Vol. 13 (2024)
Precedent in EU Law: The Linguistic Aspect

Special Issues

CJEU Case Law as a Source of Law in National Courts: Language and Multilingualism

Published 15.07.2024

  • Mattias Derlén

Abstract

A number of theories have demonstrated how the distinction between legislation and adjudication is becoming blurred, with judgments no longer treated solely as matters for the parties to the case, but as sources of law in their own right. Case law is increasingly being produced and consumed in a manner akin to legislation. On the production side, it is clear that the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), well-known for its formulas and tests, contributes to the use of case law as a source of law. This article develops the discussion in two ways. Firstly, it concentrates on the consumer perspective, by discussing the use of CJEU case law in national courts. Secondly, it advances the discussion from language in general, in the sense of drafting, to multilingualism ‒ the existence of not one but many official languages ‒ and the consequences for the use of CJEU case law as a source of law. This article demonstrates that national courts are prepared to engage with CJEU case law on a very detailed level, scrutinizing the wording and even comparing different language versions of the judgment to understand the correct way to apply the rule-like pronouncements of the CJEU. This scrutiny includes awareness of de jure and de facto originals of CJEU judgments, but goes still further through the use of the established approach for multilingual interpretation of EU legislation. It also highlights the use of standard phrases in CJEU case law and the consistency of translation.

Cite as: Derlén, JLL 13 (2024), 50–70, DOI: 10.14762/jll.2024.050

Keywords

multilingual interpretation, textualization of precedent, Court of Justice of the European Union, CJEU, national courts

PDF

Author Biography

Mattias Derlén

Mattias Derlén is Professor of Law at the Department of Law, Umeå University, Sweden, working in the fields of EU law, Law & Language and Empirical Legal Studies, with a special interest in multilingual interpretation of European Union law.

References

  1. Brown, Lionel N. & Kennedy, Tom (2000). The Court of Justice of the European Communities. London: Sweet & Maxwell.
  2. Derlén, Mattias (2009). Multilingual Interpretation of European Union Law. European Monographs 67. Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International.
  3. Derlén, Mattias (2011). In Defence of (Limited) Multilingualism: Problems and Possibilities of the Multilingual Interpretation of European Union Law in National Courts. In Kjær & Adamo (Eds.), Linguistic Diversity and European Democracy (pp. 143–166). Farmham: Ashgate.
  4. Derlén, Mattias (2014). Multilingual Interpretation of CJEU Case Law: Rule and Reality. European Law Review, 39(3), 295–315.
  5. Derlén, Mattias (2015a). A Single Text or a Single Meaning: Multilingual Interpretation of EU Legislation and CJEU Case Law in National Courts. In Šarčević (Ed.), Language and Culture in EU Law: Multidisciplinary Perspectives (pp. 53–72). Farnham: Ashgate.
  6. Derlén, Mattias (2015b). Flerspråkighet bortom paralyserande pessimism: Utmaningar och möjligheter för EU-domstolen och svenska domstolar. In Kjær, Engberg, Gabrielsen, Rosenmeir & Schaumburg-Müller (Eds.), Retten i sproget - en antologi om samspillet mellem ret og sprog i juridisk praksis, (pp. 293–308). København: Djøf Forlag.
  7. Derlén, Mattias (2018). Multilingualism and the European Court of Justice: Challenges, Reforms and the Position of English After Brexit. In Guinchard & Granger (Eds.), The New EU Judiciary. An Analysis of Current Judicial Reforms (pp. 341–356). Alphen aan den Rijn: Wolters Kluwer.
  8. Derlén, Mattias & Lindholm, Johan (2014). Goodbye van Gend en Loos, Hello Bosman? Using Network Analysis to Measure the Importance of Individual CJEU Judgments. European Law Journal, 20(5), 667–687. DOI: 10.1111/eulj.12077.
  9. Derlén, Mattias & Lindholm, Johan (2015). Characteristics of Precedent: The Case Law of the European Court of Justice in Three Dimensions. German Law Journal, 16(5), 1073–1098. DOI: 10.1017/S2071832200021040.
  10. Derlén, Mattias & Lindholm, Johan (2017). Peek-A-Boo, It’s a Case Law System! Comparing the European Court of Justice and the United States Supreme Court from a Network Perspective. German Law Journal, 18(3), 647–686. DOI: 10.1017/S2071832200022100.
  11. Doczekalska, Agnieszka (2009). Multilingual Law Drafting in Switzerland. In Grewendorf & Rathert (Eds.), Formal Linguistics and Law (pp. 339–370). Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI: 10.1515/9783110218398.4.339.
  12. Engberg, Jan (2015). Autonomous EU Concepts: Fact or Fiction? In Šarčević (Ed.), Language and Culture in EU Law Multidisciplinary Perspectives, (pp. 169–181). London & New York: Taylor & Francis.
  13. Gallo, Giovanni (2006). Organisation and Features of Translation Activities at the Court of Justice of the European Communities. In Pozzo & Jacometti (Eds.), Multilingualism and the Harmonisation of European Law (pp. 179–196). Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International.
  14. Glanert, Simone (2006). Zur Sprache gebracht: Rechtsvereinheitlichung in Europa. European Review of Private Law, 14(2), 157–174.
  15. Komárek, Jan (2013). Reasoning with Previous Decisions: Beyond the Doctrine of Precedent. The American Journal of Comparative Law, 61(1), 149–171.
  16. McAuliffe, Karen (2013). Precedent at the Court of Justice of the European Union: The Linguistic Aspect. In Freeman & Smith (Eds.), Law and Language. Current Legal Issues Volume 15. Oxford: University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199673667.003.0297.
  17. McAuliffe, Karen (2020). Creating Multilingual Law: Language and Translation at the Court of Justice of the European Union. In Coulthard, May & Sousa-Silva (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics (pp. 64–78). London: Routledge.
  18. Teuben, Karlijn & Tjong Tjin Tai, Eric (2008). European Precedent Law. European Review of Private Law, 16(5), 827–841.
  19. Tiersma, Peter M. (2007). The Textualization of Precedent. SSRN Electronic Journal, 82(3), 1187–1278. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.680901.
  20. Wolf, Redmar A. (2011). VAT Carousel Fraud: A European Problem from a Dutch Perspective. INTERTAX, 39(1), 26–37.
  21. /81, Srl CILFIT and Lanificio di Gavardo SpA v Ministry of Health, ECLI:EU:C:1982:335.
  22. /83, D.A. Rompelman and E.A. Rompelman-Van Deelen v Minister van Financiën, ECLI:EU:C:1985:74.
  23. /87, Athanasios Kalfelis v Bankhaus Schröder, Münchmeyer, Hengst and Co. and others, ECLI:EU:C:1988:459.
  24. /88, Skatteministeriet v Morten Henriksen, ECLI:EU:C:1989:329.
  25. C-98/98, Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Midland Bank plc, ECLI:EU:C:2000:300.
  26. C-235/00, Commissioners of Customs & Excise v CSC Financial Services Ltd, ECLI:EU:C:2001:696.
  27. C-334/00, Fonderie Officine Meccaniche Tacconi SpA v Heinrich Wagner Sinto Maschinenfabrik GmbH (HWS), ECLI:EU:C:2002:499.
  28. C-12/03, Commission of the European Communities v Tetra Laval BV, ECLI:EU:C:2005:87.
  29. C-109/03, KPN Telecom BV v Onafhankelijke Post en Telecommunicatie Autoriteit (OPTA), ECLI:EU:C:2004:749.
  30. C-458/03, Parking Brixen GmbH v Gemeinde Brixen and Stadtwerke Brixen AG, ECLI:EU:C:2005:605.
  31. C-144/04, Werner Mangold v Rüdiger Helm, ECLI:EU:C:2005:709.
  32. C-409/04, The Queen, on the application of Teleos plc and Others v Commissioners of Customs & Excise, EU:C:2007:548.
  33. C-439/04 and C-440/04, Axel Kittel v Belgian State (C-439/04) and Belgian State v Recolta Recycling SPRL (C-440/04), EU:C:2006:446.
  34. C-446/04, Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation v Commissioners of Inland Revenue, ECLI:EU:C:2006:774.
  35. C-341/05, Laval un Partneri Ltd v Svenska Byggnadsarbetareförbundet, Svenska Byggnadsarbetareförbundets avdelning 1, Byggettan and Svenska Elektrikerförbundet, ECLI:EU:C:2007:809.
  36. C-342/05, Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland, ECLI:EU:C:2007:341.
  37. C-271/06, Netto Supermarkt GmbH & Co. OHG v Finanzamt Malchin, ECLI:EU:C:2008:105.
  38. C-413/06, Bertelsmann AG and Sony Corporation of America v Independent Music Publishers and Labels Association (Impala), ECLI:EU:C:2008:392.
  39. C-304/07, Directmedia Publishing GmbH v Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, ECLI:EU:C:2008:552.
  40. C-285/09, Criminal proceedings against R, ECLI:EU:C:2010:742.
  41. C-497/10, Barbara Mercredi v Richard Chaffe, ECLI:EU:C:2010:829.
  42. C-617/10, Åklagaren v Hans Åkerberg Fransson, Order of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 7 May 2013, Rectification of a judgment, ECLI:EU:C:2013:280.
  43. C-215/14, Société de Produits Nestlé SA v Cadbury UK Ltd, ECLI:EU:C:2015:604.
  44. C-413/15, Elaine Farrell v Alan Whitty, The Minister for the Environment, Ireland and the Attorney General, Motor Insurers Bureau of Ireland (MIBI), Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston delivered on 22 June 2017, ECLI:EU:C:2017:492.
  45. Decision by Konkurrenceankenævnet den 3. november 2008 i sag nr. 2008-0016416.
  46. Megtian Limited (In Administration) v. Her Majesty’s Commissioners of Revenue and Customs, London Tribunal Centre, 11 December 2008.
  47. The Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs, [2008] EWHC 2893 (Ch).
  48. Mobile Export 365 Ltd v The Commissioners for HM Revenue & Customs, [2009] EWHC 797 (Ch).
  49. The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs v Livewire Telecom Limited, High Court of Justice Chancery Division, [2009] EWHC 15 (Ch).
  50. Mobilx Ltd (in Administration), The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs, Calltel Telecom Ltd & Anr v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs, Blue Sphere Global Ltd, The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs, [2010] EWCA Civ 517.
  51. Matrix Europe Limited (In Liquidation) v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, [2011] UKFTT 792 (TC).
  52. Midland Mortgages Limited, Midland Enterprises UK Limited, Midland Communications UK Limited v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, [2011] UKFTT 631 (TC).
  53. Volkswagen Financial Services (UK) Limited v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, [2011] UKFTT 556 (TC).
  54. Mavisat Ltd v Revenue and Customs Commissioners, [2012] UKFTT 253 (TC).
  55. Powa (Jersey) Limited v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, [2012] UKUT 50 TCC.
  56. Spearmint Blue Limited v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, [2012] UKFTT 103 (TC).
  57. The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v S&I Electronics plc, [2012] UKUT 87 (TCC).
  58. DL v EL v Reunite International Child Abduction Centre, Centre for Family Law and Practice, [2013] EWCA Civ 865.
  59. In the matter of A (Children), [2013] UKSC 60.
  60. R v A, [2013] EWHC 692 (Fam).
  61. Universal Enterprises (EU) Limited v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, [2015] UKUT 0311 (TCC).
  62. BP v DP (Children) (Wrongful Retention: Anticipatory Breach), [2016] EWHC 633 (Fam).
  63. Société Des Produits Nestlé SA v Cadbury UK Ltd (No 2), [2016] EWHC 50 (Ch).
  64. KMIvSMO, [2017] SC HAM 22.
  65. BVerwG, Beschluss vom 17.4.2010 ‒ 9 B 5. 10.
  66. BVerfG, Beschluss vom 6.7.2010 ‒ 2 BvR 2661/ 06.
  67. RÅ 2003 ref 80.
  68. NJA 2007 s. 287.
  69. AD 2009 nr 89.
  70. RÅ 2009 ref. 49.
  71. RH 2010:23.
  72. HovR T 2179-11.
  73. RK 2012:3.
  74. HovR T 7499-16.