MULTILINGUAL LEGAL DISCOURSE AT THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

Main Article Content

Karolina Paluszek

Abstract

The European Union is an organisation using multiple languages, and so does its law. Dealing with over twenty languages may be seen as an additional challenge in the interpretation of the provisions of the common legal order, so different from national legal systems of particular Member States. Multilingual interpretation has attracted a high interest of scholars all over the Europe (see Derlen 2009, Paunio, Doczekalska, Schubel-Pfister, Gemar, Sarcević, Pozzo, McAuliffe)[1]. Unlike most of other works, this article does not focus on the process of interpretation conducted by an adjudicating panel or an Advocate General but rather on the statements of the parties to a dispute or national courts requesting a preliminary ruling when referring to multilingualism.


This work is divided into two separate parts. Firstly, the author focuses on the cases, where a national court or a party invokes the multilingual character of the EU-law. Several different ways of its application in the course of proceedings have been explained. The second part is dedicated to the issue of multilingualism of the EU case law. Unlike the EU law, the judgments of the Court of Justice, as well as the Advocate Generals’ opinions are authentic in certain languages only (accordingly – language of the Court proceedings and the language chosen by an Advocate General for a particular opinion). However, the research proved that the existing single authentic language version does not help in avoiding problems concerning multilingual character of the EU law and multilingual nature of the common European legal discourse.


Both issues have been analysed based on the texts of judgments and opinions passed in recent cases solved by the CJEU. Of course, the statements of the parties or national courts referring to multilingualism do not always have a great influence on the final result of the case. Nevertheless, a unique perspective taken in this article can serve as a good illustration of various possibilities of making use of the linguistic comparison in the process of legal interpretation.



[1] Currently, a research project providing complex and multidimensional analysis of the relationship of Law and Language in the context of EU law is being conducted by Karen McAuliffe and her team (is funding the “Law and Language at the European Court of Justice” Project http://www.llecj.karenmcauliffe.com).



Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Paluszek, K. (2020). MULTILINGUAL LEGAL DISCOURSE AT THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION. Comparative Legilinguistics, 42, 77-91. https://doi.org/10.2478/cl-2020-0004
Section
Articles
Author Biography

Karolina Paluszek, Jan Długosz University

Department of Law and Economics

References

  1. Baaij, Cornelis J.W. 2018. Legal Integration and Language Diversity: Rethinking Translation in EU Lawmaking. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  2. Derlén, Mattias. 2009. Multilingual Interpretation of European Union Law. Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International.
  3. Doczekalska, Agnieszka. 2009a. Drafting and interpretation of EU law – paradoxes of legal multilingualism. In Formal linguistics and law, eds. Günther Grewendorf and Monika Rathert, 339–370. Berlin, New Jork: Mouton de Gruyter.
  4. Doczekalska, Agnieszka. 2009b. Drafting or Translation. Production of Multilingual Legal Texts. In Translation Issues in Language and Law, eds. Frances Olsen; Alexander Lorz; Dieter Stein, 116–135. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
  5. Jacobs, Francis G. 2003. Approaches to interpretation in a plurilingual legal system. In A True European: Essays for Judge David Edward, eds. Mark Hoskins and Wiliam Robinson, 297-306. Hart Publishing.
  6. Kjaer, Anne Lisa. 2010. Nonsense: The CILFIT Criteria Revisited: from the Perspective of Legal Linguistics. In Europe: The New Legal Realism: Essays in Honour of Hjalte Rasmussen, eds. Henning Koch, Karsten Hagel-Sørensen, Ulrich Haltern and Joseph Weiler, 297–316. Copenhagen: Djøf.
  7. McAuliffe, Karen. 2016. Hidden Translators: The Invisibility of Translators and the Influence of Lawyer-Linguists on the Case Law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. Language and Law/Linguagem e Direito 3(1): 5–29.
  8. McAuliffe, Karen. 2011. Hybrid Texts and Uniform Law? The Multilingual Case Law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 24(1): 97–115.
  9. Paluszek, Karolina. 2013. Multilingualism and certainty of law in European Union. In Bridging the Gap(s) between Language and the Law: Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference of the International Association of Forensic Linguists, eds. Rui Sousa Silva, Rita Faria, Núria Gavaldà and Belinda Maia, 101–111. Porto: Universidade do Porto. Faculdade de Letras.
  10. Paunio, Elina. 2013. Legal Certainty in Multilingual EU Law. Language, Discourse and Reasoning at the European Court of Justice. London and New York: Routledge.
  11. Šarčević, Susan. 2000. New Approach to Legal Translation. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.
  12. Solan, Lawrence M. 2014. Multilingualism and Morality in Statutory Interpretation. Language and Law/Linguagem e Direito 1 (1): 5–21.
  13. Spyra, Tomasz. 2006. Granice wykładni prawa. Znaczenie językowe tekstu prawnego jako granica wykładni. Kraków: Zakamycze.
  14. Tobor, Zygmunt. 2013. W poszukiwaniu intencji prawodawcy. Warszawa: Wolters Kluwer Polska.
  15. Tobor, Zygmunt. 2010. Iluzja wykładni językowej. In Konstytucyjne uwarunkowania tworzenia i stosowania prawa finansowego i podatkowego, eds. Paweł J. Lewkowicz and Janusz Stankiewicz, 194–201. Białystok: Temida 2.
  16. Zirk-Sadowski, Marek. 2012. Wpływ orzecznictwa Trybunału Sprawiedliwości Unii Europejskiej na wykładnię sądów administracyjnych. In System prawa administracyjnego, eds. Roman Hauser, Zygmunt Niewiadomski and Andrzej Wróbel, vol.4, 368–384. Warszawa: C.H Beck.