EU language policy:
A legal perspective
Vít Dovalil
Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg
vit.dovalil@germanistik.uni-freiburg.de
Outline of talk
1)
2)
Research questions
Concepts and theoretical framework: language law
analysis based on language management theory
3) Data analysis:
– Italy v Commission (C-566/10 P, judgment of 27
November 2012)
– Italy v Commission (T-124/13, action brought on 4
March 2013)
– Spain v Eurojust (C-160/03, judgment of 15 March
2005)
4)
Concluding remarks
EU language policy: a legal
perspective
Research questions
1) Which tendencies in the decision-making
of the European Court of Justice
(General Court, Civil Service Tribunal)
can be identified as far as the language
law is concerned?
2) To what extent is it possible to argue that
the case law strengthens the equality of
languages in the EU?
EU language policy: a legal
perspective
What does equality of languages
mean?
Forms of language equality in the sociolinguistic sense
• equality of legal status (= language of public
government, institutions)
• equality of services, their quality and availability (= the
same degree and quality of public services is available to
all citizens in the official languages)
• equal extent of use (= proportional representation), equal
capacity to participate in public institutions in every
official language. Not only non-discrimination, but
incorporation of the differences
equal languages – equally treated languages – equally treated users of
different languages – language parity
EU language policy: a legal
perspective
What does equality of languages
mean?
Forms of language equality in the sociolinguistic sense
• equality of legal status (= language of public
government, institutions)
• equality of services, their quality and availability (= the
same degree and quality of public services is available to
all citizens in the official languages)
• equal extent of use (= proportional representation), equal
capacity to participate in public institutions in every
official language. Not only non-discrimination, but
incorporation of the differences
equal languages – equally treated languages – equally treated users of
different languages – language parity
EU language policy: a legal
perspective
Language management
theory of language problems
LM is conceived of as „behavior towards
language as it appears in discourse“
(Nekvapil/Sherman 2009)
„generate“ x „manage“
agents (networks)
ethnomethodological approach
Who intervenes in whose
language use how, why, with
which expectations and with
which consequences?
metalinguistic activities
legally regulated interventions in the language use
EU language policy: a legal
perspective
Organized language management
Nekvapil 2009: 6
• management acts are trans-situational
• social networks or even institutions are
involved
• communication about LM takes place
• theories/ideologies intervene ( equality)
• in addition to language as discourse, the
object of LM is language as a system
power and interests in all phases of the process
EU language policy: a legal
perspective
Data
Sources:
Database EUR-Lex
Official Journal of the European Union
EU language policy: a legal
perspective
Data
Relevant domains:
• workplace: recruitment of staff (notices of
open competitions)
• administrative proceedings
• labelling of foodstuffs (the problem of „languages easily
understood by consumers“)
• penal law
EU language policy: a legal
perspective
Recruitment of staff
• Tendency of the institutions to reduce the
number of languages since 2004/2005
• Preference for EN, FR, GER
• Attempt to rationalize the communication,
based on expectations of the applicants’
qualification.
• Conceived of as internal procedures of the
institutions (= rather working languages?)
EU language policy: a legal
perspective
Cases
• Italy v Commission (C-566/10 P, judgment
of 27 November 2012)
• Italy v Commission (T-124/13, action
brought on 4 March 2013)
• Spain v Eurojust (C-160/03, judgment of
15 March 2005)
EU language policy: a legal
perspective
Agents
applicant
defendant
Commission/EPSO
Italy
European Personnel
Selection Office
Eurojust
Spain
police and judicial
cooperation in criminal
matters
EU language policy: a legal
perspective
Substance of the disputes
• EPSO published notices of open
competition only in EN, GER and FR.
• Eurojust required higher knowledge of
EN(/FR) and a letter of motivation and CV
in English (only).
• Pleas in law: non-discrimination, equality
of languages
EU language policy: a legal
perspective
Pleas in law (Italy)
• Competition notices not published in full in
the OJ in all official languages (=
infringement of Reg No 1 and Art. 290 EC)
• Choice of the language limited arbitrarily
only to 3 languages
• Infringement of the principle of the
protection of legitimate expectations
(settled practice of publishing notices in all
official languages before July 2005)
EU language policy: a legal
perspective
Pleas in law rejected by GC
• Competition notices not published in full in
the OJ in all official languages (=
infringement of Reg. 1 and Art. 290 EC)
• Choice of the second language limited
arbitrarily only to 3 languages
• Infringement of the principle of the
protection of legitimate expectations
(settled practice of publishing notices in all
official languages before July 2005)
EU language policy: a legal
perspective
Pleas in law accepted by ECJ
• Competition notices not published in full in
the OJ in all official languages (=
infringement of Reg. 1 and Art. 290 EC)
• Choice of the second language limited
arbitrarily only to 3 languages
• Infringement of the principle of the
protection of legitimate expectations
(settled practice of publishing notices in all
official languages before July 2005)
EU language policy: a legal
perspective
Spain’s pleas in law
A member of the temporary staff may be
engaged only on condition that
„he produces evidence of a thorough
knowledge of one of the languages of the
Communities and of a satisfactory
knowledge of another language of the
Communities to the extent necessary for
the performance of his duties“. Staff Regulation,
Art. 28, Eurojust
Art. 12
EU language policy: a legal
perspective
Spain’s pleas in law
Language use of Eurojust should be regulated by
Regulation No 1 (= equality of languages)
More favourable treatment of English (and French)
is not justifiable.
Spain nevertheless left „to the discretion of the
Court the choice of the most appropriate legal
basis for its action, claiming that, in any event,
any error […] should not result in a declaration of
inadmissibility“.
EU language policy: a legal
perspective
Eurojust
raised an objection of inadmissibility of the action
„the sound functioning of the institutions and the
Community bodies may objectively justify a
limited choice of languages of internal
communication“.
This „cannot undermine equal access by citizens
of the Union to posts offered“.
„These needs are acknowledged by the case-law“.
Case T-376/03 Hendrickx v Council (2005)
EU language policy: a legal
perspective
Judgment of the ECJ
„[…] it must be pointed out that it is for the
applicant to choose the legal basis of its
action“
„[…] the acts contested in the present action
are not included in the list of acts the
legality of which the Court may review“
„[…] It follows that the action […] cannot be
declared admissible“
EU language policy: a legal
perspective
Concluding remarks
No clear tendency to treat the langauges
equally in terms of availibility of services
and their quality
Sophisticated (formal) arguments passing
the sociolinguistic substance of some
language problems
Ideology of equality not implementable in all
cases
EU language policy: a legal
perspective
Concluding remarks: solutions to
language problems?
1) socio-cultural (socio-economic) management
2) communicative management
3) language management
EU language policy: a legal
perspective
References
• Dovalil, Vít (2012): Language as an Impediment to Mobility in
Europe. In: Studer, Patrick/Werlen, Iwar (Eds.): Linguistic
Diversity in Europe. Current Trends and Discourses (=
Contributions to the Sociology of Language 97). Berlin/New
York: Mouton de Gruyter, 259-286.
• Dovalil, Vít (2013): Ideological positioning in legal discourses
on European multilingualism: Equality of languages as an
ideology and a challenge. In: Barat, Erszebet/Studer,
Patrick/Nekvapil, Jiří (eds.): Ideological Conceptualisations of
Language: Discourses of Linguistic Diversity (= Prague
Papers on Language, Society and Interaction 3).
Frankfurt/Main u. a.: Peter Lang, 147-170.
• Nekvapil, Jiří/Sherman, Tamah (eds.)(2009): Language
management in contact situations: Perspectives from three
continents. Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang.
EU language policy: a legal
perspective
References
•
•
•
Romaine, Suzanne (2013): Politics and policies of
promoting multilingualism in the European Union.
Language Policy 12, 115-137.
Wright, Sue (2013): Why isn´t EU language policy
working? In: Schneider-Wiejowski, Karina et al. (eds.):
Vielfalt, Variation und Stellung der deutschen Sprache.
Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter, 259-273.
Manz, Viviane (2003): Schranken nationaler
Sprachenpolitik durch das Gemeinschaftsrecht. In:
Burr, Isolde/Gréciano, Gertrud (Hg.): Europa: Sprache
und Recht. La construction européenne: aspects
linguistiques et juridiques. Baden-Baden: Nomos, S.
189-198.
EU language policy: a legal
perspective
Language management
Interactions/interlocutors with expectations
no deviation deviation from the expect.
unnoted
not evaluated
EU language policy: a legal
perspective
noted
evaluated
Language management
evaluated
positively
negatively
no adjustment design adjustment design
not implemented
EU language policy: a legal
perspective
implemented
Language management
utterances
adjustments
„generate“
„manage“
noting
the deviations
EU language policy: a legal
perspective
evaluation
Legal discourse
language problems are reflected in various ways
suits
textbooks
law
in action
law
in books
judgments
codified norms
types of texts and intertextual ties
EU language policy: a legal
perspective
Dovalil 2012: 265
Kik v OHIM (Reg 40/94)
Art. 115
1. The application for a Community trade mark
shall be filed in one of the official languages of
the European Community.
2. The languages of the Office shall be English,
French, German, Italian and Spanish.
3. The applicant must indicate a second language
which shall be a language of the Office the use
of which he accepts as a possible language of
proceedings for opposition, revocation or
invalidity proceedings.
EU language policy: a legal
perspective
Judgment of the ECJ
„Regulation No 1 is merely an act of secondary law
and the Member States did not lay down rules
governing languages in the Treaty“
„[…] The rules governing languages laid down by
Regulation No 1 cannot therefore be deemed to
amount to a principle of Community law and the
applicant cannot rely on Article 12 EC in
conjunction with Regulation No 1 as a basis for
demonstrating that Article 115 was illegal.“
EU language policy: a legal
perspective
Judgment of the ECJ
„[…] No principle that all official languages of
the Community must in all circumstances
be treated equally may be inferred from
the Treaty“
EU language policy: a legal
perspective
References
• Macmillan, Michael C. (1998): The Practice of Language Rights in
Canada. Toronto/Buffalo/London: University of Toronto Press.
EU language policy: a legal
perspective