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

Special Issues

Introduction: Precedent in EU Law: The Linguistic Aspect

Published 15.07.2024

  • Karen McAuliffe
    • ,
  • Aleksandar Trklja

Abstract

This paper introduces the special issue of JLL on Precedent in EU Law: The Linguistic Aspect. This introduction first sets out the context for the discussion of how language, multilingualism and translation may impact the development of a de facto precedent in the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), and introduces the notion of linguistic precedent. Second, it provides an overview of the papers included in this special issue. This special issue is a follow-up on a number of workshops and discussions held in the context of the FP7-funded project Law and Language at the European Court of Justice between 2015‒2020. The contributions to the special issue, from scholars and practitioners, address various aspects of the linguistic element in the development of a de facto precedent in CJEU judgments. These reflections on linguistic precedent and how it relates to the formulation and application of ‘precedents’ in EU jurisprudence highlight an aspect of the interpretation and application of EU case law that has, to date, largely been ignored by scholars and practitioners. Drawing attention to this linguistic element in precedents and decisional practices allows for a more rounded understanding of how EU case law develops and functions.

Cite as: McAuliffe & Trklja, JLL 13 (2024), 1–7, DOI: 10.14762/jll.2024.001

Keywords

precedent, linguistic precedent, multilingualism, legal translation, Court of Justice of the European Union, CJEU

PDF

References

  1. Chalmers, Damian (2004). The Dynamics of Judicial Authority and the Constitutional Treaty. In Weiler & Eisgruber (Eds.), Altneuland: The EU Constitution in a Contextual Perspective. Jean Monnet Working Paper 5/04.
  2. Creese, Angela & Blackledge, Adrian (Eds.) (2018). Routledge Handbook on Language and Superdiversity. New York: Routledge.
  3. 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: doi.org/10.1017/S2071832200021040.
  4. Dougan, Michael (2004). National Remedies Before the Court of Justice: Issues of Harmonisation and Differentiation. Oxford: Hart.
  5. Dyrberg, Peter (2001). What Should the Court of Justice be Doing? European Law Review, 26, 291‒300.
  6. Goźdź-Roszkowski, Stanislaw & Pontrandolfo, Gianluca (Eds.) (2017). Phraseology in Legal and Institutional Settings: A Corpus-Based Interdisciplinary Perspective. New York: Routledge.
  7. Komarek, Jan (2005). Federal Elements in the Community Judicial System. Common Market Law Review, 42, 9–34.
  8. Komarek, Jan (2007). In the Court(s) We Trust? On the Need for Hierarchy and Differentiation in the Preliminary Ruling Procedure. European Law Review, 32(4), 467–491.
  9. Komarek, Jan (2008). Judicial Lawmaking and Precedent in Supreme Courts: The European Court of Justice Compared to the US Supreme Court and the French Cour de Cassation. Cambridge Yearbook of European Studies, 11, 399‒433.
  10. Legal Knowledge and Information Systems (2015). IOS Press.
  11. Mattioli, Virginia & McAuliffe, Karen (2021). A Corpus-Based Study of Opinions of Advocates General of the Court of Justice of the European Union: Changes in Language and Style. International Journal of Legal Discourse, 6(1), 87–111.
  12. McAuliffe, Karen (2013). Precedent at the Court of Justice of the European Union: The Linguistic Aspect. Current Legal Issues, 15, 483–493.
  13. McAuliffe, Karen (2013). The Limitations of a Multilingual Legal System. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law ‒ Revue Internationale De Sémiotique Juridique, 26(4), 861–882. DOI: 10.1007/s11196-013-9314-0.
  14. McAuliffe, Karen & Trklja, Aleksandar (2018). Superdiversity and the Relationship between Law, Language and Translation in a Supranational Legal Order. In Creese & Blackledge (Eds.), Routledge Handbook on Language and Superdiversity (pp. 426‒441). New York: Routledge.
  15. Panagis, Yannis & Šadl, Urška (2015). The Force of EU Case Law: A Multi-dimensional Study of Case Citations. In Legal Knowledge and Information Systems (pp. 71–80). IOS Press. DOI: 10.3233/978-1-61499-609-5-71.
  16. Šadl, Urška (2015). The Role of Effet Utile in Preserving the Continuity and Authority of European Union Law: Evidence from the Citation Web of the Pre-Accession Case Law of the Court of Justice of the EU. European Journal of Legal Studies, 8, 18–45. Available at: cadmus.eui.eu/handle/1814/38651 (accessed 11 July 2024).
  17. Trklja, Aleksandar (2017). A Corpus Investigation of Formulaicity and Hybridity in Legal Language: A Case of EU Law Case Law Texts. In Goźdź-Roszkowski & Pontrandolfo (Eds.), Phraseology in Legal and Institutional Settings: A Corpus-Based Interdisciplinary Perspective (pp. 89–108). New York: Routledge.
  18. Trklja, Aleksandar & McAuliffe, Karen (2019). Formulaic Metadiscursive Signalling Devices in Judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union: A New Corpus-Based Model for Studying Discourse Relations of Texts. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 26(1), 21‒55.
  19. Weiler, Joseph H. H. & Eisgruber, Christopher L. (Eds.). (2004). Altneuland: The EU Constitution in a Contextual Perspective: Jean Monnet Working Paper.