3 ms·

A prominent example of this is the Treaty establishing the European Union where every single one of the 20+ language versions is "Canon" and has to be used by t

by chki 7y ago

A prominent example of this is the Treaty establishing the European Union where every single one of the 20+ language versions is "Canon" and has to be used by the European Court of Justice. There are often judgements with paragraphs devoted to figuring out the hidden differences between certain wordings in different languages. Interestingly this can lead to problems but sometimes it also clears things up if one language is more precise than the others.

tom_mellior 7y ago
Interesting, can you link to some examples? I've read a few ECJ judgements in some high-profile cases, and I've never seen this.
- Corazoor 7y ago
  https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62003CJ0336&from=DE https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL... From case C-336/03 (easyCar), section 25: "That interpretation is expressly supported by several language versions of Article 3(2) of the directive, namely the German, Italian and Swedish versions, which mention, respectively, ‘Dienstleistungen in den Bereichen … Beförderung’ (‘services in the transport sector’), ‘servizi relativi … ai trasporti’ (‘services relating to transport’) and ‘tjänster som avser … transport’ (‘services which concern transport’). " Instances of this are a bit hard to find, since they usually are just one aspect of a larger argument, but they do happen.
- chki 7y ago
  For example in C-528/15 (http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=188907&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=588812 http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&doc...) "As regards the wording of Article 2(n) of the Dublin III Regulation, a purely textual analysis of the notion of ‘defined by law’ cannot determine whether case-law or a consistent administrative practice are capable of coming within that concept. In the different language versions of that regulation, the term equivalent to the term ‘loi (legislation)’ has a different scope. Thus, the wording used, for example, in the English-, Polish- and Slovak-language versions is similar to the concept of ‘droit (law in the general sense’), which can have a wider scope than ‘loi (legislation)’. Certain other versions, for example, the Bulgarian-, Spanish-, Czech-, German- and French-language versions, have a more restrictive scope. 32 Where the various language versions differ, the scope of the provision in question cannot be determined on the basis of an interpretation which is exclusively textual, but must be interpreted by reference to the purpose and general scheme of the rules of which it forms part (judgment of 26 May 2016, Envirotec Denmark, C‑550/14, EU:C:2016:354, paragraph 28 and the case-law cited)." As already mentioned this is often just one part of a bigger ruling and the translations are often good enough so that it's not necessary to dissect the whole text like this. By the way: I think it's an interesting challenge to translate the Treaties (and regulations etc). You don't want to have too much divergence between the different language versions but sometimes it can be very difficult to translate something exactly without using a lot of words. One tactic that is used in European law in this regard is to start the regulation with a preamble "definition" section (similar to writing a program) where you define all the important words/phrases.
mrleiter 7y ago
Yes, very correct. That is also the reason why the ECJ has autonomy over interpreting the words of treaties, regulations and so forth. An independent constructor of meaning in the EU.

by chki 7y ago

tom_mellior 7y ago

Interesting, can you link to some examples? I've read a few ECJ judgements in some high-profile cases, and I've never seen this.

Corazoor 7y ago
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62003CJ0336&from=DE https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL... From case C-336/03 (easyCar), section 25: "That interpretation is expressly supported by several language versions of Article 3(2) of the directive, namely the German, Italian and Swedish versions, which mention, respectively, ‘Dienstleistungen in den Bereichen … Beförderung’ (‘services in the transport sector’), ‘servizi relativi … ai trasporti’ (‘services relating to transport’) and ‘tjänster som avser … transport’ (‘services which concern transport’). " Instances of this are a bit hard to find, since they usually are just one aspect of a larger argument, but they do happen.
chki 7y ago
For example in C-528/15 (http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=188907&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=588812 http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&doc...) "As regards the wording of Article 2(n) of the Dublin III Regulation, a purely textual analysis of the notion of ‘defined by law’ cannot determine whether case-law or a consistent administrative practice are capable of coming within that concept. In the different language versions of that regulation, the term equivalent to the term ‘loi (legislation)’ has a different scope. Thus, the wording used, for example, in the English-, Polish- and Slovak-language versions is similar to the concept of ‘droit (law in the general sense’), which can have a wider scope than ‘loi (legislation)’. Certain other versions, for example, the Bulgarian-, Spanish-, Czech-, German- and French-language versions, have a more restrictive scope. 32 Where the various language versions differ, the scope of the provision in question cannot be determined on the basis of an interpretation which is exclusively textual, but must be interpreted by reference to the purpose and general scheme of the rules of which it forms part (judgment of 26 May 2016, Envirotec Denmark, C‑550/14, EU:C:2016:354, paragraph 28 and the case-law cited)." As already mentioned this is often just one part of a bigger ruling and the translations are often good enough so that it's not necessary to dissect the whole text like this. By the way: I think it's an interesting challenge to translate the Treaties (and regulations etc). You don't want to have too much divergence between the different language versions but sometimes it can be very difficult to translate something exactly without using a lot of words. One tactic that is used in European law in this regard is to start the regulation with a preamble "definition" section (similar to writing a program) where you define all the important words/phrases.

mrleiter 7y ago

Yes, very correct. That is also the reason why the ECJ has autonomy over interpreting the words of treaties, regulations and so forth. An independent constructor of meaning in the EU.