Hybrid Texts and Uniform Law? The Multilingual Case Law of the Court of Justice of the European Union

The case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) is shaped by the language in which it is drafted—i.e. French. However, because French is rarely the mother tongue of those drafting that case law, the texts produced are often stilted and awkward. In addition, those drafting such case law are constrained in their use of language and style of writing (owing to pressures of technology and in order to reinforce the rule of law). These factors have led to the development of a ‘Court French’ which necessarily shapes the case law produced and has implications for its development, particularly insofar as it inevitably leads to a type of precedent in that case law. That case law also undergoes many permutations of translation into and out of up to 23 different languages. The resultant texts that make up the case law are hybrid in nature—consisting of a blend of cultural and linguistic patterns, constrained by a rigid formulistic drafting style and put through many permutations of translation. The present paper investigates the production of the Court’s multilingual case law and considers whether the hybrid nature of that case law can actually aid the presentation (and thus the development) of a ‘uniform’ EU case law.     

Enlargement at the European Court of Justice: Law,Language and Translation

The enlargement of the EU to 25 Member States in May 2005, followed by the accession of two more states in January 2007, raised a number of questions concerning the organisational structure of that Union—the sheer scale of the largest EU expansion to date highlighted the need to restructure EU institutions. For the European Court of Justice (ECJ), enlargement meant a huge influx of people to staff new divisions in the administrative hierarchy of the Court. This article describes the process and effects of enlargement at the ECJ, particularly in relation to translation and the language regime of that Court. Prior to the May 2004 and January 2007 enlargements there was a general perception among those working at the Court that enlargement would result in significant dislocation of life at that institution. In particular, it was felt that the translation directorate would not be able to cope with the addition of 11 ‘new’ languages to the list of official EU languages. The reality, however, was far from the disaster that many had predicted. That said, even a mere year following the May 2004 enlargement, a number of changes in the functioning and dynamics of that Court were already noticeable.     

M. Salehi,Transitional Justice in Process: Plans and Politics in Tunisia

Netherlands International Law Review -     

The Limitations of a Multilingual Legal System

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the way in which it works can be seen as a microcosm of how a multilingual, multicultural supranationalisation process and legal order can be constructed—the Court is a microcosm of the EU as a whole and in particular of EU law. The multilingual jurisprudence produced by the CJEU is necessarily shaped by the dynamics within that institution and by the ‘cultural compromises’ at play in the production process. The resultant texts, which make up that jurisprudence, are hybrid in nature and inherently approximate. On the one hand, that approximation can lead to discrepancies between language versions of the Court’s case law and thus jeopardise the uniform application of EU law. On the other hand, that approximation and hybridity define EU law as a distinct, supranational legal order. This paper analyses the operation of the CJEU and considers whether a linguistic cultural compromise exists within that institution which exercises a formative influence on the character of its ‘output’—i.e. its jurisprudence—and what that may mean for our understanding of the development of EU law.