Abstract
European norms are equally authentic in 24 different languages. To truly know the law, we need to analyse all of them. In practice, the versions which constitute a norm do not state identically the same but differ from one another. The European ECJ of Justice (ECJ) has to choose which version really reflects the content of the norm and prevails over others. At the same time, the ECJ does not grant the individual a right to invoke the wording of a version he or she can understand. This conflicts with the principle of legality, particularly in criminal cases.
The article tracks the genesis of supranational elements of crime, takes a look at their interpretation and proposes a framework of how we should analyse discrepancies between several versions describing a single multilingual norm. The article aims to show that the ECJ could solve the individual’s misery of not knowing what the law really says by following through on existing case-law. While interpretative standards do not need to change, the individual must have the right to invoke a particular version under European law, especially in defence against criminal prosecution.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
C-64/95, Lubella.
- 2.
C-64/95, para. 17.
- 3.
Cf. Satzger (2012), § 6 paras. 18 et seq. for a detailed analysis of the EU competences in this regard.
- 4.
Art. 5(1) and (2) TEU.
- 5.
Art. 288(2) TFEU.
- 6.
Satzger (2001), pp. 166 et seqq.
- 7.
C-68/88, Greek Maize, para. 24; C-367/09, SGS Belgium , paras. 40 et seq.
- 8.
C-34/73, Variola, paras. 9 et seq.
- 9.
BGBl I 2008, 306. Translation from the German original by the author.
- 10.
OJ 18 Feb 2004, L 47/1.
- 11.
Council Framework Decision 2004/757/JHA, OJ 11 Nov 2004, L 335/8.
- 12.
C-283/81, CILFIT, paras. 18 et seq.
- 13.
OJ 20 Apr 2007, L 103/1.
- 14.
- 15.
C-13/61, Opinion by Advocate General Lagrange.
- 16.
C-85/76, Hoffmann-La Roche, paras. 128 et seq.
- 17.
C-405/10, Garenfeld, para. 48; C‑546/09, Aurubis Balgaria, paras. 41 et seq., each with further references.
- 18.
C-161/06, Skoma-Lux , para. 38.
- 19.
C‑558/11, Kurcums Metal, para. 47.
- 20.
C‑558/11, para. 48.
- 21.
As was first done by German legal scholar Karl Binding in his Theory of Norms (“Normentheorie”).
- 22.
I kindly ask to excuse my feeble attempt.
References
Beccaria C (1764) On crimes and punishments
Montesquieu (1750) The spirit of the laws
Satzger H (2001) Die Europäisierung des Strafrechts. Carl Heymanns, Cologne
Satzger H (2012) International and European criminal law. Nomos, Baden-Baden
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer Science+Business Media Singapore
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Langheld, G.C. (2016). Multilingual Norms in European Criminal Law. In: Fenwick, M., Wrbka, S. (eds) Legal Certainty in a Contemporary Context. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-0114-7_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-0114-7_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-10-0112-3
Online ISBN: 978-981-10-0114-7
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)