Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorOTERO FERNÁNDEZ, Irene
dc.date.accessioned2020-02-27T14:27:21Z
dc.date.available2020-02-27T14:27:21Z
dc.date.issued2020
dc.identifier.citationFlorence : European University Institute, 2020en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1814/66308
dc.descriptionDefence date: 27 February 2020en
dc.descriptionExamining Board: Prof. Giovanni Sartor, European University Institute (Supervisor); Prof. Urška Šadl, European University Institute; Prof. Joxerramon Bengoetxea Caballero, University of the Basque Country; Dr. Karen McAuliffe, University of Birminghamen
dc.description.abstractIn today’s multilingual EU, with 24 official languages, as many versions of every piece of legislation of general application are produced, all of which are equally authentic. In order to comply with this legal requirement, embodied in the Treaties and in secondary law, legal translation and legal-linguistic revision become fully integrated in the law-making process. But most importantly, the multilingual nature of EU law has consequences for how the meaning of the law may be found through interpretation. The Court of Justice of the European Union has declared that the language versions of EU legal acts should be compared in order to access the meaning of the legislation. That presumption of identity of meaning, however, conflicts with the inherent limits of language. As a result, occasional divergences in the linguistic meaning of the different language versions of EU legislation are unavoidable. These divergences in the linguistic meaning of the language versions of legislation may be bridged through interpretation. These problems of interpretation are ultimately settled by the CJEU, the only authoritative interpreter of EU law. The Court has developed certain techniques for that purpose, not without controversy. In order to solve the puzzle of how to access the meaning of multilingual EU legislation, this thesis first reviews the multilingualism of the EU legislative machinery, subsequently moving from the production of the law to its interpretation. The ultimate goal is to produce a critical assessment of the Court’s methods, in order to understand how they fit into the framework designed by the previous Chapters. That is to say, to see how uniformity of meaning, which is constructed first in the legislative procedure in one language, then deconstructed through translation into all official languages, is finally reconstructed by the Court of Justice.en
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdfen
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherEuropean University Instituteen
dc.relation.ispartofseriesEUI PhD thesesen
dc.relation.ispartofseriesDepartment of Lawen
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessen
dc.subject.lcshMultilingualism
dc.subject.lcshEuropean Union countries
dc.subject.lcshLanguage policy
dc.titleMultilingualism and the meaning of EU lawen
dc.typeThesisen
dc.identifier.doi10.2870/804865


Files associated with this item

Icon

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record