with the AG’s duty under Article 252 TFEU—to make reasoned submissions. Unlike judgments that are written in a formal and terse language relying on standard phrases and borrowing wordings from earlier judgments [16], opinions read like academic documents citing sources of law and legal scholarship inter alia [17].

  15. Case T-770/16 Janusz Korwin-Mikke v European Parliament. ECLI:EU:T:2018:320.

  16. As the Advocate General notes in point 40 of his Opinion, while the English- and French-language versions of recital 20 of Directive 2011/7 appear to reserve the right to a fixed sum to cover internal recovery costs (‘remboursement forfaitaire pour les seuls frais internes de recouvrement’) as opposed to reimbursement of ‘other’ recovery costs which they incur (‘autres frais de recouvrement’), such a formal distinction between internal costs and ‘other’ recovery costs does not appear in the other language versions of that recital, such as the versions in Italian (‘diritto al pagamento di un importo forfettario per coprire i costi interni … esigere anche il risarcimento delle restanti spese di recupero sostenute’) or Dutch (‘het recht op betaling van een vast bedrag ter dekking van interne invorderingskosten … recht hebben op terugbetaling van de overige invorderingskosten die ontstaan’) (para. 35).

  17. Case C-90/17. Turbogás Produtora Energética SA v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira. Judgment of 7 March 2018 ECLI:EU:C:2018:498.

  18. Conversely, the reference to the differences between the language versions is more nuanced in the AG’s opinion as it compares the Spanish version of Directive 2003/96 with the French, English, German and Polish. Para. 17 of the Opinion of AG Szpunar reads as follows: “First, in my understanding, apart from the Portuguese language version of Directive 2003/96, the phrase ‘these small producers’ appears only in the Spanish version thereof. In particular, it certainly does not appear in the French, English, German or Polish versions. Thus, a literal interpretation of the provision in question, which takes into account not one, but all language versions, does not allow the argument put forward by Turbogás to be accepted.”.

  19. Joined cases C-688/15 and C-109/16 Agnieška Anisimovienė and Others v bankas “Snoras” AB, in liquidation and Others. ECLI:EU:C:2018:209.

  20. Bearing in mind the objective of Directive 97/9, and the broad definition of the term ‘investor’ under Article 1(4) as any person who has entrusted money or instrument to such a firm in connection with investment business. (para. 79).

  21. Case C-561/16 Saras Energía SA v Administración del Estado. ECLI:EU:C:2018:633.

  22. See paras. 62–64 of Opinion of AG Kokott delivered on 12 April 2018, ECLI:EU:C:2018:236.

  23. Case C-250/17 Virgílio Tarragó da Silveira v Massa Insolvente da Espírito Santo Financial Group, SA. ECLI:EU:C:2018:398.

  24. Having regard to the case-law cited at paragraph 20 of this judgment and the differences emerging from the various language versions of Article 15 of Regulation No 1346/2000, the interpretation of that article cannot be based only on its wording (para. 22). Although the wording of that article is not without ambiguity, the context and the objectives of the article require an interpretation to the effect that its scope of application cannot be limited to ongoing proceedings concerning a specific asset or right of which the debtor has been divested (para. 23).

  25. Case C-554/16 EP Agrarhandel GmbH v Bundesminister für Land-, Forst-, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft. ECLI:EU:C:2018:406.

  26. See paras. 16–18: Article 2(4) of Decision 2001/672, in its initial version, provided: ‘The information contained in the list mentioned in paragraph 2 is introduced in the national database for bovine animals at the latest seven days after the date when the animals are moved to the pasture. It was amended as follows: ‘The information contained in the list mentioned in paragraph 2 shall be reported to the competent authority in accordance with Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 at the latest 15 days after the date when the animals were moved to the pasture…’.

  27. It should be noted that the terms used here are rather general and open to interpretation.

  28. Case C-123/16 P Orange Polska SA v European Commission. ECLI:EU:C:2018:590.

  29. Case C-5/16 Republic of Poland v European Parliament and Council of the European Union. ECLI:EU:C:2018:483.

  30. Case C-256/16 Deichmann SE v Hauptzollamt Duisburg. ECLI:EU:C:2018:187.

  31. Case C-627/17 ZSE Energia a.s. v RG. ECLI:EU:C:2018:941.

  32. Case C-15/17 Bosphorus Queen Shipping Ltd Corp. v Rajavartiolaitos. ECLI:EU:C:2018:557. At issue is the French version of Article 220(6) of the Montego Bay Convention which refers to ‘littoral’, whereas Article 1(1) of the Convention relating to Intervention on the High Seas 1969 uses the term ‘côtes’.

  33. See a recent case C-477/17 Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank v D. Balandin and Others ECLI:EU:C:2019:60 Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 24 January 2019, para. 31.

  34. Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 July 2019. Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände—Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V. v Amazon EU Sàrl. Case C-649/17. ECLI:EU:C:2019:576. “That issue is not resolved by the analysis of different language versions of Article 6(1)(c) of Directive 2011/83. Although the majority of those versions, in particular the versions in English (‘where available’), French (‘lorsqu’ils sont disponibles’), Dutch (‘indien beschikbaar’), Italian (‘ove disponibili’), Polish (‘o ile jest dostępny’) and Finnish (‘jos nämä ovat käytettävissä’) suggest that, under that provision, the obligation imposed on traders to inform consumers of their telephone and fax numbers applies only where those traders have such means of communication, the fact remains that other versions of that provision, in particular those in Spanish (‘cuando proceda’) and German (‘gegebenenfalls’), do not allow the circumstances to be determined in which that obligation does not apply.” (para. 36).

  35. In particular, detailed reasoning as to whether and how the purpose and the general scheme can be deduced from all language versions, for the court sometimes refers to recitals and other times accepts the Commission’s pleas [27].

  36. As underscored by [22], protection of the individual rights and the full force and effect of EU law are two sides of the same coin.

  37. Case 106/77 Simmenthal [1978] ECR 629.

  38. Such as the multilingual corpus of EU case law: EUCLCORP. https://llecj.karenmcauliffe.com/euclcorp/ (accessed 4 December 2019).

  39. Albeit earlier research demonstrated a limited level of ambition on the part of the national courts in examining foreign languages in their interpretation (see [10], Chs 6–9). However, it is to be expected that things might have changed in the meantime owing to increased training activities of national judges aimed at EU law and language skills organized by the European Judicial Training Network, and pursued in the form of justice projects (e.g. Training Action for Legal Practitioners: Linguistic Skills and Translation in EU Competition Law, HT: 4983, co-financed by the European Commission).

  40. https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2019-03/cp190039en.pdf.

  41. [Cf. 19, 20].

References

  1. Baaij, C.J.W. 2018. Legal Integration and Language Diversity. Rethinking Translation in EU Lawmaking. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  2. Bajčić, Martina. 2017. New Insights into the Semantics of Legal Concepts and the Legal Dictionary. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  3. Bajčić, Martina, and Adrijana Martinović. 2018. A Mutual Learning Exercise in Terminology and Multilingual Law. In Language and Law. The Role of Language and Translation in EU Competition Law, ed. Silvia Marino, Lucja Biel, Martina Bajčić and Vilelmini Sosoni, 207–223. Switzerland: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Beck, Gunnar. 2013. The Legal Reasoning of the Court of Justice of the EU. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bobek, Michal. 2007–2008. On the Application of European Law in (Not-Only) the Courts of the New Member States: ‘Don’t Do as I Say?’ In Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies, ed. Catherine Barnard, 1–35. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

  6. Bobek, Michal. 2011. The Multilingualism of the European Union Law in the National Courts: Beyond the Textbooks. In Linguistic Diversity and European Democracy, ed. Anne-Lise Kjaer and Silvia Adamo, 123–142. Farnham: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Brand, Michiel. 2008. Discretion, Divergence, and Unity. In The Coherence of EU Law. The Search for Unity in Divergent Concepts, ed. Sacha Prechal and Bert van Roermund, 217–231. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Brenncke, Martin. 2018. Hybrid Methodology for the EU Principle of Consistent Interpretation. Statute Law Review 39(2): 134–154.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Ćapeta, Tamara. 2009. Multilingual Law and Judicial Interpretation in the EU. Croatian Yearbook of European Law and Policy, Vol. 5 No. 5 November 2009. 1–17.

  10. Dérlen, Mattias. 2009. Multilingual Interpretation of European Union Law. Alphen aan den Rijn: Wolters Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Dörr, Oliver. 2017. Consequences and Limitations on Interpretation. In Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, ed. Oliver Dörr and Kirsten Schmalenbach, 635–651. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Engberg, Jan. 2004. Statutory Texts as Instances of Language(s): Consequences and Limitations on Interpretation. Brook. J. Int’l L. 29: 1135. https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/bjil/vol29/iss3/6. Accessed 5 Aug 2019.

  13. Kjær, Anne-Liese. 2010. Nonsense: The CILFIT Criteria Revisited: From the Perspective of Legal Linguistics. In Europe: The New Legal Realism: Essays in Honor of Hjalte Rasmussen, ed. H. Koch, K. Hagel-Sørenson, U. Haltern and J. Weiler, 297–319. København: Djøf Forlag.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Lenaerts, Koen. 2005. The Unity of European Law and the Overload of the ECJ: The System of Preliminary Rulings Revisited. In The Future of the European Judicial System in a Comparative Perspective, ed. Ingolf Pernice, Juliane Kokott, and Cheryl Saunders. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Leung, Janny, 2014. The Object of Fidelity in Translating Multilingual Legislation . Semiotica 201: 223–238. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2864262. Accessed 15 July 2019.

  16. Mańko, Rafał. 2019. The Role of Advocates General at the CJEU. http://www.statewatch.org/news/2019/oct/ep-briuefing-a-g-cjeu.pdf.

  17. McAuliffe, Karen. 2016. Language and Law in the European Union: The Multilingual Jurisprudence of the ECJ. In The Oxford Handbook of Language and Law, ed. Peter M. Tiersma and Lawrence M. Solan, 200–217. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Mikhailov, Mikhail, Santalahti Miia, and Souma Julia. 2019. PEST: A parallel electronic corpus of state treaties. In Parallel Corpora for Contrastive and Translation Studies. New resources and applications, ed. Irene Doval and M. Teresa Sánchez Nieto, 183–195. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  19. Mišćenić, Emilia. 2016. Legal Translation vs. Legal Certainty in EU Law. In Legal Risks in EU Law, ed. Emilia Miscenic and Aurélien Raccah, 87–111. Switzerland: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  20. Mišćenić, Emilia. 2019. Europsko privatno pravo. Opći dio. Zagreb: Školska knjiga.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Pacho Aljanati, Lucie. 2015. The Court of Justice of the European Union’s Case Law on Linguistic Divergences (2007–2013): Interpretation Criteria and Implications for the Translation of EU Legislation (Ph.D. Thesis), Université de Genève, 2015. https://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:76529. Accessed 9 Aug 2019.

  22. Prechal, Sacha. 2008. Protection of Rights: How Far? In The Coherence of EU Law. The Search for Unity in Divergent Concepts, ed. Sacha Prechal and Bert van Roermund, 155–182. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  23. Prechal, Sacha, and Bert van Roermund. 2008. Binding Unity in EU Legal Order: An Introduction. In The Coherence of EU Law. The Search for Unity in Divergent Concepts, ed. Sacha Prechal and Bert van Roermund, 1–20. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  24. Prechal, Sacha, Linda Senden, Bert van Roermund, and Thomas Vandamme. 2008. Experiences from Professional Practice: Some Steps Towards Empirical Research. In The Coherence of EU Law. The Search for Unity in Divergent Concepts, ed. Sacha Prechal and Bert van Roermund, 23–43. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  25. Prieto Ramos, Fernando. 2020. Facing Translation Errors at International Organizations: What Corrigenda Reveal about Correction Processes and their Implications for Translation Quality. Comparative Legilinguistics vol. 41/2020.

  26. Sawyer, Katrine. 2007. The Principle of ‘interprétation conforme’: How Far Can or Should National Courts Go when Interpreting National Legislation Consistently with European Community Law? Statute Law Review 28(3): 165–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Schilling, Theodor. 2010. Beyond Multilingualism: On Different Approaches to the Handling of Diverging Language Versions of a Community Law. European Law Journal 16(1): 47–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Van der Jeught, S. 2018. Current Practices with Regard to the Interpretation of Multilingual EU Law: How to deal with Diverging Language Versions? European Journal of Legal Studies 11(1): 2018.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Funding was provided by Hrvatska Zaklada za Znanost (Grant No. UIP-2017-05-7169).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, University of Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia

    Martina Bajčić

Authors
  1. Martina Bajčić
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martina Bajčić.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bajčić, M. Linguistic Comparison within CJEU’s Decision-Making: A Debunking Exercise. Int J Semiot Law 34, 1433–1449 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-020-09751-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-020-09751-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation