1.
EU mult ilingualism and it s consequences
Łucj a Biel
Translation of Multilingual EU Legislation
as a Sub-genre of Legal Translation
TheautholiDoctor of Humanitiesin Linguistics, is a reseąrcherof theI nstitute
of English, lJniversity of Gda sk, Poland, a graduate of the Chicago-Kent
ś ,hoil of Law, a pr.actisingtranslator of economic and legal texts, and a
sworntranslator.
The typology of texts may raise the translator's awarenessof text
functions * a fu.ilitate the choice of transtation strategies. The term
genre/ text type refers to "the specific classes of texts characteristic of
i giv"n scientific community or professional group and distinguished
from each other by certain featureśof vocabulary form and style' which
are wholly function-specific and conventional in nature" (Alcaraz and
Hughes iOOZ, l0l). I l is generally ackn-owledgedthat legal texts con-
st it ut e a separat eiegist eiof language for special purposes,.which is
further divided into a number of genr"s according to functions. The
most t radit ional bipanit er approach divides legal t ext s int o regt t lat ory
(prescript ive)and informat iv.e(descript ive)ones (Śarć ević 1997: 1,I ),
* ni.r' ii similar to WrÓblewski's classification of legal language into
the language of the law (ię'yk prawa) and the metalanguag.9of the law
there are more detailed classifi-
6ę'yk f,.uini"'y) (1948').tn ał aition,
Jutio"' of legali.* i', for example, Gćmar distinguishes the language
of the legislaior, judges, the administration, commerce, private law and
scholar{ writinls tł to. in Śarćević 1997 9)2. I n this paper it will be
arguedtirat owinlgtolts unique featuresand constraints of multilingual-
isir, the languagJof EU legislation is distinct from that of national leg-
islaiion. fort niJreason t he t ranslat ionof Communit y legislat ionshould
be treated as a distinct sub-genreof legal translation.
1 Somethęoristsproposea tripartiteclassificationof legal language(cf.
Śarć ević| 997: 1L) .
2 A differentclassificationis proposedby Alcaraz and Hughes(f002:
101) .
r44
one of the most vital factors that impact the language of EU leg-
islat ion is mult ilingualism. Wit hin linguist ics it refers eit her t o indi-
viduals (bilingualism) or t o t he linguist ic sit uat ion of a nat ion/ socieĘ
and is divided into symmetrical multilingualism with the equal statui
of all the languages and asymmetrical multilingualism wheie at least
one languagehas a higher st at us(Clyne 1997: 301). Typical mult ilin-
gual countries include Switzerland, Belgium and Canada. However,
EU multilingualism goes beyond the traditional understanding of this
term as it refers to the linguistic situation of f5 Member StateJwith20
official languages3and approximately 60 other indigenous languages
that were not recognized as official languages (A Ńew Framiwoik\ .
The language situation in each Member State is either monolingual or
symmet rically/ asymmet ricallymult ilingual. Ępical consequencesof
mult ilingualism, such as t he mut ual mixing of languag.s, .ob. swit ch-
ing and individual bilingualism, occur t o a much smaller ext ent .
Above all, t he main dist inct ivefeat ureof EU mult ilingualism is t he
mandatory equal treatmentof all the official languages.The EU is com-
mit t ed t o respect 'it s rich cult ural and linguist ic diversit y'and achieve
'unit y in
'parit y
diversit y' (Art icle I -3 of t he Const it ut ion). as well as t he
of st at usfor 20 languages'(Translat ing... 2005: 14).The mult i-
lingualism policy, as specified in A llleł yFrumework Strateg1l Mul-
for
tilingualism, aims at giving citizens access to Community legislation
and information in their native languagesa.Since Communitylaw has
primacy over national law (the doctrine of European legal supremacy)
and ignorantia iuris nocet, this egalitarian approach to all the official
languages is a political necessity that guaraniees certainty of the law
and e-qualityof all the EU citizens before the law. Multilingualism is,
therefore, a method of avoiding linguistic disenfranchisement5.
3 2l from 2007 (I rish).
aAs a result, thę scale of EU
translations is remarkablę. The very acquis
communautaire, which has to be translatęd into the language of each new
member, has approx. 80,000 pages (the 2004 data). Thę cost of translation in
all the EU institutions is ęstimatedat EUR 807m per yęar (the2005 EU budget
was EUR | 05,22lm); cf. Press Relęases Rapid 13 January 2005: Translation
in the Commission: where do we stand eight months after the enlargement?
5Aperson is regardedas..linguistically
disęnfranchisedwhen h-e/ shędoes
not speak any of the official languages either as a native or second (or third)
language" (Fidrmuc and Ginsburgh 2005: 4 frr l).
145

I n accordancewith the multilingualism policy, EU-wide legislation
- since it is binding on all EU citizens - is adopted in all the official lan-
guagesof t he EU. fhis issue was regulat edby Council Regulat ion No'
T oi1958 det erminingt he languagest o be used by t he European Eco-
nomic Community 1ui amended from time to time after each enlarge-
ment). I ts Article 4 specifies that regulations a-ndother documents of
geneial application ur. to be drafted in all the official languagesand that
it. Om.ial Jou* ul of the European Communities shall be published in
all the languages.However, it iś not only a m-atterof publishing legisla.
tion in all the official languagesbut, most of all, the fact that from the
legal point of view all languageversions are equally valid and authen-
tic6 and in case of interpietaiive doubts no version is more authentic
than the other.As a ..r,.,lt, there is no original and no translations; all
languageversions form a single legal instrument presumed to have the
same meantng rn all the languages.This approach is referred to as the
principle of flurilinguist iJequalify (van Els 2001), t he principle of
ević | _99] :64),or the PEAT, i.e. the princip| e
lqual autheniicity (ś arÓ
of equalit y of aut hent ic t ext s (Doczekalska2005)'
it remains an open question whether it is possible to achieve the
same meaning in 2d languages. Wagner from the Translation Service
of t he Europein Commission not est hat it is a legal fict ion and "a feat
of legal magic which defies all logic but is nevert helessnecessary t o
a similar view is expressedby
safegiiard liiguistic equality" (2000: f); ..admirable
w.i!,r't, whoŹescribes this principle as in its idealism and
.orrJ.* to maintain equality between groups' but utopian".(qtd' in van
Els 2001: 3f7). Having regardt o maj or sęmant ict heories,in part icular
to the views of Humb ldt, weisg.'6eą Wittgenstein, the Sapir-Whorf
hypothesis or Cognitive Linguistics, meaning construal is language
specific and it is n6t feasible to map th9 !L nętwork of concepts on the
TL network of conceptswith utter precision. Furthermore' as arguedby
Gizbert-Studnicki, legal registers incorporate language-.specificlegal
views of the * o.id < iO$ Ar u result, in practice multilingualism is
not problematic in typical multilingual countries such as Belgium or
6 I t was also confirmed by the European Court of Justicę in Case f8fl8|
Srl CI LFI T and Lanificio di Gavardo SpA v Ministry of Health: "Commu-
nity tegistation is drafied in several languagesand (...) the different language
versions arę all equally authentic''.
r46
Canada becausetheir legal registersincorporatethe same legal view of
the world, which stemsfrom identical historical sourcesand is adjusted
under t he samepract icalneeds(200l: 49).I n cont rast ,EU mult ilingual-
ism is much more complex as it incorporat est he supranat ionallinguis-
t ic view of t he world expressedin t he EU-wide legislat ion, which is
imposed on the country-specific linguistic views of the world set forth
in the national legislation of each Member State.
I n order to make EU multilingualism practicable, it was necęSsary
to adjust the language of input texts to make it translatableinto other
l9 languages(see 2.r), and to adopt a more flexible approach to statu-
torily interpretation. I nterpretive doubts are settled by the European
Court of Justice (ECJ), which is the supreme authority on Community
law (Steiner and Woods 2003: 26). The ECJ follows the Continental
interpretativeapproachcalled the teleological approach(Mcl.eod 2005:
328). As argued by Hanis, the ECJ "is far more creative and proactive
in its interpretations"than English courts (qtd. in Stychin and Mulcahy
2003: 102),which mainly apply the literal approach (Slapper and Kelly
2003: 173). The difference between the English and EU approach was
lucidly explained by Lord Diplock in R v Henn [ 1981]AC 850:
'The EuropeanCourt, in
contrastto English courts,appliesteleological
ratherthan historicalmethodsto the interpretation
of the Treatięsand other
Communitylegislation.I t seeksto give effęctto what it conceivesto be the
spirit rat her t han t helet t erof t hęTreat ies;somet imęs,
indeed,t o an English
judge, it may Sęęmto the ęxclusionof the lettęr.I t viewsthe Communitiesas
living and expandingorganismsandtheinterpretation of thęprovisionsof thę
Treatiesas changingto matchtheirgrowth.'(qtd.in SteinerandWoods2003:
26, emphasismine)
A less rigorous approach to the letter of the law leaves the ECJ
some room for manoeuvre to overcome discrepancies between the
languages. What is important for translators is that this teleological
approach involves interpretationof multilingual law by comparison of
all t he languageversions. Doczekalska list s a number of j udgement s
issued by the ECJ that recommend this proceduro, o.g. Case zlzl} l Srl
CI LFI T and Lanificio di Gavardo SpA v Ministry of Health ("an inter-
pretation of a provision of Community law thus involves a comparison
of the different languageversions") (2005: 8-9). The ECJ's judg-ements
stressthat in order to ensurethe uniform application and interyretation
of multilingual Community law it is necessary to interpret it on the
basis of the actual intentionof the authorsor even the purpose and gen-
147
 (Case growing use of English is problemat ic becauset he common-law con-
eral scheme of the act emerging from all the language verllilts ceptual network of legal English shows alarger distanceto the civil-law
C-f68l99 Jany v Staatssu,,utoii' van Justitie1 and Case 30171 Rćgina
conceptual networks of continental legal registers. For example, legal
v Pierre Bouchereous). Polish bears more concept ual similarit y t o legal German and Frenih
t han t o legal English. For t his reason t ranslat orsare recommendedt o
2. Nat ional and EU legislat ion in t ranslat ion: a comparison consult not only the English version but also other language versions.
This section discusses the main dif[ erences betweęn the transla- I n order to arrive at the samemeaning (or rather to convey the same
from
tion of national legislation and Community legislation,. starting legislative intent) in 20 languages, the drafting language undergoes a
the language of thJ law, the recipients, translation function and status' certain degree of deculturalisation. As noted by van Els, deculturali-
directiJnuflty of translafion,the tianslator's role, the approach to equiv- sation or the reduction of the cultural embedding is typical of lingua
alence,and consequencesoferrors (seeTable 1)' francas (f00I : 329). A similar process is referred to by Craith as deter-
rit orialisat ionll, in part icular t o describe t he role of French and Eng-
2.1..Draft ing languages: dist inguishing feat ures of t he input t ext lish in t he EU (f006: 50). Van Els illust rat esdecult uralisat ionwit h t lie
aircraft manuals in the so-called 'controlled English', which are drafted
At the EU level, legislation is drafted in one of the drafting lan-
according t o t he simplified lexical and grammat ical guidelines (2001:
guages (procedural/ woJ< ing languages),which show some properties
other 329).I n a way, a phenomenonof semantic and syntactic simplification
6r u ri"gi' a francaand in fact rraveŁmore privileged statusthan
t ext s were draft ed applies to the EU drafting languagesand the input text to make them
languag"es. I n 2004, about 62 per cent of t he original
in German and 8.8 per t ranslat ableint o 19 ot her official languages.As not ed by Kaduczak,
in E.,giirh,f6 per cent in French, 3.1 per cent
for a lawyer-linguist from the European Commission, "the drafter has to
cent in t he ot hęr 17 languageswit hin1h" Eu'opean Commission;
per of inputs and take into account constraintsof other languagesand avoid any'idiolin-
comparison, in I ggf Engrisn was used in 35 9911
t he guist ic'solut ions"( f 005: 38) . For example,it is recommendedt o avoid
French in 47 per cent o-f input s ( Translat ing..-2005: 6) ' From
and English system-specificterms of national law when drafting the EU legislation
figures it is apparentt hat t he use of French is declininge
t hat for and replace them with more neutral terms, aesthetic aspects being of
becomes t he main draft ing language.lt should be also not ed
Hungary and Croatia, secondary importance, "in Community law it is often necessary to
practical reasons some co-untries,..g. Estonia,
avoid a term of national law which has no satisfactory equivalent in
did not translate acquis communotttairefrom the originals -butmainly
a sub- one or more Member Statesand which does not cover exactly a given
from English, which means that a large part was translatedfrom
is worth noting that the notion or corTespondsto a more general notion. I n such a case a nę%
sequentiranslationlo(Doczekalska ZOOS:6). I t
more appropriate,term should be used in its place (even if it is perhaps
7 ..The uniform application of Community rulęs requires that they be less elegant)',(Manual of Precedents 2002: 98). Similar recommenÓa-
person who draftęd tions are given to drafters in Principle 5 of the Joint Practical Guide
interpreted in accordanc.ęwith thę actua| intention of the
pursued by that pęrson' in particular in the light of thę of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, which
tr,.* and thę objective
versions drawn up in all languages". specifies that "draft acts shall be framed in terms and sentence struc-
8 ..The diffęrent language versions of a Community text must be given a tures which respect the multilingual nature of Community legislation;
the ver.
uniform interpretation aid [ .'.. in the casę of divergencę betwęęn conceptsor terminology specific to any one national legal system are to
question must be interpreted by referęnce to thę purpose be used with care" (2003: l7). For example, the supranationalterm sub-
sions the provision in
and general schemę of thę rules of which it forms apart,,.
eApart from the Court of Justice'
toThe UK joined the EEC on 1 January 1973 while the EEC was estab- 11defined by Lull as ..partialtearing
apart of cultural structuręs,ręlation.
before the ships, settingsand representations"(qtd. in Craith 2006: 50).
lished in L957 and some primary legislation was already existing
Earlięr official languagęs węre French, Dutch, German and
accęssion datę.
I talian.
149
148
sidiariĘ is preferred to the UK-specific term devolutio.le(Wagner et al. a collective redundancy procedure to be observed
200f: 64).I t is emphasisedt hat count ry-specificlegal t erms are likely by establishments.
This term was assigned different meanings in the
to lead to translation problems and when they do not have equivalents tung,ru!" v".rions,
including an undertaĘng, work centre, tical unit
and place of work.
in ot her syst ems,t hey may be t ranslat edonly t hrough 'circumlocut ions The Danish company Rockfon A/ S dismissedca. 25
or approximations' and will result in discrepancies between the lan- emproyeeswit hout
the observanceof the collective b.argaining_ procedur., .oritending that
guage versions (Joint Practical Guide 2003: 19). it was not an 'establishment'
undeiDaniJtr taw. I n iis judgement the
I n addition to some degree of deculturalisation and decontex- ECJ clearly statedthat community raw concepts
cannot be defined by
tualisation and functioning as a 'multicultural contact-point of the referenceto national law. As manifested abov.,'Co* -"rity
various cult ures'(Koskinen 2000: 58), EU legal languagehas creat ed lu* uses its
own concepts but may access them through terms
that are shared with
a common legal culture of its ownl2 on the basis of acquis communau- national law. As a result, one of the disting"uishing
featuresof pu trans-
taire (cf. Wagner 2000: 3). I n fact, it developed a distinct supranational lations is 'the blurred divisions of languafes and cultures,
conceptual network. As emphasisedby the ECJ, the terminology of EU as translation
is frequently intracultural (Koskinen ) OOb: SO; .
legislat ion is 'peculiar't o it and in consequence"legal concept sdo not Apart from the semanticsimplification, the language
necessarily have the same meaning in Community law and in the law of EU legisla_
tion is marked by some syntactic^ simplfication.princiile
of the various member states" (Case f82181 Srl CLI FI T and Lanfficio t oline Joint
Practical Guide says that to account-fo; multilingualism
di Gavardo SpA v Ministry of Health). What is problematic is that EU EU lelislation
requires a clear, simple and precise language to ensure .the
legislation is drafted in languageswhose legal terms already have fixed equality of
cit izens bef oret he.law't hrough .o.pi" h." nriul.
law ( 2003: r0) . I t is
connot at ions(Heut ger2005: 209)t 3.I naddit iont o new concept s,t he EU further recommended to use weryaay tunguu!"
as ..where necessary
conceptual network consists of old national concepts with completely of expression should take prec.a* I i."'over felicity of styre,,
or partially overlapping boundaries.Thus, a given legal term may have 9lTry
(2003: ll). I t em 5.2.2. inst ruct sdraft erst o avoid
t oo .o-plex synt ax
polysemous meanings: t hat peculiar t o t he nat ional legal syst em and wit h mult iple subordinat eclauses and parent heses
and t o formulat e
t hat peculiar t o t he Communit y legal syst em.A good illust rat ionmay be clear relationshipsbetweendifferent parts of the
sentence.I t is claimed
found in the ECJ's judgements in C-498103concerning charitablela and t hat overly complex or ambiguous sent ences
may be problemat ic in
C-449193concerning est ablishment ls(Doczekalska 2006: 19). I n t he translation, increasing the riś k or .inaccuracies,
approximations or
former the ECJ ruled that charitable in the English version of the Sixth real mist ranslat ions'in t he ot her officiar languages
(2003: r7-rg). For
Council Direct ive 77l388lEEC has a meaning independentof nat ional English draftersand translators
9* uTp-ltt u..i..ornmended to use plain
law and is a Community law concept which derives its meaning from all English "since t he Commission lays.it self open
t o misunderst anding
the languageversions. As regardsthe latter,Directive 75llf9 sets forth or ridicule if it sounds.'foreign'o-.
across in the UK or I reland'' (Engtish ?ilr t 9 sei an appropriat emessage
Stylećuide zoot'il. ir'',' P.in.
12I t may bę ręasonably expected that the EU legal culture and the MS ciples 1 and 5 impose cruciai reś triction,on the
languugć Jcommu-
legal cultures will grow more and more similar in thę future as a result of the
nity legislation compared to the drafting of national
i"egiiation.
harmonisation of laws. one should also not overlook the óct that a lingui
franca is influ-
13EU legislation is sometimes referred to as 'hybrid texts' defined by enced to some degreeby its non-native users, a phenomenon
which van
Trosborg as o'textsproduced in a supranational multicultural discourse com- Elms ref erst o as t he shif t in t heownership ort he
hnlu" ! " lzoor,
munlty whęrę there is no linguistically nęutral ground'' (qtd. in Garzonę 2000: 344)' EU,legislation is drafted both by nativ! speakers
and non-native
6) . speakersr.,with some native speakeis "beginnlng
la Kingscrest Associates Ltd ąnd Montecello Ltd v Commissioners of to lose touch with
Customs and Excise.
t5Rockfon,US v Specialarbejdderfobundet i Danmark. Wagner et al. claim that non.nativę speakers of
English or French write
the majority of texts prepared internally uy irre eui"rtitotions
(2002: 70).

150
151

their language as a result of working in a multilingual environment"
(English'Sął e Guicle 2001: 1). This factor may increase thę risk of
interpretativedoubts in the course of translation.
by cont rast ,languageof nat ionallegislat ionact ivat esa well-est ab-
7.
lishedint ersubject ively ś haredsyst emof count ry-specific knowledge'
Legislation is drafted in the official languageof a given country without
uny .ontideration for problems translatorsmay have'
2.2. Status, function and recipients of translation
I n most casest he t ranslat ionof nat ional legislat ion is non-aut hori-
'mere' t ranslat ion and t he original prevails over it . I t
t at ive. I t is a
mainly performs an informative function and as noted by Garzone "the
translated version is a Verstcindnishilfe,having the status of a paral-
lel t ext , a gloss or a comment aryt o be used as a key of accesst o t he
originai, * -hi.h has no legal validit y of it s own" (2000: 0), A t ranslat ion
inf6rms'foreign invest orsand int ernat ionalbusinessesabout t he con-
t ent of nat ionil legislat ionand providesaccesst o t he domest ic market ,
'exot ic' languages.Translat ions may be also
especially in t he case of
"Eu
u'"d uy institutions that intend to veriff the implemęntation of
Community law. I t is worth noting that recipients arę not always native
speakersof t he TL.
I n cont rast ,t ranslat ionof Communiqv legislat ion is at t t horit a-
tive and acquires the stafus of an authentic text with equal value and
.original'. Translat ion of Communit y legisląt ion can
meaning as t he
bind .it L.'''; hence,lt has a normat ivefunct ion.As not ed by Sarć ević '
translation enables"the mechanism of the law to function in more than
one language" (2000: 1). For example, a regulat ion does not require
furt her i"-pl* .nt at ion as it is "of general applicat ion (...), binding in
it s ent iret yand direct ly applicable in all Member St at es";a direct ive is
.'binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member State to
which ii is addressed"while a decision is "binding in it s ent iret yupon
those to whom it is addressed" (Article f49 of the EC Treaty). I n any
case the translation has the same statusas the original document. I ndi-
rect receiversinclude EU cit izenswhile direct receiversare lawyersr8.
17The comparison does not apply to typical multilingual counffies, such
as Belgium or Switzerland-
18cf. Sarć ević for thę concępt of diręct and indiręct recęivers of legal
translation (2000: a).
\ 52
2.3. Direct iona| iĘ of t ranslat ion and t he t rans| at or's role
I n respect of national legislation, the directionalityle of transla-
t ion dependson a count ry.I n Poland t here is no official inst it ut iont hat
t ranslat esnat ional legislat ion.Translat ionsare mainly inverse and are
carried out by nat ive speakersof t he SL (i.e. Polish) despit et he rule of
translating into one's mother tongue prescribed, for example, by the
t rNEsCo (cf. Lonsdale 2001: 64).I t is mainly due t o t he insufficient
number of nat ivespeakersof English capableof t ranslat ingfrom Polish
at t he professionallevel. I t is also wort h not ing t hat since English is t he
lingua franca of the business world, the UK legislation is rarely trans-
lated into other languages.
As far as EU legislat ionis concerned,t ranslat ionsare mainly direct
and are carried out by the native speakers of the TLro. Translations are
mainly done inhouseby t he EU inst it ut ionsand ext ernallyby freelance
translators(by way of tenders).This can be illustrated by the Directo-
rat e-Generalfor Translat ionof t he European Commission, t he world's
largest t ranslat ionservices, which employs I ,650 full-t ime t ranslat ors
and 550 supportst affand out sourcesabout 20 per cent of t ranslat ionst o
free-lance translators2t.According to the data obtained from the DGT,
t he rat e for Polish t ranslat ionsis higher, amount ing t o ca. 34 per cent
in 2005 and 23 per cent in 2006 (January-oct ober).The DGT does not
keep any st at ist icaldat a on t he t ypes of t ext s out sourced;however. as
a rule legislat ionis t ranslat edinhouseand is out sourcedonly in excep-
tional cases. This does not apply to the acquis communautaire, which
has to be translatedby a candidate country before the accession. The
European Court of Justice employs only lawyer-linguists as translators
since according t o it s Rules of Procedure, t ranslat ionservice is t o be
"staffed by expertswith adequatelegal training" (Article 22).
The translator of Community legislation is part of the legislative
process and may have some impact on the draft act as a result of the
less sacrosanct approach to the original (cf. wagner 2005: 223). The
19cf. Lonsdale for morę information about
diręctionality (200l).
20I n general' the EU abandonedthę native
tongue principle, mainly with
ręferenceto translationsinto English or French. I n practice the native tongue
principle is still applied to translation of legislation since thęsetexts arę draftęd
in and arę translatedfrom English or French.
2rthe DTG website. August 2006.
153
Joint Practical Guide advises draftersthat translators' comments may
be valuable and practical as they help identiff errors and ambiguities
in t he original t ext and "in many cases,t he best solut ion will be t o alt er
the original, rather than the translation" (2003. f0). Kaduczak confirms
that it does happen in practicethat the draft act is adjustedto the transla-
tion, "the original draft being a result of political negotiationsand being
'translations'are
written by a non-linguist, often non-native speaker,its
'original'and in the fur-
frequently of higher linguistic quality than the
'original linguistic version happens
ther processof amendingthe act the
't ranslat ions"' (2005: 39). A similar
t o be correct edt o align it wit h t he
bi.directional relation between draftersand translatorsdoes not ęxist in
translationsof national legislation, which have littlę if no impact on the
original.
2.4. Approach t o equivalence
Legal translatorsarę required to produce faithful translations; yet
the notion of faithfulness seemsto be subjective and difficult to define.
Śarćević argues that multilingualism requires a change of approach to
equivalence: ..theprinciple of fidelĘ to the Sourcętext is losing ground
t o t he principle of fidelit y t o t he single inst rument " (1997 112). She
obsęrves that since it is unrealistic to expect that the same meaning
will be achieved in t ranslat ion,t he equal meaning and effect presump-
.the presumption of equal intent'. The successof
tions arę secondaryto
translation is determined by its uniform interpretationand application
(2000: 5). On the other hand, as rightly noted by Doczekalska, transla-
tors do not take part in Parliamentary debatesand negotiations so it is
unlikely that they will know the drafter's actual intention (2005: 9). I n
pract ice, t o achievę mult ilingual concordance(i.e. t he same meaning
in all language versions), translatorswho translatethe same text in the
European Commission exchange information in the intranet and at col-
lation meetings (Wagner 2000).
On the other hand, it is argued that at least at the terminological
level, literal equivalentsare preferred.Garzone arguesthat "quite often
the pursuit of legal equivalence can go hand in hand with literal trans-
lation" (2000: 6). As already noted, drafters of Community legislation
avoid national terms by replacing them with Community-wide terms.
Śarćević observes that to ensure uniform interpretation, drafters form
terms which are "reasonably transparentand can be easily translated.
154
Since the terms must be easily recognizable in all languages, literal
equivalents have clearly had priority in the formation of Community
terminology" (1997: f6l). This view is confirrned by Miler, who
st ressest hat t erminological difficult ies are solved relat ively quickly
by calquing English terms, "the general rule is tha1the terms are being
copied directly from English language if they do not have a direct
Polish count erpart "(1995: 7).Translat orsuse calques as t hey do not
want to be liable for producing a text with a different legal effect than
the original. One may observe a certain paradox: literalism in the trans-
lation ofterminology on the one hand and a departrrrefrom literalism in
interpretationby the ECJ on thę other hand.
2.4.1. Terminological requirement s in t ranslat ion
I t is generally acceptedthat the terminological incongruity between
legal syst emsis t he great estchallengefor legal1ąflSlat ors.As not ed by
Kierzkowska, in Poland there is no officially prescribed terminology to
be used in t ranslat ionsof Polish law (200f: 92). By cont rast ,t ranslat ors
of EU legislation are required to use the EU terminology that is consist-
ent both internally within a given act and externally with other Com-
munity legislation from the same fieldz2.Terms fu2lveto be checked in
t erminological dat abases(e.g.www I .ukie.gov.pl/ dt t .nst t t To
). ensurea
higher degreeof terminology standardisation,inholusetranslatorswork- I
ing in t he Commission are provided wit h several t erminological aids,
such as tools for terminology searchesI ATE24and Quest; processing of
sentence fragments by Tman, translation memefiLesheld centrally by
Euramis, texts retrieved from the DGT's internall archiving system25.
Furthermore, the Commission employs 20 termincllogists, one for each
language,to ensurecongruity of terms between1fu9languages (Rettman
2006).As demonstratędabove, the translator'sf1ę6dom of terminologi.
cal choice is substantially limited. For example, t: hey are requestedto
use Niderlandy (Netherlands) in official publicaltions even though a I
22cf. Principle 6 of thę Joint Practical Guide (200,3: 2| ).
23established by the Polish officę of the Committete for European I ntegra.
tion (UKI E).
2aThe EU I nterinstitutional Terminology Databasc System comprising 3
major databasęs(EURODI CAUTOM, TI s, EUTERPE).
25DGT websitę.
155
large number of Poles may have problems with connecting it directly
with Holandia (Holland).
I t is underst andablet hat since it is recommended t o draft ersof
Communif y-legislat iont o avoid nat ionallegal t erms( see2. I ) , t he same
will apply t o t ianslat ors.I n his commęnt ary on t he t ranslat ionof t he
E.E.C. Tieat y int o English, Akehurst claims t hat "t he fat al mist ake is t o
use t echnicai t erms of English law which sound like a French t erm but
which do not mean t he same t hing" (I 97f: f6).Wagner et al. not e t hat
since nat ional t ermsmay be misleading,it is bet t ert o use supranat ional
'immediat e' nat ional connot at ions(200f: 65). I n
t erms wit hout any
part icular, it shou1dbe ręmemberedwhen t ranslat ingdirect ives since
ih"y tp..iff only results to be obtained by the Member States and are
r.tb.j".i to iransposition into national law. As emphasised by Wagner,
national terms may "appear to be trespassing onto the territory of the
nat ional parliament s''(ż 000: 3) since during t he t ransposit iongeneric
supra-Europeanconcept sare replacedby nat ional concept s(Wagneret
a| . z0oz: oł ; . ł n int erest ingexample of erroneoust ransposit ionin t he
polish vAT Act was discussed by Pricewat erhousecoopersexpert s26.
The place of the supply of services is used in the 6'hVAT Directive as
a fact or deciding where and by whom VAT is t o be paid. For inst ance,
a t ranslat ioncarried out by a Polish t ranslat or in Poland and sold t o a
company in anot herMS is exempt t iom Polish vAT and t he t ax is paid
by t he purchaserin t heir count ry'.Suppll' of scrvic'cswas t ransposedas
ś wiadcŻenieusł ug [ lit. perforTnanceof services] , which is a standard
and aest het icallypleasi"g collocat ionbut nevert helessput ssome Polish
taxpayers at a disadvantage.As a result, certain services may be subject
t o AouUleVAT t axat ion:by t he Polish service provider in Poland where
a service was performed and by the purchaser in the country to which
t his service was supplied.At t he samet ime similar servicessuppliedt o
poland are not subject to VAT at a\ l21.The literal translation of supply
of services as dostawa usł ugwould be more accurate; even though it is
an obscurecollocat ion28, it fu underst andableand creat est hę same legal
26Gawlas, D. and H. Szarpak. ..Bł ąd,zaktory pł acąpolscy usł ugodawcy.''
Rzeczposp olit a | 5 .09.2005; reprinted fr om P odatkowy pr zegl ąd pr asy.
27I bid.
28dostawais typically usędwith referenceto tangible objects,e.g. dostawa
towarlł ,produktow, węgla. Dostawa usł ugbreakslinguistic norrns and forces a
different conceptualisation,e.g. delivery of sęrvices via thę I nternet.
156
ef; fect.I t shows that in some cases even the Tl-oriented phraseology
may be an obstacle to uniform interpretationand application.
On the other hand, the avoidance of national terms and the Com-
munit y-level concepfualst ruct ureand t erminology increaset ext aliena-
t ion; hence, t he dist ance bet weent he t ranslat ion and it s recipient s. I t
is further increased by 'unfamiliar and undomesticated eurorhetoric'
(Koskinen 2000: 61). As not edby t he Joint pract ical Guide, ,,t ext spep-
pered with loan words, literal translations or jargon which are hard to
underst andare t he sourceof much of t hę crit icism of Communiry leeis-
lat ion which is, as a result ,regardedas alien" (2003: 20-l). Translat "ors
are frequent lyblamed by t he public and t he pressfor t he incomprehen-
sibilit y of Eurospeak and are crit icized even for t he very avoidbnceof
nat ionalt erms.For example,Wł odzimierz Cimosze wici' former Polish
Minist er of Foreign Affairs, comment ed on t he Polish t ranslat ion of
the Constitutional Treaty, "the Treaty was translated by EU-employed
t ranslat orsand even t hough t hese are frequent ly people of a given
nat ionaliĘ',one may spot clumsy expression', * ".hunlcal, aut omat ic
t ranslat ionof legal concept sin a way t hat is not adj ust ed t o t he legal
language of a given country''2n.rn another articlą in Rzeczp,'p,| im
t ranslat orsare crit icized for using t erms t hat are 'incompafiUt . wit h
t he Polish net work of concept s'30.Having regardt o t ranslat ors'limit ed
freedom under mult ilingualism and a s"pu.it " concept ual net work of
Communit y law, t his cr it icismis par t ly'misdir ect ed( exceptf r or n r nis-
! up9 and may reflect insufficient knowledge about t he specificit y of
t he EU t ranslat or'swork. Furt hermore'aSnot ed by
Ęm, t .het olerance
of linguist ic int erferencevary in t he Member St at eś Ńat. ive speakersof
English and Spanish, who are frequent ly confront edwit h ot h.. varie-
t ies and 'non-nat ive'dist ort ionsof t heir own language,are accust omed
t o nęw usagesand have higher t olerancefor Eurospeak and it s opacit y
6). By contrast, native speakersof Polish aie rarely expoś e.d to
'(2000:
'dist ort ed'forms
of Polish or non-nat iveinfluencesand have nbt learnt
how to deal with them. As a result, they are more likely to resist the
Eurojargon.
29Translat ion.andemphasis
mine; Bielecki, J. ..Europej skaKonsĘt ucj a
j ak marna inst rukcj aobsł ugi.''Rzeczpospolit a 17 .I t .2004.
30 Rochowicz, P. ..LingwisĘczra
wieia Babel.'' Rzeczpospolita.
02.02.2005.
157
2.4.2. SĘ| ist ic requirement s in t ranslat ion
As argued by Śarćević, translatorsare allowed to be creative pro-
vided t hat t he subst anceremains unchanged,ot herwise t hey "should
exercise const raint in t he int erest of preservingt he single inst rument "
(L997: ff6). Their creat iviĘ is furt her rest rict edby t he st ylist ic recom-
mendat ionsspecifiedin a number of guides.I n t he case of Polish, t hese
include: WskazÓwki dla tł umaczyaktÓw prawa Unii Europejskiej, Dzien-
nik Urz ędowy. Illskazowki redakcyj ne; WspÓlny prz ewodnik pr akty Czny
Parlamentu Europejskiego, Rady i Komisji doĘczący redagowania
aktow prnwa wspÓlnotowego; WskazÓwki dla tł umaczy orzecznictwa
Trybunał u Sprał viedliwoś ci WspÓlnot Europejskich i Sądu Pierwszej
I nstancji. The guides emphasise the communicative factor of transla-
tion, noting that it should be written in a clear and comprehensible
language.For example, t he English St yle Guide advises t ranslat orst o
use "languagewhich is as clear, simple, and accessibleas possible, out
of courtesy to our readersand consideration for the image of the Com-
mission" ( 2000: 1) .
Translatorsare also required to maintain the same degree of ambi-
guity whether it is intentional or unintentional (cf. Akehurst 1972: .26).
The Manual of Precedents instructs drafters/ translators"not to give a
wider or narrower interpretationto a given notion in one language or
anot her". Legislat ive language is frequent ly a compromise bet ween
precision and flexibility to account for various future situations (cf.
Wronkowska 2003: 15). Vague areasmay be incorporat edon purpose
to reflect negotiations or a lack of political agreement between the
Member St at es,which is called 'deliberat euncert aint y'by Hart ley (qt d.
in Doczekalska f005 7).I f a provision is unclear, it is a nat ional court
that refers it to the ECJ for interpretationunder the preliminary ruling
procedure.Eliminat ing ambiguit ies is perceived as ovęrst eppingone's
authorĘ as a translator3l.I t is worth noting that one of the precondi-
tions for a legal provision to be directly effective is that it should be
clear and unambiguous;if such ambiguit y is cleared in one of t he lan-
guages uniform application may be disturbed.
2.5. Consequences of Errors
There were a number of articles in thePolish pressconcerning erors
in Polish versions of Communrty legislation, especially with respect to
outsourced translations. Some of them are related to negligence and
158
lack of due diligence, t he most not orious being: 5 mont hs inst ead of 5
years, paprika instead of pepper, a loss of not, others result from
"t..tt
t he t ranslat or'sinsufficient legal or ot her knowledge, e.B. ..t he open-
ing of insolvency proceedings] 'was t ranslat edas uruchomienie ś rod-
kÓw odnoszący9h sie' d9 reorganizacji lub otwąrcia postępowania
I i h,vidacyj nego instead of wszczęcte p ośt ow an i a upadtb śc i iw eg o lub
ęp
naprawczego or wszczQciepostę1lowania w SprTwie niewypł acalnoś ci
(Porzycki2004). The consequenceof an .rroiir that citiz.-^ u..
bound
by the law containing an error and such a law does not have uniform
applicat ion in t he EU.
External translatorshave to pay high fines for low quality transla-
tions or delays pun while u i.; ..i.d docu.
Ą-lg: ^ .ted page costs ś o
męnt costs 500 EUR'1. A. reported by Gazeta Wyborczi, in January
2005 t hree t ranchesof correct ions,amount ing t o 4,s00 pages, i.e. ca.
5 per cent of total legislation translated, werć sent to ttre pu institu-
tions by UKI E3a. According to the information obtained from the DG!
financial penalt ies.forunaccept ablequalit y amount t o l0-20 per cent of
t he due amount .Wit h referencet o Polish t ianslat ions,in 200ś ,t heDGT
imposedfinancial penalt iesin 38 casesout of 857 t ranslat eddocument s
( i. e. 4. 4per cent ) .
I
f
3t cf. criticism of
Akehurst's approach to ambiguities when he translated
t he EPC Treat y int o English ( Śarć eł le sgl: 92.3) .
Uhlig, D. ..Bł ądna bł ędziew tł umaczęniachunijnych aktÓw.,, Gazeta
ł Tyborcza,9Jan2005.
33 Szyszko, M. ..Wolny
strzelec w Unii.'' Gazeta | ł / yborcza.9 March
200s.
3aUhlig, sęefrr 31.
159

Table 1. Comparison of translation of national law and EU law
Translation of national law3t
- act ivat esa rich int er-
Language of,
subjectively shared sYstem of
tt.-'
thu..lu* i..t,.,.
national legal knowledge
- drafted by native sPeakers and
without any consideration for
problems translatorsmaY have
lnterpretative. Common law sYstem (literal)
r ules : : Civil law system (PurPosive)
Statusof Non-authoritative
translation
Function lnformative/ descriPtive
R'eĆipiÓnt I nvestors, businessmen
Directionality I nverse translation - in most
cases native sPeakersofthe SL
(applies only to translationsinto
English)
Fidelit v t o t he SL
Fidelity
Terminology I n most cases no offrciallY
prescribed terminologY;
frequently Sl-oriented
terminology to meet the needs
of an international audience
Style Consistent with national use
lVho ręś olVes National courts on the basis of
nmbiguitieł '| the original
Conclusions
To sum Up, translation of EU legislation is a special type of
tion within th-efield of legal translation in general and
i; ti; " i"Jirration specifically. I t is shaped under the
"i
35ęxcludi1tg countries with multilingual legislation (i.e. Belgium)
160
Tranś l'ationof EU law
- decult uralisat ionvs. new
common supranational context
- drafted by native and
non-native speakersunder
constraints of multilingualism
and with regard to subsequent
translation
Teleological approach
Authoritative; authentic text
that forms a single instrument
with the original
N ormativ e/ prescriPtiv e
Citizęns of the Membęr States,
lawvers
Direct translation bY native
speakers of the TL
FideliĘ to the single instrument
Prescribed by EU institutions,
consistent with alreadY existing
translations in the field,
excluding terms resęrved for
national law
Consistent with Prescribed
European use
the ECJ consulting all the
language vęrsions
transla-
within the trans-
constraints of
unique EU multilingualism and operateswithin a distinct Community-
level conceptual structure.Major translation challenges stem from the
requirementto achieve the same meaning, or rather uniform application
and int erpret at ion of legislat ion, in 20 languages.
Bibliography
Akehurst, M. (L972). "Preparing the Authentic English Text of the
E.E.C. TreaĘl.'' I n B. A. Wortley (ed.) An I ntroduction to the Lał v of the
European Ec ort omic Communiti es. MUP : Manchester. 20-3I .
Craith, M- N. (2006). Europe and the Politics of Language. Citi-
zens, Migrants and Outsiders. Palgrave McMillian.
Commission of t he Europea.nCommunit ies (2005).A New Frame-
work Strategy;for Multilingualism. Communication from the Commis-
sion to the Courncil, the European Parliament, the European Economic
and Social Corrrmit t ee and t he Commit t ee of t hę Regions. Brussels, 22
Nov. 2005. COM( 2005) 596 f inal.
Clyne M. ( 1997)."Mult ilingualism". I n: The Handbook of Socio-
linguist ics.Ed. by F. Coulmas. Blackwell Publishers.301-314.
Directorate-General for Translation (2005). Translating for a
Multilingual CommuniĘ. European Commission. l Aug 2006. http:
/ / ec.europa.eu/ dgs/ t ranslat ion/ bookshelf/ brochure_en.pdf.
Doczekalska, A. (2005). "Product ion and Applicat ion of Mult ilin-
gual Law. The Principle of Equality of Authentic Texts and the Value
of SubsequentTranslat ion". Paper read at Language and t he Law 2005:
East meet sWest . 12-14 Sept ember 2005.
Doczekalska, A. (2006). ..I nt erpret acj awieloj ęzycznego prawa
Unii Europejskiej''. Europej ski Przegląd Sądowy 5. 14.fI .
Fidrmuc, J V. Ginsburgh (2005). "Languages in t he Euro-
pean Union: The Quest for Equalit y and it s Cost ". 7 April 2006.
www.dur.ac.uk/ ęconomics.guestsp eakers/ 2005_06/ F idrmuc.pdf
Garzone, G. (2000). "Legal Translation and Functionalist
Approaches: a Cont radict ion in Terms?". Geneve: Act es. 1 Aug 2006.
www.tradulex.org.
General Secretariat of the Council of the EU (2002). Manual of
Precedents for Acts Established Within the Council of the European
Union. 4n ed.
l, 6r
 Gizbert.Studnicki, T. (2001). ..Problem przekł adu tekstÓw Trudgill, P: (1992). I ntroducing Language and society.
prawnych.'' I n: Dziedzictwo prawne XX wieku. Księga pamiątkowa z London:
Penguin English.
okazji I 50-lecia TBSP UJ. Y,,rak6w:Zakamycze. 4I -55. van Els, T.l.M. (2001). "The European Union, its I nstitutions
Heutgeą V. (2005). ..Towardsa Common European Legal Under- its I anguages:Some Language Political Observations',.
and
Cu* ent I s,sue,s
st anding."London Law Review Yol. 1.205-213. in Language P lanning yol. 2: 4. 3 I 1_360.
Joint Practical Guide of the European Parliatnent, the Council
-- Wagner, E. (2000)- "Translation of Multilingual I nstrumentsin the
and the Commission for persons involved in the drarting of legislation E(J' " 7'04-06 . < europa.eu.int/ comm./ translatioln/ re
ading articles/ pdf/
within the CommuniĘ institutions.2003. Luxembourg: office for offi- 2000_tp_wagner.pdf).
cial Publicat ionsof t he EC.
-!agner, E. (2005). "Translating andlor Editing - The way For_
Kaduczak, M. (2005). "Legal drafting and translation under con- ward?" rn: I n
straints of multilingualism." I n: Abstracts. Language and the Latv Anderman and?! :"t of Engtish: For Better for iTorse? Ed. By G.
M. Rogers. clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
2005: East meets West. S. Goź dź .Roszkowski and K. Kredens (ed.). Wagner E., S. Bech and J.M. Martinez
Łodź : ŁÓdź Universit y Press. 3 8-39. Q6oĄ. TranslatiĘfor the
Ęuropean Union I nstitutions. Translation Practices
Explarnł d. Man-
Kierzkowska, D. (f00f). Tł umaczenie prawnicze. Warszawa: chester: St. Jerome.
Wydawnictwo Tepis. Wronkow'5.u,-S. (2003). Podstawowe pojęcia prawa
Koskinen, K. (2000). I nstitutional I llusions. Translating in the Eu i prawo-
znawstwa.2"dEd. poznari: Ars bonie aequi.
Commission." The TĄanslat or6( 1). 49-65. WrÓblewski, B. (l948). Język pr","y i prawniczy. Prace
Mcleod, I . (2005). Legal Met hod.5'h Ed. Palgrave Macmillian. Komisji
Prawniczej nr 3. KrakÓw: PAU.
Miler, J. (1995). "Transposing EC Terminology int o Polish Lan-
guage.Breaking new grounds."Lingua Legis f .5-8.
Porzycki, M. (f004, March 26). ..Lawina beł kotliwych
przekł adÓw.'' Rzeczp ospoI it a.
Py-, A. (2000). "The European Union and it s Fut ure Languages.
Questions for Language Policies and Translation Theories." Across
Languages and Cultures. A Multidisciplinary Journal for Translation
and I nterpreting Studies l(1): l-11.
Rettman, A. (2006). "Eu wordsmith lifts lid on eurojargon."
Euobserver.com
Śarć ević , S. (2000). ..Legal Translat ionand Translat ionTheory: a
Receiver-orientedApproach.'' Genćve: Actes. www.tradulex.org.
Śarćević, S. (1997). New Approach to Legal Trąnslation. The
Hague: Kluwer Law I ntęrnational.
Slapper, G., D. Kelly (2003). The English Legal System. 6'h Ed.
London: Cavendish Publications.
St einer,J., L. Woods (2003).Text bookon EC Law.7'h Ed. London:
Blackstone Press.
Stychin, C. F., L. Mulcahy (2003).Legal Method: Text and Materi-
als.2"d Ed. London: Sweet & Maxwell.

r62
t63