Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Judicial Interpretation of Bilingual and Multilingual Laws: A European and Hong Kong Comparison

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Interpretation of Law in the Global World: From Particularism to a Universal Approach

Abstract

In today’s globalized world, there has been an increase in the use of two or more languages in law and judicial process as in the case of Hong Kong and the European Union and the Court of Justice of the European Union. In such bilingual/multilingual jurisdictions, one basic legal principle of interpretation is that the law in different official languages is equally authentic and is deemed the same, the ‘equal authenticity rule’. Such a principle governs and guides both the legislative drafting process and the judicial interpretation of laws. This chapter describes the legislative drafting process of bilingual and multilingual laws and discusses judicial interpretation of such laws. It outlines the basic legal rule of equal authenticity followed by an examination of the situations in Hong Kong and the EU. It also discusses how the courts approach linguistic disagreements found or allegedly found in bilingual and multilingual laws. Some of the interpretive rules adopted by the courts in the search for meaning and certainty are also highlighted.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    See Revell (2004) for his discussion of authoring bilingual laws in Canada and the different models used (the translation model, the co-drafting model and the double drafting model). See also Sullivan (2002).

  2. 2.

    In international law, the equal authenticity rule is codified in Article 33 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969 Vienna Convention). For domestic law, for instance, it is found in Section 10(B) of the Hong Kong Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance.

  3. 3.

    The 1969 Vienna Convention, Article 33(1).

  4. 4.

    The 1969 Vienna Convention, Article 33(3).

  5. 5.

    Case C-428/02 Fonden Marselisborg Lystbådehavn v Skatteministeriet [2005] ECR I-1527.

  6. 6.

    Article 13B(b)(2) of the Six Directive.

  7. 7.

    Case C-428/02 Fonden Marselisborg Lystbådehavn v Skatteministeriet.

  8. 8.

    For a comparison between the EU and English Common Law approach to legislative interpretation, see McLeod (2004). For criticisms of the ECJ’s approach to linguistic equality, see Braselmann (1992) where she attacked the idea of linguistic equality within the EU system and the role of the interpreting judge, cited in Engberg (2004).

  9. 9.

    Case 283/81 CILFIT [1982] ECR 3415; Case C-236/97 Codan [1998] ECR I-8679; and Joined Cases T-22/02 and T-23/02 Sumitomo Chemical.

  10. 10.

    Case T-120/99 Kik v Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market [2003] ECT II-2235.

  11. 11.

    Ibid.

  12. 12.

    Case 26/69 Stauder v Ulm [1969] ECR 419; Case 30/77 Régina v Pierre Bouchereau [1977] ECR 1999; CILFIT; Case 100/84 Commission v United Kingdom [1985] ECR 1169; and Case C-372/88 Milk Marketing Board v Cricket St Thomas Estate [1990] ECR I-1345).

  13. 13.

    CILFIT and Sumitomo.

  14. 14.

    Case C-236/97 Codan [1998] ECR I-8679.

  15. 15.

    Case C-1/97 Birden v Stadtgemeinde Bremen [1998] ECR I-7747.

  16. 16.

    Ibid.

  17. 17.

    Ibid.

  18. 18.

    Case C-498/03 Kingscrest [2005] ECR I-4427. See also Case C-358/97 Commission v Ireland [2000] ECR I-6301.

  19. 19.

    Case C-174/05 Stichting Zuid-Hollandse Milieufederatie [2006] ECR I-2443.

  20. 20.

    Ibid.

  21. 21.

    Ibid.

  22. 22.

    Ibid.

  23. 23.

    Case 80/76, North Kerry Milk Products Ltd v Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries [1977] ECR 425.

  24. 24.

    Official Journal L 188, 1 8 1968, p. 1.

  25. 25.

    North Kerry Milk Products.

  26. 26.

    Hong Kong Official Languages Ordinance, Section 3(1) and Section 4(1).

  27. 27.

    Article 9 the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region 1990.

  28. 28.

    Hong Kong Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance.

  29. 29.

    Hong Kong Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance.

  30. 30.

    R. v Tam Yuk Ha HCMA 933/1996.

  31. 31.

    Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) v Tam Yuk Ha HCMA1385/1996.

  32. 32.

    HKSAR v Leung Kwok Hung and Others HCMA16/2003.

  33. 33.

    HKSAR v Lau San Ching and Others HCMA 98/2002.

  34. 34.

    Section 4(28) of the Summary Offences Ordinance.

  35. 35.

    Section 4(28) of the Summary Offences Ordinance.

  36. 36.

    HKSAR v Lau San Ching and Others HCMA 98/2002.

  37. 37.

    HKSAR v Lau San Ching and Others HCMA 98/2002.

  38. 38.

    Chan Fung Lan v Lai Wai Chuen HCMP4210/1996.

  39. 39.

    Ibid.

  40. 40.

    Chan Fung Lan.

References

  • Alter, K. J. (2001). Establishing the supremacy of European law: The making of an international rule of law in Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Athanassiou, P. (2006, February). The application of multilingualism in the European union context – Legal working paper series. No 2. Frankfurt am Main: European Central Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennion, F. A. R. (2002). Statutory interpretation: A code. London: Butterworths.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braselmann, P. (1992). Der Richter als Linguist. Linguistische Überlegungen zu Sprachproblemen in Urteilen des Europäischen Gerichtshofes (The Judge as Linguist: Linguistic Consideration of Language Problems in Judgments from the European Court of Justice).

    Google Scholar 

  • Cao, D. (2007). Translating law. Clarendon: Multilingual Matters.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engberg, J. (2004). Statutory texts as instances of language(s): Consequences and limitations on interpretation. Brooklyn Journal of International Law, 29(3), 1135–1166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon-Smith, D. (1989). The drafting process in the European community. Statute Law Review, 10, 56–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hart, H. L. A. (1961/1994). The concept of law (2nd ed.). with a Postscript edited by P. A. Bulloch & J. Raz (Eds.). Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huntington, R. (1991). European unity and the tower of Babel. Boston University International Law Journal, 9, 321–346.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klimas, T., & Vaiciukaite, J. (2005). Interpretation of European union multilingual law. International Journal of Baltic Law, 3, 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Law Drafting Division of the Department of Justice of Hong Kong (1998). A Paper Discussing Cases Where the Two Language Texts of an Enactment Are Alleged to Be Different, http://www.justice.gov.hk/inprmain.htm, 1–9.

  • Maiani, F. (2009). Maiani: Legal Europeanization as Legal Transformation: Some Insights from Swiss “Outer Europe”. In F. Maiani, R. Petrov, and E. Mouliarova (Eds.), European Integration Without EU Membership: Models, Experiences, Perspectives, EUI Working Paper, 111–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mattila, H. E. S. (2006). Comparative legal linguistics. Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • McLeod, I. (2004). Literal and purposive techniques of legislative interpretation: Some European and English common law perspectives. Brooklyn Journal of International Law, 29(3), 1109–1134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Practical Guide of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission for Persons Involved in the Drafting of Legislation within the Community Institutions. Accessed from http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/en/techleg.

  • Revell, D. L. (2004). Authoring Bilingual laws: The importance of process. Brooklyn Journal of International Law, 29(3), 1085–1105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, W. (2005). How the European commission drafts legislation in 20 languages. Clarity, 53, 4–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarcevic, S. (1997). New approach to legal translation. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, R. (2002). Sullivan and Driedger on the construction of statutes (4th ed.). Toronto: Butterworths.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, R. S. (2004). The challenges of interpreting multilingual, multijural legislation. Brooklyn Journal of International Law, 29(3), 985–1066.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tabory, M. (1980). Multilingualism in international law and institutions. New York: Sijthoff & Noordhoff.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Law School Socio-Legal Research Centre, Griffith University, Brisbane, QLD, Australia

    Deborah Cao

Authors
  1. Deborah Cao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Deborah Cao .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, University of Copenhagen, Skt. Peders Straede 19, Copenhagen K, 1453, Denmark

    Joanna Jemielniak

  2. Tribunal of the Republic of Poland, Office of the Constitutional, Al. J. Ch. Szucha 12 a, Warszawa, 00-918, Poland

    Przemyslaw Miklaszewicz

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Cao, D. (2010). Judicial Interpretation of Bilingual and Multilingual Laws: A European and Hong Kong Comparison. In: Jemielniak, J., Miklaszewicz, P. (eds) Interpretation of Law in the Global World: From Particularism to a Universal Approach. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-04886-9_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation