EU language policy: A legal perspective

1
EU language policy A legal perspective

• Vít Dovalil
• Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg

vit.dovalil_at_germanistik.uni-freiburg.de
2
Outline of talk

• Research questions
• 2) 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

3
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?

4
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

5
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

6
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
• metalinguistic activities
• legally regulated interventions in the language
  use

Who intervenes in whose language use how, why,
with which expectations and with which
consequences?
7
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
8
Data

• Sources
• Database EUR-Lex
• Official Journal of the European Union

9
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

10
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?)

11
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)

12
Agents

• applicant
• Italy
• Spain

• defendant
• Commission/EPSO
• European Personnel Selection Office
• Eurojust
• police and judicial cooperation in criminal
  matters

13
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

14
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)

15
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)

16
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)

17
Spains 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
18
Spains 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.

19
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)
20
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

21
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

22
Concluding remarks solutions to language
problems?

• 1) socio-cultural (socio-economic) management
• 2) communicative management
• 3) language management

23
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, Jirí (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, Jirí/Sherman, Tamah (eds.)(2009)
  Language management in contact situations
  Perspectives from three continents.
  Frankfurt/Main Peter Lang.

24
References

• Romaine, Suzanne (2013) Politics and policies of
  promoting multilingualism in the European Union.
  Language Policy 12, 115-137.
• Wright, Sue (2013) Why isnt 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.

25
Language management

• Interactions/interlocutors with expectations
• no deviation deviation from the expect.
• unnoted
  noted
• not evaluated
  evaluated

26
Language management

• evaluated
• positively negatively
• no adjustment design adjustment design
• not implemented implemented

27
Language management

• utterances
  adjustments
• generate manage
• noting
  evaluation
• the deviations

28
Legal discourse

• language problems are reflected in various ways

textbooks
suits
law law
in action in books
judgments
codified norms
types of texts and intertextual ties
Dovalil 2012 265
29
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.

30
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.

31
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

32
References

• Macmillan, Michael C. (1998) The Practice of
  Language Rights in Canada. Toronto/Buffalo/London
  University of Toronto Press.