Abstract
The present chapter seeks to explore EU Competition Law concepts and terms, such as exploitative abuses, concerted practice, vertical agreements, leniency, and undertaking, in English, Greek, Italian and Spanish. It draws on the analysis of a multilingual parallel corpus of EU Competition legislation and aims to investigate the strategies used for the formation of terms and their translation under the light of EU Law autonomy and uniform interpretation and the EU’s policy of multilingualism. In so doing, it also aspires to establish whether the sought-after unified deterritorialised and hybrid legal culture in the EU can actually exist.
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.
- 2.
Fiorito (2013), p. 9.
- 3.
Gombos (2014).
- 4.
Baaij (2012), p. 16.
- 5.
Council Regulation (EEC) No 1 of 15 April 1958 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community (OJ 17, 6.10.1958, p. 385); referred to further as Regulation No 1/1958/EEC.
- 6.
Somssich et al. (2010), p. 1.
- 7.
Šarčević (1997), p. 64.
- 8.
van Els (2001).
- 9.
cf. Cao (2010), p. 73.
- 10.
See also paras. 18, 19 and 20 in Case 283/81 Srl CILFIT [1982] ECR 3415, ECLI:EU:C:1982:335, which states that: “To begin with, it must be borne in mind that Community legislation is drafted in several languages and that the different language versions are all equally authentic. An interpretation of a provision of Community law thus involves a comparison of the different language versions. It must also be borne in mind, even where the different language versions are entirely in accord with one another, that Community law uses terminology which is peculiar to it. Furthermore, it must be emphasized that legal concepts do not necessarily have the same meaning in Community law and in the law of the various Member States. Finally, every provision of Community law must be placed in its context and interpreted in the light of the provisions of Community law as a whole, regard being had to the objectives thereof and to its state of evolution at the date on which the provision in question is to be applied”.
- 11.
Kaeding (2007), p. 3.
- 12.
- 13.
- 14.
Molnár (2016), p. 433.
- 15.
See also para. 19 in Case CILFIT, which states that “Community law uses terminology which is peculiar to it” and that “legal concepts do not necessarily have the same meaning in Community law and in the law of the various Member States”.
- 16.
Šarčević (1997), pp. 149, 158.
- 17.
Letsas (2004), p. 282.
- 18.
Kjær (2015), p. 105.
- 19.
Mattila (2006), p. 119.
- 20.
Giannoni (2003), p. 223.
- 21.
Catenaccio (2008), p. 260.
- 22.
See, for instance, para. 155 of Joined Cases T-122/07 to T-124/07 Siemens Österreich [2011] ECR II-793, ECLI:EU:T:2011:70, where the General Court indicates that “the concept of ‘joint and several liability for the payment of fines’ is an autonomous concept which must be interpreted by reference to the objectives and system of competition law of which it forms part”.
- 23.
Gombos (2014).
- 24.
Habermas (1981).
- 25.
According to de Corte (2003), p. 70, the emergence of Eurolect “is inevitable in that the legal system set up by the Treaties requires a specific Community language”.
- 26.
- 27.
- 28.
- 29.
Caliendo (2004), p. 163.
- 30.
Pozzo (2012), p. 1198.
- 31.
- 32.
Biel (2014b), pp. 6–7.
- 33.
Biel (2014b), p. 7.
- 34.
- 35.
In the words of the Directorate General for Competition of the European Commission, the EU Competition Law’s aim is “to provide everyone in Europe with better quality goods and services at lower prices. Competition policy is about applying rules to make sure companies compete fairly with each other. This encourages enterprise and efficiency, creates a wider choice for consumers and helps reduce prices and improve quality. These are the reasons why the EU fights anticompetitive behaviour, reviews mergers and state aid and encourages liberalisation”. Overview: making markets work better, available at http://ec.europa.eu/competition/general/overview_en.html (Accessed 20 Feb 2018).
- 36.
Articles 101 to 109 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ C 167, 3.6.2013, p. 88).
- 37.
Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community. No longer in force, Date of end of validity: 23.7.2002. ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/treaty/ceca/sign, (Accessed 20 Feb 2018); referred to further as ECSC Treaty.
- 38.
In particular, Article 65(1) of the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community states: “All agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and concerted practices tending directly or indirectly to prevent, restrict or distort normal competition within the common market shall be prohibited, and in particular those tending:
-
(a)
to fix or determine prices;
-
(b)
to restrict or control production, technical development or investment;
-
(c)
to share markets, products, customers or sources of supply.”
-
(a)
- 39.
Papadopoulos (2010), p. 13.
- 40.
- 41.
Gerber (2010), p. 342.
- 42.
cf. Maher (2000), p. 155.
- 43.
American English rather than British English due to the US influence.
- 44.
In light of the importance of meaning for legal translation in the EU context, it has been claimed that comparative law and translation theories may not be the most relevant theories to apply, cf. Kjær (2015), p. 92; terminological approaches have been shown to be more appropriate since they place meaning at the forefront and address the issue of conceptualisation, cf. Bajčić (2017), p. 129.
- 45.
Valeontis and Mantzari (2006), p. 5.
- 46.
According to Picht and Draskau (1985), p. 96 a concept is commonly defined as an element of thought, a mental construct that represents a class of objects. Concepts consist of a series of characteristics that are shared by a class of individual objects; these characteristics, which are also concepts, allow human beings to structure thought and to communicate. In order to communicate concepts and their supporting propositions, speakers use written or oral linguistic signs made up of a term or group of terms, or some other type of symbols. A distinction between words and terms is made by Sager et al. who claim that “The items which are characterised by special reference within a discipline are the ‘terms’ of that discipline and collectively they form its ‘terminology’” (p. 75).
- 47.
According to Picht and Draskau (1985), p. 3 an LSP is a “formalised and codified variety of language, used for special purposes in a legitimate context – that is to say, with the function of communicating information of a specialist nature at any level – at the highest level of complexity, between initiate experts, and, at lower levels of complexity, with the aim of informing or initiating other interested parties, in the most economic, precise and unambiguous terms possible”. LGP, on the other hand, is a general reservoir on which the LSPs of the various special areas draw.
- 48.
ISO 704:2009, Terminology Work: Principles and Methods (2009). ISO 704 is a standard that was produced by Subcommittee SC1 of the ISO Technical Committee (TC) 37. It “establishes the basic principles and methods for preparing and compiling terminologies both inside and outside the framework of standardization, and describes the links between objects, concepts, and their terminological representations. It also establishes general principles governing the formation of designations and the formulation of definitions. Full and complete understanding of these principles requires some background knowledge of terminology work. The principles are general in nature and this document is applicable to terminology work in scientific, technological, industrial, administrative and other fields of knowledge” (2009), p. v.
- 49.
- 50.
Back-translations are provided by the author in square brackets in all cases of non-English terms.
- 51.
ISO 704:2009, Terminology Work: Principles and Methods (2009), pp. 51–52.
- 52.
Valeontis and Mantzari (2006), p. 7.
- 53.
Definition of appeal, Cambridge Dictionary, available at https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/appeal (Accessed 20 Feb 2018).
- 54.
cf. Gombos (2014).
- 55.
- 56.
Čavoški (2017), p. 68.
- 57.
Definition of foreclosure, Oxford Dictionary of Law (2003), p. 207.
- 58.
Guidelines on the assessment of non-horizontal mergers under the Council Regulation on the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ C 265, 18.10.2008, p. 6).
- 59.
Definition of business entity, Business Dictionary, available at http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/business-entity.html (Accessed 20 Feb 2018).
- 60.
Definition of legal entity, Business Dictionary, available at http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/legal-entity.html (Accessed 20 Feb 2018).
- 61.
Sager (1993), p. 180.
- 62.
Šarčević (1997), p. 112.
- 63.
- 64.
Special thanks to Professor Mikhail Mikhailov from the University of Tampere who helped me identify the strategy for the formation of the Finnish term polkumyynti.
- 65.
Jopek-Bosiacka (2013), p. 120.
- 66.
- 67.
- 68.
- 69.
A distinction between corpus-based and corpus-driven language study was introduced by Tognini-Bonelli (2001), pp. 84–85 who notes that corpus-based studies typically use corpus data in order to explore a theory or hypothesis, with the aim to validate it, refute it or refine it, while corpus-driven studies use the corpus as the sole source of a given hypothesis about language. A corpus-based approach is used in this study, since an assumption is made about the formation and translation strategies of terms on the basis of the existing bibliography which claims that the use of literal equivalents is preferred when translating EU legal texts.
- 70.
Several types of multilingual corpora can be distinguished. Unfortunately, the terminology used to describe the different types is inconsistent and confusing, cf. Baker (1995, 1999), Hartmann (1996), Johansson (1998). For the purposes of this study, we use the typology and terminology put forward by McEnery and Hardie (2012) who distinguish between multilingual comparable corpora and multilingual parallel corpora. They define a comparable corpus as one which contains components in two or more languages that have been collected using the same sampling method—but are not translations of each other—, while they define a parallel corpus as one which contains source texts and their translations. Although, as pointed out in 10.1, in theory there is no ST and no TT, in practical terms approximately 95% of the legislation adopted in the co-decision procedure is drafted in English, cf. Dragone (2006), p. 100. The English version is, therefore, used as the ST in almost 95% of the cases.
- 71.
I would like to extend my thanks to Stavros Kozobolis, PhD candidate at the Department of Foreign Languages, Translation and Interpreting of the Ionian University for compiling the Greek corpus and for helping extend the Spanish and Italian corpora.
- 72.
Università degli Studi dell’Insubria, Uniwersytet Warszawski, Ionian University, University of Rijeka-Jean Monnet Inter-University Centre of Excellence Opatija and Universidad de Burgos.
- 73.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html (Accessed 20 Feb 2018).
- 74.
https://curia.europa.eu (Accessed 20 Feb 2018).
- 75.
Directive 98/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 on consumer protection in the indication of the prices of products offered to consumers (OJ L 80, 18.3.1998, p. 27).
- 76.
Directive (EU) 2016/943 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets) against their unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure (OJ L 157, 15.6.2016, p. 1).
- 77.
Dragone (2006), p. 100.
- 78.
- 79.
Šarčević (1997), p. 20.
- 80.
https://www.sketchengine.eu/ (Accessed 20 Apr 2018).
- 81.
https://youalign.com/ (Accesses 20 Apr 2018).
- 82.
The TTR rather than the Standardised Type to Token Ratio (STTR) is used in the present analysis because the corpora are of similar size.
- 83.
Articles 3(1) and (2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1).
- 84.
cf. Alese (2008).
- 85.
cf. van den Bergh (2016).
- 86.
Commission Regulation (EU) No 330/2010 of 20 April 2010 on the application of Article 101(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices (OJ L 102, 23.4.2010, p. 1).
- 87.
Article 101(1) TFEU.
- 88.
Communication from the Commission—Guidelines on the application of Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to technology transfer agreements (OJ C 89, 28.3.2014, p. 3).
- 89.
Joined opinion of Mr Advocate General Mayras delivered on 2 May 1972, ECLI:EU:C:1972:32.
- 90.
Goyder (1993), p. 88.
- 91.
Komninos (2008), p. 7.
- 92.
Definition of leniency, English Oxford Living Dictionary, available at https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/leniency (Accessed 20 Apr 2018).
- 93.
cf. Cobb (2006), p. 140.
- 94.
cf. http://ec.europa.eu/competition/cartels/leniency/leniency.html (Accessed 20 Feb 2018).
- 95.
Commission Regulation (EU) No 1407/2013 of 18 December 2013 on the application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to de minimis aid (OJ L 352, 24.12.2013, p. 1).
- 96.
Shiraishi (2017).
- 97.
Case C-41/90 Klaus Höfner and Fritz Elser v Macrotron GmbH [1991] ECR I-1979, ECLI:EU:C:1991:161.
- 98.
cf. Doleys (2009).
- 99.
The ECSC Treaty was the only Treaty drafted exclusively in French on the initiative of the French foreign minister Robert Schuman (Felici (2010), p. 96).
- 100.
Case 85/76 Hoffman-La Roche [1979] ECR 461, ECI:EU:C:1979:36.
- 101.
Koskinen (2000), p. 61.
- 102.
- 103.
Holland and Webb (2016), p. 344.
- 104.
Šarčević and Gotti (2006), p. 14.
References
Alcaraz Varó E, Hughes B (2002) Legal translation explained. St. Jerome, Manchester
Alese F (2008) Federal antitrust and EC competition law analysis. Ashgate, Aldershot
Baker M (1995) Corpora in translation studies. An overview and some suggestions for future research. Target 7:223–243
Baker M (1999) The role of corpora in investigating the linguistic behaviour of professional translators. Int J Corpus Linguist 4:281–298
Baaij CJW (2012) Fifty years of multilingual interpretation in the European Union. In: Tiersma PM, Solan LM (eds) The Oxford handbook of language and law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 217–233
Bajčić M (2017) New insights into the semantics of legal concepts and the legal dictionary. John Benjamins, Amsterdam. https://doi.org/10.1075/tlrp.17
Barents R (2004) The autonomy of community law. Kluwer Law International, The Hague
Biel Ł (2007) Translation of multilingual EU law as a sub-genre of legal translation. In: Kierzkowska D (ed) Court interpreting and legal translation in the enlarged Europe. Translegis, Warsaw
Biel Ł (2014a) Lost in the Eurofog. The textual fit of translated law. Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Mein. https://doi.org/10.3726/b11383
Biel Ł (2014b) The textual fit of translated EU law: a corpus-based study of deontic modality. Translator 20(2):1–24
Buch-Hansen H, Levallois C (2015) The scale and geography of collusion in the European market: a longitudinal view. J Common Mark Stud 53(4):737–752
Cao D (2007) Translating law. Multilingual Matters, Clevedon
Cao D (2010) Legal translation. In: Gambier Y, van Doorslaer L (eds) Handbook of translation studies. John Benjamins, Amsterdam
Caliendo G (2004) EU language in cross-boundary communication. Textus 17:159–178
Catenaccio P (2008) Implementing Council Directive 1993/13/EEU on unfair terms in consumer contracts in Great Britain: a case for intra-linguistic translation? In: Bhatia VK, Candlin CN, Allori PE (eds) Language, culture and the law. The formulation of legal concepts across systems and cultures. Peter Lang, Bern, pp 259–280
Čavoški A (2017) Interaction of law and language in the EU: challenges of translating in multilingual environment. JoSTrans – J Spec Transl 27:58–74. http://www.jostrans.org/issue27/art_cavoski.php. Accessed 20 Apr 2018
Cobb RJD (2006) Justice and public safety reference manual: a practical guide to justice and public safety agencies and their information systems. Lulu.com
de Corte F (2003) The contribution of freelance translators. In: Tosi A (ed) Crossing barriers and bridging cultures. Multilingual Matters, Clevedon, pp 67–72
de Witte B (2010) European Union Law: how autonomous is its legal order? Zeitschrift für öffentliches Recht 31:141–155
Doleys T (2009) Fifty years of moulding Article 87: The European Commission and the development of EU State Aid Law & Policy (1958–2008). Paper presented at the ESRC Workshop the European Union and State Aid: The Present Crisis and Beyond, Norwich, 9–10 July 2009
Dragone S (2006) The quality of Community legislation and the role of the European Commission legal revisers. In: Pozzo B, Jacometti V (eds) Multilingualism and the harmonization of European law. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp 99–106
Felici A (2010) Translating EU law: legal issues and multiple dynamics. Perspectives 18(2):95–108. https://doi.org/10.1080/09076761003668289
Fiorito L (2013) How to build Europe with words: the discursive construction of European identity in the EU’s founding treaties. Giapeto editore, Italy
Garzone G (2000) Legal translation and functionalist approaches: a contradiction in terms? In: Legal translation: history, theory/ies and practice. Proceedings of the International Colloquium. University of Geneva, Geneva, pp 395–414
Gerber D (2010) Global competition: law, markets and globalization. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Giannoni DS (2003) The UNCITRAL model and Italian statute law: a linguistic and topical description. In: Bhatia VK, Candlin CN, Gotti M (eds) Legal discourse in multilingual and multicultural contexts: arbitration texts in Europe. Peter Lang, Bern, pp 221–246
Gombos K (2014) EU law viewed through the eyes of a national judge. http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/legal_service/seminars/20140703_gombos_speech_en.pdf. Accessed 17 Feb 2018
Goyder DG (1993) EC competition law. Clarendon Press, Oxford
Habermas J (1981) The theory of communicative action (trans: McCarthy T). Polity, Cambridge
Harding C, Joshua J (2003) Regulating cartels in Europe: a study of legal control of corporate delinquency. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Hartmann RRK (1996) Contrastive textology and corpus linguistics: on the value of parallel texts. Lang Sci 18:947–957
Holland J, Webb J (2016) Learning legal rules. Oxford University Press, Oxford
ISO (2009) ISO 704:2009. https://www.iso.org/standard/38109.html. Accessed 17 Feb 2018
Johansson S (1998) On the role of corpora in cross-linguistic research. In: Johansson S, Oksefjell S (eds) Corpora and cross-linguistic research: theory, method and case studies. Rodopi, Amsterdam, pp 1–24
Jopek-Bosiacka A (2013) Comparative law and equivalence assessment of system-bound terms in EU legal translation. Linguistica Antverpiensia 12:110–146
Kaeding M (2007) Better regulation in the European Union: lost in translation or full steam ahead. Leiden University Press, Leiden
Kjær AL (2014) New challenges to the theory of legal translation: transnational legal communication and the autonomization of international law. Translator 20(3):430–436. https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2014.927700
Kjær AL (2015) Theoretical aspects of legal translation in the EU: the paradoxical relationship between language, translation and the autonomy of EU law. In: Šarčević S (ed) Language and culture in EU law: multidisciplinary perspectives. Ashgate, Surrey, pp 91–107
Komninos AP (2008) EC private antitrust enforcement: decentralised application of EC competition law by National Courts. Hart, Oxford
Koskinen K (2000) Institutional illusions: translating in the EU Commission. Translator 6(1):49–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2000.10799055
Krimpas PG (2017) ISO 704:2009 and equivalents of English financial terms in lesser-used languages: the case of Greek. Perspectives 25(3):397–416. https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2017.1287206
Letsas G (2004) Autonomous concepts: how to interpret the ECHR. Eur J Int Law 15(2):279–305. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/15.2.279
Maher I (2000) Re-imaging the story of European competition law. Oxford J Legal Stud 20(1):155–166 https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/20.1.155
Mattila HES (2006) Comparative legal linguistics (trans: Goddard C). Ashgate, Aldershot
McAuliffe K (2011) Hybrid texts and uniform law? The multilingual case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. Int J Semiot Law 24:97–115. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-010-9188-3
McEnery T, Hardie A (2012) Corpus linguistics: method, theory and practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Molnár T (2016) The concept of autonomy of EU law from the comparative perspective of international law and the legal systems of Member States. In: Hungarian yearbook of international law and European law 2015. Eleven International Publishing, The Hague, pp 433–459
O’Leary S (1998) The options for the reform of European Union citizenship. In: O’Leary S, Tilikainen T (eds) Citizenship and nationality status in the New Europe. Institute for Public Policy Research, London
Papadopoulos AS (2010) The national and international dimensions of competition law and policy. In: Papadopoulos A (ed) The international dimension of EU competition law and policy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 7–51
Patel KK, Schweitzer H (eds) (2013) The historical foundations of EU competition law. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Picht H, Draskau J (1985) Terminology: an introduction. University of Surrey, Guildford
Pozzo B (2012) Multilingualism and the harmonization of European private law: problems and perspectives. Eur Rev Priv Law 20:1185–1198
Prieto Ramos F (2014) International and supranational law in translation: from multilingual lawmaking to adjudication. Translator 20(3):313–331. https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2014.904080
Sager JC (1993) Language engineering and translation: consequences of automation. John Benjamins, Amsterdam
Šarčević S (1988) Translation of legislation with special emphasis on languages of limited diffusion. In: Nekeman P (ed) Translation, our future. XIth World Congress of FIT. Euroterm, Maastricht, pp 455–462
Šarčević S (1997) New approach to legal translation. Kluwer Law International, The Hague
Šarčević S, Gotti M (2006) Introduction. In: Gotti M, Šarčević S (eds) Insights into specialized translation. Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Mein, pp 9–23
Shiraishi T (2017) The exploitative abuse prohibition. Antitrust Bull 62(4):737–751
Somssich R, Várnal J, Bérczi A (2010) Lawmaking in the EU multilingual environment. European Commission, Directorate General for Translation, Brussels
Sosoni V (2011) Training translators to work for the EU institutions: luxury or necessity? JoSTrans – J Spec Transl 16:77–108 http://www.jostrans.org/issue16/art_sosoni.php. Accessed 17 Feb 2018
Sosoni V (2012) A hybrid translation theory for EU texts. Vertimo Studijos 5:76–89. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1048190
Shaw J (1997) The many pasts and futures of citizenship in the European Union. Eur Law Rev 22(6):554–572
Shaw J (2007) EU citizenship and political rights in an evolving European Union. Fordham Law Rev 75(5):2549–2578
Schilling TJR (2011) Multilingualism and Multijuralism: assets of EU legislation and adjudication? German Law J 12:1460–1491
Szurek S (2007) Du particularisme à l' autonomie? Esquisse des rapports du droit international et du droit communautaire. Annuaire de droit européen 5:57–92
Tirkkonen-Condit S (2001) EU project proposals as hybrid texts: observations from a Finnish research project. Across Lang Cult 2(2):261–264
Tognini-Bonelli T (2001) Corpus linguistics at work. John Benjamins, Amsterdam
Tosi A (2005) EU translation problems and the danger of linguistic evaluation. Int J Appl Linguist 15(3):384–388
Trosborg A (1997) Translating hybrid political texts. In: Trosborg A (ed) Text typology and translation. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp 145–158. https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.26.12tro
Valeontis KE, Mantzari E (2006) The linguistic dimension of terminology: principles and methods of term formation. In: 1st Athens international conference on translation and interpretation translation: between art and social science, HAU, Athens, 13–14 October 2006. http://www.eleto.gr/download/BooksAndArticles/HAU-Conference2006-ValeontisMantzari_EN.pdf. Accessed 26 Feb 2018
van den Bergh R (2016) Vertical restraints: the European part of the policy failure. Antitrust Bull 61(1):167–185. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003603X15625122
van Els TJM (2001) The European Union, its institutions and its languages: some language political observations. Curr Issues Lang Plann 2(4):311–360. https://doi.org/10.1080/14664200108668030
van Rossem WJ (2013) The autonomy of EU law: more is less? In: Wessel RA, Blockmans S (eds) Between autonomy and dependence. The EU legal order under the influence of international organisations. TMC ASSER PRESS, The Hague, pp 13–46
Wagner E, Bech S, Martínez JM (2010) Translating for the European Union Institutions, 2nd edn. St. Jerome, Manchester
Warlouzet L, Witschke T (2012) The difficult path to an economic rule of law: European competition policy, 1950–91. Contemp Eur Hist 21(3):437–455
Wiener A (1997) Making sense of the new geography of citizenship in the European Union. Theory Soc 26:529–560
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Sosoni, V. (2018). Language and Translation in EU Competition Law: Insights from English, Greek, Italian and Spanish Versions of Legislative Texts. In: Marino, S., Biel, Ł., Bajčić, M., Sosoni, V. (eds) Language and Law. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90905-9_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90905-9_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-90904-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-90905-9
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)