Table Of ContentSilvia Marino · Łucja Biel
Martina Bajčić · Vilelmini Sosoni Editors
Language
and Law
The Role of Language and Translation in
EU Competition Law
Language and Law
(cid:129) Ł (cid:129) č ć (cid:129)
Silvia Marino ucja Biel Martina Baj i
Vilelmini Sosoni
Editors
Language and Law
The Role of Language and Translation
in EU Competition Law
Editors
SilviaMarino ŁucjaBiel
DepartmentofLaw,Economicsand InstituteofAppliedLinguistics
Culture UniversityofWarsaw
UniversityofInsubria Warsaw,Poland
Como,Italy
MartinaBajčić VilelminiSosoni
FacultyofLaw,DepartmentofForeign DepartmentofForeignLanguages,Translation
Languages &Interpretation
UniversityofRijeka IonianUniversity
Rijeka,Croatia Corfu,Greece
TheProjectisco-financedbytheCommissionoftheEuropeanUnion,DGCompetition(Ref.:HT:
4983, Call for proposals 2015: Training of National Judges in EU Competition Law and Judicial
CooperationbetweenNationalCompetitionLawJudges).
ISBN978-3-319-90904-2 ISBN978-3-319-90905-9 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90905-9
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2018959222
©SpringerNatureSwitzerlandAG2018
Thisworkissubjecttocopyright.AllrightsarereservedbythePublisher,whetherthewholeorpartofthe
materialisconcerned,specificallytherightsoftranslation,reprinting,reuseofillustrations,recitation,
broadcasting,reproductiononmicrofilmsorinanyotherphysicalway,andtransmissionorinformation
storageandretrieval,electronicadaptation,computersoftware,orbysimilarordissimilarmethodology
nowknownorhereafterdeveloped.
Theuseofgeneraldescriptivenames,registerednames,trademarks,servicemarks,etc.inthispublication
doesnotimply,evenintheabsenceofaspecificstatement,thatsuchnamesareexemptfromtherelevant
protectivelawsandregulationsandthereforefreeforgeneraluse.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
bookarebelievedtobetrueandaccurateatthedateofpublication.Neitherthepublishernortheauthorsor
theeditorsgiveawarranty,expressorimplied,withrespecttothematerialcontainedhereinorforany
errorsoromissionsthatmayhavebeenmade.Thepublisherremainsneutralwithregardtojurisdictional
claimsinpublishedmapsandinstitutionalaffiliations.
ThisSpringerimprintispublishedbytheregisteredcompanySpringerNatureSwitzerlandAG
Theregisteredcompanyaddressis:Gewerbestrasse11,6330Cham,Switzerland
Contents
Introduction:TheRoleoftheLanguageinEULaw. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
SilviaMarino
PartI PublicandPrivateEnforcementofEULaw
inaCooperativePerspective
OnEconomicRationaleofCompetitionPolicy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
FlaviaCortelezzi
AnOverviewoftheRecentApplicationofEUandNational
CompetitionLawbytheItalianCompetitionAuthority. . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
PaoloCaprile
TheCJEUCaseLawAfterPreliminaryRulingonBehalfofPrivate
EnforcementofEUCompetitionLaw. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
MarJimeno-Bulnes
TheDirectEffectofEUCompetitionLaw:FromRegulation
No1/2003toDirective2014/104/EU. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
MarinaSanMartín-Calvo
JurisdictionandApplicableLawinFollow-onActions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
PaoloBertoli
ContemporaryTrendsinInternationalLawinRelationtotheProtection
ofIndividualsfromMultinationals’Malpractice:GreekCompetition
LawAftertheImplementationofEUDirective2014/104. . . . . . . . . . . . 103
SotiriosS.Livas
EUCompetitionLawintheAftermathofDirective2014/14
andItsImplementationintheRepublicofCroatia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
AnaPošćić
v
vi Contents
EUCompetitionLawAfterDirective2014/104/EU
andItsImplementationinItaly. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
SilviaMarino
PartII LinguisticAspectsofDrafting,Translating,Interpreting
andImplementingEUCompetitionLaw
LegalLanguagesinContact:EULegislativeDrafting
andItsConsequencesforJudicialInterpretation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
AgnieszkaDoczekalska
LanguageandTranslationinEUCompetitionLaw:Insights
fromEnglish,Greek,ItalianandSpanishVersions
ofLegislativeTexts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
VilelminiSosoni
AMutualLearningExerciseinTerminologyandMultilingualLaw. . . . 207
MartinaBajčićandAdrijanaMartinović
BinomialsinEUCompetitionLaw. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
KatjaDobrićBasaneže
CollocationsofTermsinEUCompetitionLaw:ACorpusAnalysis
ofEUEnglishCollocations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249
ŁucjaBiel,AgnieszkaBiernacka,andAnnaJopek-Bosiacka
TheGlossaryofEUEnglishCompetitionCollocationsandTerms. . . . . 275
ŁucjaBiel,AgnieszkaBiernacka,andAnnaJopek-Bosiacka
PhraseologicalProfileofJudgments:ComplexPrepositions
inEUCompetitionLawJudgments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325
DariuszKoźbiał
PlainEnglishandtheEU:StillTryingtoFighttheFog?. . . . . . . . . . . . 359
AriannaGrasso
Introduction: The Role of the Language
in EU Law
SilviaMarino
1 Multilingualism in the EU as a Tool to strengthen
Democracy
TheEuropeanUnion’s(EU)legalsystemraisesmanychallengesforthelawyer.One
ofthoseismultilingualism.Allthelegalactsandmeasuresmustbedraftedinallthe
24officiallanguagesoftheEU.1Itisnotthefirstexampleofamultilingualsystem,
butitissurelythemostprominent.
Theideabehindthischoice—i.e.theuseofallthenationalofficiallanguagesas
EU official languages—is the promotion of the democratic principle within the
EU. The possibility to use every official national language is a necessary tool in
ordertoputEUcitizensandinstitutionsintocontact.Furthermore,itmakessomeof
therightsgrantedbytheEUTreatieseffective.
Article24oftheTreatyontheFunctioningoftheEuropeanUnion(TFEU)grants
everyEUcitizentherighttoaddresstheEUinstitutionsinanyEUofficiallanguage,
and toreceive an answer inthe same language. This right isan integral part ofthe
democraticprinciple,sinceitaimsatcreatingastablelinkbetweenthecitizensand
theEU.Still,itwouldbearathertheoreticalright,ifthecitizenswereobligedtouse
a foreign language. The opportunity to use native languages makes it easier to
contacttheEUinstitutionseffectively.
The same is true if we think of the rights to file a complaint with the European
ombudsman (Article 228 TFEU), and to address a petition to the European Parlia-
ment(Article227TFEU).
1RegulationNo1,determiningthelanguagestobeusedbytheEuropeanEconomicCommunity,as
amended(OJL17,6.10.1958,p.385).
S.Marino(*)
DepartmentofLaw,EconomicsandCulture,UniversityofInsubria,Como,Italy
e-mail:[email protected]
©SpringerNatureSwitzerlandAG2018 1
S.Marinoetal.(eds.),LanguageandLaw,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90905-9_1
2 S.Marino
Furthermore, all the legal binding acts addressed to the general public must be
draftedinalltheofficiallanguages.Thisrulesafeguardsthecitizens’righttobeable
tounderstandthelaw:everyonecanhaveadirectandeffectiveaccesstothelaw.The
CourtofJusticeoftheEuropeanUnion(CJEU)hasalreadymadeitclearthatanEU
bindingmeasuredoesnotproduceanyeffectagainstthecitizensofaMemberState,
until it is published in the Official Journal in the official language of that Member
State.2
EU citizens might have an active role within the EU, too. Under Article 2 of
Protocol No 2 on the Application of the Principles of Subsidiarity and Proportion-
ality, the Commission shall consult widely before proposing legislative acts.
According to the general praxis, the Commission publishes a Green Paper, a
non-binding document wherein the institution assesses the problem to be tackled,
suggests possible solutions and submits questions to the civil society. Everyone is
invited to give their view on the topic, following the guidelines and the queries
presentedby the Commission. The right to take part toconsultations would prove,
oncemore,highlyineffectiveiftheGreenPaperswerewritten—andiftheanswers
wereacceptable—onlyinselectedlanguages.
In this framework, the European ombudsman has already made it clear that EU
citizensmustbegrantedaneffectiverighttotakeparttoconsultations.3Indeed,itis
not reasonable to expect participation without understanding: if the consultations
kick-offdocumentsaredraftedonlyinEnglish,allthenon-Englishspeakingcitizens
are excluded, thus preventing from reaching the target of a large consultation. If
there is no obligation to publish everything in every official language, restrictions
mustbeobjectivelyjustified.Limitedfinancialresourcesandtimeconstraintsdonot
amount to insurmountable difficulties in order to translate the consultation docu-
mentsintoalltheofficiallanguages.Theinstitutionsmustatleastgrantfullorpartial
translationsuponrequest,orgivethebasicinformationontheconsultationinallthe
EUofficiallanguages.
2 Interpretation of Multilingual Treaties
Promoting the democratic principle through the use of native languages creates
practicalandeconomicaldifficultiesrelatedtothetranslationandtheinterpretation
of all the EU legal binding and general measures. Indeed, the institutions use a
selected group of working languages (usually English, French, German, to a more
limitedextentSpanishandItalian,andinthenextfuturePolish),andthefirstdraftof
legalactsissubmittedinoneofthoselanguages.Nevertheless,thetranspositionof
2CaseC-161/06SkomaLux[2007]ECRI-10841,ECLI:EU:C:2007:773.
3DecisionoftheEuropeanOmbudsmanclosinghisinquiryintocomplaint640/2011/ANagainstthe
EuropeanCommission,4October2012.AvailableviaEUROPEANOMBUDSMAN.https://www.
ombudsman.europa.eu/en/cases/decision.faces/el/12009/html.bookmark.Accessed15Apr2018.
Introduction:TheRoleoftheLanguageinEULaw 3
legal concepts into many languages is not an automatic operation. Every legal
concept has aprecisemeaningthat could even notexist altogether inanotherlegal
system. The translation must be as accurate as possible: the output is legally not a
translation,butanofficial version oftheact. Theexistenceofanumberofofficial
versionsmightbringinterpretativeconcernsforthejurist.
According to the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of the Treaties, all the
officiallanguageshavethesamerelevance.Therefore,theinterpretationofarulein
aninternational Conventionmusttake all thelinguistic versionsintodue consider-
ation, and look for a meaning that is acceptable in all of them (Article 33 of the
Convention). Usually, international Conventions are written in no more than three
languages. The United Nations Organisation has six official languages (English,
French,Spanish,Russian,Arab,andChinese).ThechallengewithintheEU,withits
24officiallanguages,isapparentlybigger.
TheinterpretationofEULawdoesnotdisregardthisfundamentalgeneralruleof
international law. Many examples demonstrate that the CJEU analyses different
linguisticversionsinordertointerpretthesamerule,inallthefieldswithintheEU
competence.One ofthemostrecentandmeaningfulexamplesisthe JZcase.4The
primary concern related to the meaning of the word ‘detention’ for the purpose of
Article 26(1)oftheframeworkDecision2002/584ontheEuropeanarrest warrant.
The Court scrutinised six different linguistic versions (German, Greek, French,
English,Polish,andDutch),dividingthemintothreegroups,inordertodemonstrate
thattheliteral interpretationwasnotenoughinordertoreachauniquemeaningof
theword.Indeed,itgaverisetothreepossibledifferentinterpretationsoftheword.5
3 The Procedure for Preliminary Ruling in the EU
In this framework, the relevance of the procedure for preliminary ruling in the EU
should be immediately clear. Only a central judicial body can have the necessary
competence to duly scrutinise a multilingual text and to analyse its legal meaning
and impact. An open oriented and comparative perspective can be more easily
granted within a European body: the CJEU’s judges come from all the Member
States,andeachofthemcantakeadvantageofthecooperationofotherjurists—as
theAdvocatesgeneralandtheircollaborators.
This is one of the reasons for the extremely high success of the procedure for
preliminary ruling. It is rather impossible for national Courts to face 24 different
languages and 28 jurisdictions, given that the meaning of technical words and
4CaseC-294/16JZ[2016]ECLI:EU:C:2016:610.
5ThefirstknowncasewheretheCourtadoptedawide-linguisticapproachexpresslyisthejudgment
issuedonCase29/69Stauder[1969]ECR419,ECLI:EU:C:1969:57.Atthetime,theEUcounted
onlyfourofficiallanguages,butallofthemwereanalysedinordertounderstandtheexactmeaning
of the expression: bon individualisé, buono individualizzato, auf ihren Namen ausgestellten
Gitschein,opnaamgesteldebon(seeBajčićandMartinovićinofthisbook).
4 S.Marino
expressionsdependsonnationallegaltraditions.Atthesametime,onenationallegal
and linguistic tradition cannot prevail over the others: such a solution would be
discriminatory and might jeopardise the uniform interpretation and application of
EU Law. Therefore, the CJEU has opted for an autonomous interpretation of EU
Law.SincetheEUisanownlegalsystemautonomousfromnationaljurisdictions,
withspecialandoriginalnature,6itslawcannotbesubjecttonationaltraditionsand
legalcategoriesandcannotbeinterpretedaccordingtonationallaw.EULawhasits
meaning, which might depend both on the comparison of the various linguistic
versions and a legal comparative approach to the meaning of the words and
expressions used in such linguistic versions. Furthermore, the judgment is binding
ergaomnes,i.e.notonlyontherequestingCourt,butonallthebodiesthatwillneed
tointerpretandapplytheruleinthefuture.
National judges are well aware of the impact of the procedure for preliminary
ruling, as demonstrated by the statistics. In 2017, 533 requests for preliminary
rulings were brought, which represents about 30% of all the cases filed with the
CJEU(includingtheGeneralCourt).
Thistaskissoimportantthatnationalcourtsoflastinstanceareunderadutyto
refer a preliminary question to the CJEU (Article 267 TFEU). The rule aims at
grantingthecorrectapplicationofEULawinlast-instancecases,sincenoordinary
remedy against it is possible, and ‘wrong’ precedents issued by a generally highly
distinguishednationalcourtmightneverthelessinfluencethefuturecaselaw.
4 The Acte Claire Principle
Thesedutiesarenotwithoutexception.AccordingtotheCILFITjudgment,7inthree
cases the duty becomes a faculty: the last instance Court has a full margin of
appreciation in order to evaluate the opportunity to refer. One of these exceptions
isaparamountexampleoftheroleofmultilingualisminEULaw.Thereisnodutyto
refer to the CJEU if the rule to be interpreted and applied is clear. But what does
clearmeaninthisframework,with24officiallanguagesandthescatteredapplica-
tionofEULaw?Inpara.16theCJEUstatedthat:
thecorrectapplicationofCommunitylawmaybesoobviousastoleavenoscopeforany
reasonabledoubtastothemannerinwhichthequestionraisedistoberesolved.Beforeit
comes to the conclusion that such is the case, the national court or tribunal must be
convincedthatthematterisequallyobvioustothecourtsoftheotherMemberStatesand
totheCourtofJustice.
Thenationalcourtdecidingthecasemustbeconvincedthatthecourtsseatingin
other Member States would reach the same interpretative conclusion. It is not
enough to refer to the legal categories of each legal system. The judge must also
6Case6/64Costac.ENEL[1964]ECR1141,ECLI:EU:C:1964:66.
7Case283/81CILFIT[1982]3415,ECLI:EU:C:1982:335.
