Articulating the Task of EU Translation

Author(s):  
C.J.W. Baaij

The task that EU Translation needs to accomplish originates from the combined policy objectives of legal integration and language diversity, which in turn rest on two EU fundamental principles: the advancement of a European Internal Market and the respect and protection of Europe’s cultural diversity, respectively. However, a comparison of language versions of EU legislation in the field of consumer contract law illustrates the ways in which the multilingual character of EU legislation might hamper the uniform interpretation and application of EU law. It articulates why pursuing effective legal integration and protecting language diversity requires EU translators and lawyer–linguists to accomplish absolute concordance between language versions.

Author(s):  
C.J.W. Baaij

This chapter provides an introduction, explicating the book’s mission and its interdisciplinary methodology while illuminating the most important concepts. The book proposes a more effective way for European Union (EU) Institutions to pursue legal integration while respecting language diversity, choosing the integration of contract law as its case study. The combined policy objectives of legal integration and language diversity function as normative benchmarks for critically assessing EU’s multilingual practices and procedures of the EU Institutions, or “Institutional Multilingualism.” It concentrates both on “EU Translation,” that is, the work of EU translators and lawyer–linguists in EU legislative bodies who produce EU’s multilingual legislation, as well as the ways in which the Court of Justice of the EU attributes uniform meaning to the various language versions of EU legislation. Finally, these evaluations are framed in terms of translation “orientations,” as expounded in a 19th-century essay by Friedrich Schleiermacher.


Author(s):  
C.J.W. Baaij

The current EU Translation practices prove to be internally inconsistent and thus less than fully effective. The most important methods of EU Translation, using neologisms for EU legal terminology and maintaining close textual homogeny, are not incompatible as such. Rather, the aims that these methods seek to satisfy turn out to be inconsistent. In terms of Friedrich Schleiermacher’s essay on translation, EU Translation is at once both “receiver-oriented” and “source-oriented.” In view of the contradictory philosophical concepts of language underpinning these translation orientations, EU Translation thus aims to both “foreignize” and “familiarize” the recipients of language versions. The principles of legal integration and language diversity require absolute concordance among the 24 language versions of EU legislation. Yet, different theoretical approaches to translation provide different answers as to what such concordance entails. Improving EU Translation thus lies in settling for either a receiver- or source-oriented approach.


Author(s):  
C.J.W. Baaij

How is the European Union (EU) to create laws that are uniform in a multitude of languages? Specifically, how is it to attain both legal integration and language diversity simultaneously without the latter compromising the former? The answer lies in the domain of translation. A uniform interpretation and application of EU law begins with the ways in which translators and jurist–linguists of the EU legislative bodies translate the original legislative draft texts into the various language versions. In the EU, law and language are inherently connected. This book critically assess contemporary translation practices in the EU legislative procedure, or “EU Translation,” and proposes an alternative, “source-oriented” approach that promises to better serve the policy objectives of the EU. On the one hand, the EU pursues legal integration, that is, the incremental harmonization and unification of its Member States’ laws, for the purpose of reducing national regulatory differences among Member States. On the other hand, in its commitment to the diversity of European languages, its legislative institutions enact legislative instruments in 24 languages. Contrary to the orthodox view in academic literature and to the current policies of the EU, this book suggests that the English language version should serve as the original and only authentic legislative text and that translation into the other language versions should avoid prioritizing clarity and fluency over syntactic correspondence and employ neologisms for distinctly EU legal concepts.


Author(s):  
C.J.W. Baaij

This chapter provides an overview of the book’s argument for an English-based, source-oriented approach to EU Translation. Chapter 2 constructed the task of EU Translation from the objectives of the EU policies on legal integration and language diversity. Chapters 3 and 4 assessed current EU Translation practices. Chapter 3 demonstrated that the principles underlying EU’s Institutional Multilingualism require that English be the official source text of EU Translation and the sole language version of EU legislation. Chapter 4 established that EU Translation practices are inconsistent in terms of Schleiermacher’s translation “orientations.” Finally, Chapters 5 and 6 offered an alternative approach to EU Translation. Chapter 5 contended that a source-oriented strategy promises to diminish the risk of discrepancies and inconsistencies between language versions, and lies on philosophical concepts of language and translation. Last, the challenges involved in implementing the proposed English-based, source-oriented technique of EU Translation were illustrated in Chapter 6.


2003 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 333-372 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gralf-Peter Calliess

“Certainty is so essential, that law cannot even be just without it”, Francis Bacon once observed in the good old times. In the context of the general 20thcentury's trend from formal to substantive justice, however, policy objectives such as distributive justice, democratic political governance, or effective transnational regulation increasingly came to the focus of private law legislation. The rise of “consumerism” in contract law istheparadigmatic example of this development, which – at least from a German perspective – was triggered mainly by European measures on the harmonisation of private laws. While all intellectual capacities were absorbed by “regulating contracts” in the light of the new principle of “contractual solidarity”, the basic need of a legal system for overall consistency as a prerequisite for the administration of justice (“treating like cases alike”) obviously got out of sight. The critique with regard to pointillism and eclecticism in the European approach to private law harmonisation (“piecemeal legislation”), which lead to the patchwork character of the acquis communautaire, is a common place today, even within the European Commission. However, the conclusion, that has to be drawn, is not formulated straight forward: As consistency goes, arbitrariness comes, an inconsistent law is a contradictio in adjecto.


Author(s):  
Nils Jansen ◽  
Reinhard Zimmermann

The book provides rule-by-rule commentaries on European contract law (general contract law, consumer contract law, the law of sale and related services), dealing with its modern manifestations as well as its historical and comparative foundations. After the collapse of the European Commission's plans to codify European contract law it is timely to reflect on what has been achieved over the past three to four decades, and for an assessment of the current situation. In particular, the production of a bewildering number of reference texts has contributed to a complex picture of European contract laws rather than a European contract law. The present book adopts a broad perspective and an integrative approach. All relevant reference texts (from the CISG to the Draft Common European Sales Law) are critically examined and compared with each other. As far as the acquis commun (ie the traditional private law as laid down in the national codifications) is concerned, the Principles of European Contract Law have been chosen as a point of departure. The rules contained in that document have, however, been complemented with some chapters, sections, and individual provisions drawn from other sources, primarily in order to account for the quickly growing acquis communautaire in the field of consumer contract law. In addition, the book ties the discussion concerning the reference texts back to the pertinent historical and comparative background; and it thus investigates whether, and to what extent, these texts can be taken to be genuinely European in nature, ie to constitute a manifestation of a common core of European contract law. Where this is not the case, the question is asked whether, and for what reasons, they should be seen as points of departure for the further development of European contract law.


Author(s):  
Caroline Heber

The enhanced cooperation mechanism allows at least nine Member States to introduce secondary EU law which is only binding among these Member States. From an internal market perspective, enhanced cooperation laws are unique as they lie somewhere between unilateral Member State laws and uniform EU law. The law creates harmonisation and coordination between the participating Member States, but it may introduce trade obstacles in relation to non-participating Member States. This book reveals that the enhanced cooperation mechanism allows Member States to protect their harmonised values and coordination endeavours against market efficiency. Values which may not be able to justify single Member State’s trade obstacles may outweigh pure internal market needs if an entire group of Member States finds these value worthy of protection. However, protection of the harmonised values can never go as far as shielding participating Member States from the negative effects of enhanced cooperation laws. The hybrid nature of enhanced cooperation laws—their nexus between the law of a single Member State and secondary EU law—also demands that these laws comply with state aid law. This book shows how the European state aid law provisions should be applied to enhanced cooperation laws. Furthermore, the book also develops a sophisticated approach to the limits non-participating Member States face in ensuring that their actions do not impede the implementation of enhanced cooperation between the participating Member States.


2021 ◽  
Vol 57 ◽  
pp. 1-1
Author(s):  
Monika Jurčová ◽  
Peter Varga

Purpose. The purpose of the article is to assess the conformity of the Slovak solutions with regard to refunds for cancelled travels and their conformity with EU law, i.e. the Package Travel Directive. In the article, the position is analysed of the European Commission and its reflection to Slovak legislation on refunds of travels after cancellation of the breach concerning travels by the travel agencies. Method. Legal analyses regarding the Slovak amendment of Package Travel Act and comparison of its provisions with the Package Travel Directive. Findings. In the article, the way is described as to how the Slovak legislator solved the reimbursement for cancelled travels due to pandemic situation. Also provided is the statement regarding the reasoned opinion of the European Commission that followed the adoption of the amendment of the Slovak Package Travel Act. The authors analyse compatibility of the COVID PTA Amendment with European Union law. In the article, it is described that due to time constraints set by the COVID PTA Amendment for refund because of cancelled travels, non-compliance with EU legislation had probably expired by September 2021. Research and conclusions limitations. The research was focused on EU (Package Travel Directive) and Slovak legislation (Package Travel Act) and assessment of compliance of Slovak with EU law. Practical implications. The article draws attention to the question whether some effects of the COVID PTA Amendment will persist after September 2021 provided that the topical purpose of this legislation to postpone refund for travellers has already been accomplished by setting the deadline for 14 September 2021. Secondly, it raises the question of possible damage suffered by the individuals due to the breach of EU law by the Slovak Republic. Originality. As the article is focused on the most current situation, this topic has not been discussed by other authors in other studies. The authors assume a view that makes assessment regarding legality of the Slovak amendment for Package Travel Act with EU law. Type of paper. Research paper.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document