Abstract
I have known Albrecht Weber for about 15 years through our encounters at meetings of German and other European colleagues on subjects concerned with EU law. My knowledge of the German language and law has allowed me to participate in many such meetings which were not always accessible to those who do not master the language. Albrecht and I have recently embarked on an ambitious project on Comparing European Constitutions in English, based on his excellent work entitled Europäische Verfassungsvergleichung, which is in the process of being translated and adopted. We have identified a distinct gap in the legal publishing market concerning this subject and are aiming to follow the excellent example of T. Weir in his adaptation of Comparative European Law by K. Zweigert and H. Kötz. I have also come to know Albrecht as a good friend and have recently shared our love of classical music in visiting several performances of the Salzburger Festspiele in July 2014.
As Albrecht Weber has always shown a keen interest in the language question in the EU, which has been the subject of relatively little debate, particularly in the Anglophone part of the EU and outside it, I decided to base my contribution on an earlier article entitled: Over the Rainbow: Languages and Law in the European Union (In A. Arnull et al. [Eds.], A Constitutional Order of States? Essays in EU Law in Honour of Alan Dashwood [p. 99–122]. 2011. Oxford: Hart Publishing) in which, at the time of its publication, he showed great interest. The tenor of this contribution is, however, a different one, and attempts to show the extent to which the language arrangements have had an effect on common legal thinking in Europe, in particular through the case law of the CJEU of course, it has also been comprehensively reviewed and updated, in particular with new legislation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Zweigert and Kötz 1998.
- 2.
The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations attributes this rather hesitantly to G. B. Shaw but there seems to be a consensus that he probably never used these precise words, and that it is just a phrase polished up by many later.
- 3.
The Constitution of Russia allows the various Republics of Russia to establish official languages other than Russian (with the exception of Sewastopol, which was annexed by the Russian Federation along with the Republic of Crimea). Currently there are 35 languages which are official in certain parts of Russia.
- 4.
The official languages of the Republic of India are Hindi and English. However, the Eighth Schedule of the Indian Constitution refers to 22 scheduled languages, which have been given official status and recognition.
- 5.
Bulgarian, Croatian, Czech, Danish, Dutch, English, Estonian, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Hungarian, Irish, Italian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Maltese, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Slovak, Slovene, Spanish, Swedish.
- 6.
See Case 53/81, Levin v. Staatsscecretaris van Justitie (ECJ 23 March 1982), as discussed below.
- 7.
European Commission (23 February 2007). A political agenda for multilingualism. Europa Memo/07/80 press release, http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-07-80_en.htm?locale=en
- 8.
European Commission (10 September 2014). The Juncker Commission: A strong and experienced team standing for change, http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-984_en.htm
- 9.
NPLD (September 2014). New European Commission: no place for multilingualism, http://www.npld.eu/news-and-events/latest-news/103/new-european-commission-no-place-for-multilingualism/
- 10.
See Sect. 3.
- 11.
French, German, Italian and Dutch, respectively.
- 12.
The “Belgian problem” is too complex to comment upon further here, and is beyond the remit of this article. See the contribution by F. Delpérée in this volume.
- 13.
Art. 217 of the EEC Treaty (now Art. 342 TFEU) provided as follows: “The rules governing the languages of the Institutions of the Community shall, without prejudice to the provisions contained in the rules of procedure of the Court of Justice, be determined by the Council, acting unanimously by means of regulations.”.
- 14.
Council Regulation No 1 determining the languages to be used by the EEC, O.J. B 17, 385–86 (1958).
- 15.
Spierenburg & Poidevin (1993), p. 50.
- 16.
European Commission Report (June 2012). Europeans and their Languages. Special Eurobaromenter 386, http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_386_en.pdf
- 17.
Published on EurActiv (29 June 2010), http://www.euractiv.com
- 18.
See Sharpston, E. V. E. (29 March 2011). Appendix 5: Written Evidence of Advocate General Sharpston. The Workload of the Court of Justice of the European Union (House of Lords European Union Committee), http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldselect/ldeucom/128/12816.htm. See below, Sect. 2.
- 19.
See Art. 55.1 TEU.
- 20.
The plan had been a quadrilateral meeting on 23 March 2004 to take forward the talks on reunification with a view to imminent accession to the EU on 1 May 2004. The success of these talks put forward a referendum on both the Greek and Cypriot parts of the island. This had been planned so as to enable Cyprus to enter the EU as a unified island on 1 May 2004. However, the referendum, although resulting in a positive vote by Turkish Cyprus, resulted in a negative vote by the Greek part.
- 21.
European Commission, Enlargement Strategy and Main Challenges 2013–2014, COM(2013) 700 final.
- 22.
See Chaturvedi, A (23 December 2013). Turkish Accession Prospects to the EU in the Current Scenario. A Policy Brief, http://www.ceu.hu/sites/default/files/attachment/event/9199/working-paper-archana-chaturvedi0_0.pdf
- 23.
Art. 1 of Council Regulation No 1 of 1958: “The official languages and the working languages of the Institutions of the Community shall be Dutch, French, German and Italian” (my emphasis).
- 24.
Art. 29.4 of the ECJ Rules of Procedure (1991) O.J. L 176/7; see Case T‐120/99, Kik v. Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (CFI 12 July 2001) as discussed below.
- 25.
Agence Europe, 22 December 1994.
- 26.
Art. 167.4 TFEU.
- 27.
See Art. 3.3 TFEU.
- 28.
EurActiv.com (6 April 2012). Parliament struggles to recruit English‐language interpreters, http://www.euractiv.com/culture/parliament-struggles-recruit-english-interpreters-news-512000
- 29.
European Commission. Language Open Doors – Vassiliou backs international declaration supporting multilingualism, http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/vassiliou/headlines/news/2010/06/20100628_en.htm
- 30.
European Commission (2014). Conference on translation and interpretation: Cultural and linguistic diversity – a challenge for democracy, http://ec.europa.eu/languages/events/2014/2811-tsd2014_en.htm
- 31.
Case T‐120/99, Kik v. Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (CFI 12 July 2001).
- 32.
Art. 115 of the Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, O.J. L 11/1 (1994), provides for the language regime of the Office.
- 33.
Art. 38.7 of the CJEU Rules of Procedure of 25 September 2012, O.J. L 265 (2012).
- 34.
Art. 16 of the Protocol on the Statute of the ECJ added by the Treaty of Nice.
- 35.
Case 283/81, CILFIT et al v. Ministry of Health (ECJ 6 October 1982).
- 36.
For example in Case 53/81, Levin v. Staatsscecretaris van Justitie (ECJ 23 March 1982), the ECJ defined the concept of “worker” as a Community concept, different from that in Member States; Art. 17 EC introduces “Citizenship of the Union” which “shall complement and not replace national citizenship”.
- 37.
Case 283/81, CILFIT et al v. Ministry of Health (ECJ 6 October 1982) para 20.
- 38.
Case 29/69, Stauder v. City of Ulm (ECJ 12 November 1969).
- 39.
Case C‐72/95, Kraaijeveld v. Gedeputeerde Staten van Zuid‐Holland (ECJ 24 October 1996) para 28.
- 40.
Case C‐72/95, Kraaijeveld v. Gedeputeerde Staten van Zuid‐Holland (ECJ 24 October 1996) para 31.
- 41.
Case 26/62, van Gend and Loos (ECJ 5 February 1963).
- 42.
Case 53/81, Levin v. Staatsscecretaris van Justitie (ECJ 23 March 1982).
- 43.
Joined Cases C‐261/08 and C‐348/08, María Julia Zurita García and Aurelio Choque Cabrera v. Delegado del Gobierno en la Región de Murcia (ECJ 22 October 2009).
- 44.
Joined Cases C‐261/08 and C‐348/08, María Julia Zurita García and Aurelio Choque Cabrera v. Delegado del Gobierno en la Región de Murcia (ECJ 22 October 2009) para 22.
- 45.
O.J. L 105/11 (2006).
- 46.
Joined Cases C‐261/08 and C‐348/08, María Julia Zurita García and Aurelio Choque Cabrera v. Delegado del Gobierno en la Región de Murcia (ECJ 22 October 2009) para 52 et seq.
- 47.
E. g. in Case 29/69, Stauder v. City of Ulm (ECJ 12 November 1969) para 3; Case 55/87, Moksel Import und Export (ECJ 7 July 1988) para 15; Case C‐268/99, Jany and Others (ECJ 20 November 2001) para 47; and Case C‐188/03, Junk (ECJ 27 January 2005) para 33.
- 48.
Joined Cases C‐261/08 and C‐348/08, María Julia Zurita García and Aurelio Choque Cabrera v. Delegado del Gobierno en la Región de Murcia (ECJ 22 October 2009) para 55.
- 49.
Joined Cases C‐261/08 and C‐348/08, María Julia Zurita García and Aurelio Choque Cabrera v. Delegado del Gobierno en la Región de Murcia (ECJ 22 October 2009) para 56.
- 50.
Joined Cases C‐261/08 and C‐348/08, María Julia Zurita García and Aurelio Choque Cabrera v. Delegado del Gobierno en la Región de Murcia (ECJ 22 October 2009) para 66.
- 51.
European Commission, Proposal for a council framework decision on certain procedural rights in criminal proceedings throughout the EU, COM(2004) 328, O.J. C 295/1 (2009).
- 52.
See European Commission (July 2012). Key Data on Teaching Languages at School in Europe 2012, http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/Education/eurydice/documents/key_data_series/143EN.pdf
- 53.
European Council of 30 November 2009, Resolution on a Roadmap for Strengthening Procedural Rights of Suspected or Accused Persons in Criminal Proceedings, O.J. C 295/1 (2009).
- 54.
European Council of 10/11 December 2009, The Stockholm Programme – An open and Secure Europe Serving and Protecting Citizens, O.J. C 115/1 (2010).
- 55.
Appl. nos. 6210/73, 6877/75, 7132/75, Luedicke, Belkacem and Koç (ECtHR 28 November 1978). The Court thus finds that the ordinary meaning of the term “free” in Art. 6.3 (e) is confirmed by the object and purpose of Art. 6. The Court concludes that the right protected by Art. 6.3 (e) entails, for anyone who cannot speak or understand the language used in court, the right to receive the free assistance of an interpreter, without subsequently having claimed back from him payment of the costs thereby incurred.
- 56.
Appl. no. 783/82, Kamasinski v. Austria (ECtHR 19 December 1989).
- 57.
Appl. no. 10964/84, Brozicek v. Italy (ECtHR 19 December 1989) para 41: “the Italian judicial authorities should have taken steps to comply with it so as to ensure observance of the requirements of Art. 6 § 3 (a) (art 6‐3‐a), unless they were in a position to establish that the applicant in fact had sufficient knowledge of Italian to understand from the notification the purport of the letter notifying him of the charges brought against him. No such evidence appears from the documents in the file or the statements of the witnesses heard on 23 April 1989. On this point there has therefore been a violation of Art. 6 § 3 (a) (Art 6‐3‐a).”.
- 58.
Appl. no. 3277/96, Cuscani v. UK (ECtHR 24 September 2002).
- 59.
Art. 6 of Parliament/Council Directive 2010/64/EU on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings, O.J. L 280/1 (2010).
- 60.
See points 17 and 18 of the Explanatory Memorandum.
- 61.
House of Lords (9 July 2012). Parliamentary Debates – House of Lords’ Official Report of Proceedings Hansard, HL col. 908, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201213/ldhansrd/text/120709-0001.htm
- 62.
Linguist Lounge (24 January 2013). Letter from Professional Interpreters for Justice to Helen Grant, http://www.linguistlounge.org/all-articles/the-letters-page/724-letter-from-professional-interpreters-for-justice-to-helen-grant
- 63.
The Law Society Gazette (4 February 2013). MPs condemn “shambolic” court interpreter deal, http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/mps-condemn-shambolic-court-interpreter-deal/69322.fullarticle; see also Institute of Race Relations (14 February 2014). Shambolic and Unworkable: Outsourcing of Court Interpreting Services, http://www.irr.org.uk/news/shambolic-and-unworkable-outsourcing-of-court-interpreting-services/
- 64.
See Commons Select Committee (2013). Interpreting and Translation services and the Applied Language Solutions contract, http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/justice-committee/inquiries/parliament-2010/interpretation-and-translation-services/
- 65.
German Courts Constitution Act (9 May 1975). Federal Law Gazette [Bundesgesetzblatt] Part I p. 1077, http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gvg/englisch_gvg.html
- 66.
See Sect. 187 German Courts Constitution Act.
- 67.
See Dolmetscher‐ und Übersetzerdatenbank, http://www.justiz-dolmetscher.de/
- 68.
Justice Committee (September 2012). Written evidence from Involvis Ltd., http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmjust/645/645vw50.htm
- 69.
Court of Appeal, R v Ungvari (18 July 2003), [2003] EWCA Crim 2346.
References
Spierenburg, D., & Poidevin, R. (1993). Histoire de la Haute Autorité de la Communauté Européenne du Charbon et de l’Acier. Brussels: Bruylant.
Zweigert, K., & Kötz, H. (1998). An Introduction to Comparative Law. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Translated by Tony Weir
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Horspool, M. (2015). The Importance and Impact of the Language Regime of the European Union on its Law. In: Blanke, HJ., Cruz Villalón, P., Klein, T., Ziller, J. (eds) Common European Legal Thinking. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19300-7_23
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19300-7_23
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-19299-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-19300-7
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)