Full-bodied EU acquis – the bouquet of EU English

Yesterday’s blog post noted that between 2008 and 2009 the body of European Union legislation had decreased by some 2060 regulations and 80 directives: How much EU legislation in member state UK? Nosemonkey and House of Commons Library (15 October 2010).

As I said, the pure numbers tell us little about the impact or influence of EU legislation.

Since then, I thought about a few trivial or arcane details.

First of all, why did I insert the insider term ‘acquis communautaire’ after referring to the EU statute book? Second, why ‘communautaire’ when the Communities (except for Euratom) have disappeared, through the preordained ‘death’ of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), and the European Community (EC) having been amalgamated into the European Union by the Lisbon Treaty? Third, why use the French term in English and other EU languages?



EU dictionary IATE



One of the excellent EU resources is the IATE website (InterActive Terminology for Europe), an online dictionary between all the official languages of the European Union. My impression is that the website is little known outside the circles of language professionals, such as translators, interpreters and lawyer-linguists, even if many officials, communicators, journalists, students and others who deal with issues of substance would need the services at times.

Why not bookmark the page?

Using French as the source language IATE offered a number of English translations, which varied according to the context. Among them were Acquis Communautaire, the body of EU law, Community acquis, body of existing Community legislation and practice, (adoption of the) acquis communautaire.

In short, there were more translations using the French term than a description in English: the body of EU law, or body of existing Community legislation and practice.

One lesson might be to use a description in plain language whenever we can.



Community method RIP


In a series of blog posts I discussed the obsolete term “Community method” recently used by leading EU politicians (here, here, here, here, here, here and here).

I ended up favouring the “Federal method” to replace the antiquated term, because it had more teeth. The European Citizen preferred “Union method”, Simon Blackley proposed the “ordinary decision process” and Eurogoblin would have been happy to stick with the “Community method” or even endured the “Union method”, as long as the word “Federal” could be kept in confinement on Ventotene, or somewhere.

Why on Earth, after so much discussion about the obsolescence of the term “Community” (except in a historical context) did I make even a fleeting mention of the word “communautaire”?

Intellectual sloth is the only explanation I can come up with. Please, accept my apologies.



“Acquis” in English and other EU languages


The “acquis communautaire” has its place in a historical context, but when we deal with contemporary issues even the French could start referring to the “UE acquis”.

If issues of word count matter, and in the playpens of Brussels insiders, the “EU acquis” (or the comparable expression in the relevant language) could replace the antiquated term.

IMHO the “EU statute book” I used was not bad as a colloquial expression, given the circumstances: the number of legal acts (regulations and directives).

However, the “body of EU law” is wider than the sum of legal acts. Therefore, I find that it is a short and good description in many cases.

The longer “body of existing Community EU legislation and practice” makes the scope clearer. Sometimes we may want to add “jurisprudence” or “case law” to the description to make it even more evident.

When we have room to explain matters to readers or listeners, we could sometimes opt for the “body of EU legislation, practice and case law” or a comparable expression in another language.


Now my next question: Is this a sane way to spend one’s Saturday morning? Please, no spam solicitations from headshrinkers (even if it would balance the extension type of cures abundantly on offer), but perhaps some people interested in languages could comment.




Ralf Grahn




P.S. Speaking about languages, the multilingual blog aggregator Bloggingportal.eu offers you an opportunity to read up on European affairs (EU and Council of Europe) and improve your language skills.



The Euroblogger Vihar Georgiev is a productive writer on EU law and politics. In addition he is one of the relatively few Central and Eastern Europeans visible for blog readers in the old member states, and he does his share of multilingualism by blogging in English on European Union Law and its Bulgarian sister blog. He is also active on Twitter @vihargg.

How much EU legislation in member state UK? Nosemonkey and House of Commons Library

On 13 October 2010 the European Parliament awarded its journalism prizes to for excellent media work on Europe. Among the four categories, the prize for Internet journalism went to the Euroblog pioneer James Clive-Matthews, also known as Nosemonkey.



You can read the winning blog post: What percentage of laws come from the EU? (2 June 2009)


On the very day of the award ceremony in the European Parliament, across the Channel the House of Commons Library informed subscribers about the publication of its research paper 10/62, which presents a reworked view on the role of EU laws in Britain:




How much legislation comes from Europe? (13 October 2010; 59 pages)



This fits nicely with the EU law theme, or more narrowly EU business regulation, we have been looking at on Grahnlaw, in the blog posts How much EU law is there? Smart regulation and impact assessments (13 October 2010) and Smart Regulation in the European Union (14 October 2010).



The summary conclusion of the UK House of Commons Library Research Paper 10/62 is (page 1):

Using statistics from national law databases and the EU’s EUR-Lex database, it is possible to estimate the proportion of national laws based on EU laws. In the UK data from these sources provided estimates that suggest that over the twelve-year period from 1997 to 2009 6.8% of primary legislation (Statutes) and 14.1% of secondary legislation (Statutory Instruments) had a role in implementing EU obligations, although the degree of involvement varied from passing reference to explicit implementation. Sectoral studies suggest that the agriculture forms the highest area of EU influence and defence the lowest. The British Government estimates that around 50% of UK legislation with a significant economic impact originates from EU legislation.

Besides the indicative numbers (percentages) the study is interesting due to its discussion about the difficulties of quantitative comparisons and especially qualitative assessments of the influence of EU legislation on national law-making.

The various aspects and uncertainties covered make the Research Paper into an educational tool for those who are interested in various forms of EU level decision-making and interaction with the national level, naturally in the United Kingdom, but also elsewhere: in EU member states Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Ireland and Belgium, as well as non-EU states Norway and Iceland.

The Research Paper refers to popular (mis)conceptions and often repeated quotes, including Euromyths, as well as a host of studies which have tried to uncover both percentages and influences of EU law in the member states.



Comments

The frontlines in the debate about EU impact have not always been clear-cut. Opponents of the European Union (euphemistically called eurosceptics) have decried the “intrusiveness” of EU legislation, whereas pro-European may have exaggerated the importance of the EU.

It looks clear that the proportion of EU legislation is much smaller if we look at all areas of legislation than if we study policy sectors affecting businesses.

There are also huge differences between EU policy areas. The common agricultural policy (CAP) affects farmers and the common fisheries policy (CFP) fishermen, whereas defence is almost exempt from legislation derived from the EU.

I recommend reading the House of Commons Library Research Paper 10/62, which offers a wide range of studies and opinions on these questions.

I am going to add only a few more comments on certain details.



After Nosemonkey’s blog post and as part of the following discussion, I presented a summary of the findings of Yves Bertoncini in the Grahnlaw entry How much law is EU law? (6 June 2009). The Research Paper offers more details on Bertoncini’s study, on page 8 and pages 31-32.


The Library Research Paper refers to the European Commission’s 26th Annual Report on Monitoring the Application of Community Law (2008) (page 8):

“At the end of 2008, the rules of the Treaty were supplemented by some 8,200 regulations and just under 1,900 directives in force throughout the 27 Member States”.

There are now updated figures, because just before the publication of the Research Paper, the latest annual report was published on 1 October 2010, as noted in my 13 October blog post:



27th annual report on monitoring the application of EU law (2009); Brussels, 1.10.2010 COM(2010) 538 final (12 pages)

If we compare the reports, we can see that the numbers of regulations and directives have fallen significantly during 2009 (page 2). First the quote in question:

At the end of 2009, EU law comprised, apart from the rules of the Treaty, some 6140 regulations and just under 1820 directives in force throughout the 27 Member States.

The number of regulations has decreased by about 2060 and there are around 80 directives less than a year earlier.

Again, the pure numbers tell us little about the impact of EU legislation. The institutions of the European Union have pursued a “better regulation” agenda and a “better lawmaking” agenda. Obsolete legal acts have been taken off the statute book (acquis communautaire). Simplification exercises have resulted in recast acts, which can integrate two or more narrower acts. Some of the disappearances are more technical than substantial, even if more comprehensive acts add ease of use, as do consolidated or updated versions.

There have also been real efforts to “cut red tape”, but a more detailed look at the different simplification measures goes beyond the purpose of this blog post.




Ralf Grahn




P.S. Eurogoblin, one of the editorial team of the multilingual blog aggregator Bloggingportal.eu, has started experimenting with a daily EU Morning Briefing, which mixes events with personal comments. Worth following.

EU: "Community method" RIP – or a stake through its heart!

Why on Earth did they start a debate about the “Community method” now? (Opening shots here and more discussion here; ‘they’ meaning leading EU politicians)

At 50, the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) met its preordained fate and passed away (23 July 2002).



"Nobody" ever talks about the European Atomic Energy Community (EAEC or Euratom), although there is now a consolidated (updated) version of the Euratom Treaty.

When the Lisbon Treaty entered into force on 1 December 2009, the European Community disappeared into the mist of history, succeeded by the European Union. (In everyday speech the EU had taken over from the EC long before that, with only official documents and meticulous lawyers fighting a rearguard battle.)

In short, there is no (European) Community, if we take a practical view.



Requiescat in pace

“Old habits die hard”, we know, but this blog post argues that we should escort the term “Community method” back to its mausoleum, with full historical honours, the Ode to Joy playing.

RIP = Requiescat in pace (Rest in peace), or I’ll drive a stake through your heart!

To be really smug, we could ask: Why don’t 'they' read this blog and live longer, happier lives in the present?



In a December 2009 blog post, when the Treaty of Lisbon was fresh, I published a few notes on how the European Union makes laws:

Ordinary legislative procedure

In principle, the Lisbon Treaty entered into force on 1 December 2009. Article 289(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) (OJEU 9.5.2008 C 115/172) defines the ordinary legislative procedure, referring to more detailed provisions in Article 294 TFEU:


Article 289(1) TFEU

1. The ordinary legislative procedure shall consist in the joint adoption by the European Parliament and the Council of a regulation, directive or decision on a proposal from the Commission. This procedure is defined in Article 294.



Historically, the “Community method” has been the shorthand expression for a triangle, where the Commission proposes and the Council and the European Parliament adopt the laws.

Here is how the Europa Glossary describes the Community method with a bit more detail:

The Community method is the expression used for the institutional operating mode set up in the first pillar of the European Union. It proceeds from an integration logic with due respect for the subsidiarity principle, and has the following salient features:
 Commission monopoly of the right of initiative;
 widespread use of qualified majority voting in the Council;
 an active role for the European Parliament;
 uniform interpretation of Community law by the Court of Justice.


In my view, the term “Community method” should be heading for the scrap-heap of history, replaced by “the ordinary legislative procedure”, when we have to be exact. In daily use “EU legislation”, “EU lawmaking” and other shorter expressions can be used, because the ordinary legislative procedure is the default mode.

Clarifications are needed mainly when the “special legislative procedure” is used (with a smaller role for the European Parliament) for lawmaking, or when we discuss intergovernmental decision making, as in the areas of foreign, security and defence policy.

Partly this methodological detour was caused by reflections on the future use of EU terms, partly by the fact that we are still seeing the tail end of new legislation approved under the Treaty of Nice, with the European Community still in existence.

The somewhat antiquated Europa Glossary page on the Community and intergovernmental methods is still there, and there is continued need for an explanation of this historically important political term, just as we visit the graves of our loved ones to connect with our past.

After the Coroner’s verdict and solemn reburial, we need a Baptist for the newborn.




Ralf Grahn

European Union Legal Materials (Columbia Law School)

Students of politics, law or economics need guidance on how to access material about the European Union as soon as they have to write or present something on their own.

One of the guides on offer is the Columbia Law School’s Arthur W. Diamond Law Library Research Guide: European Union Legal Materials, written by Duncan Alford and updated by Karin Johnsrud (latest update 30 January 2008).



Here are a few comments based on a cursory reading of the Research Guide on the resources:

• Under Brief overview, the words and the acronym for the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) are presented in inverted order.
• The pillar structure has evolved, with justice and home affairs (JHA) migrating to the first (Community pillar), with the exception of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, which remain within the intergovernmental third pillar.
• Enlargement: There may be better definitions than mine, but since the big EU enlargement 2004 and 2007 I have tended to use the term Central Europe for the new member states (sometimes including historic ‘Mitteleuropa’ Germany and Austria), while leaving Eastern Europe for the countries between the EU and Russia. – But I am glad for comments and reasons.
• The enlargement process needs an update. Fresh information is available on the Commission’s website.
• Euro currency: There are now 16 Eurozone countries, with Slovakia the latest entrant. Sweden has no opt-out, but is de facto outside the Eurozone. I would recommend the web pages of the European Central Bank (ECB) for information to the general public (brochures etc.) and for serious information about the euro area.
• Constitution: The guide is in need of an update for the time since the ratification processes of the Constitutional Treaty petered out. This includes the 2007 intergovernmental conference, the December 2007 Treaty of Lisbon, the consolidated version of the Lisbon Treaty (May 2008) and the state of the ratification processes.
• European Council and Council: Although the European Council (heads of state and government) would formally become an EU institution through the Treaty of Lisbon, it would be natural to admit its leadership role and treat it in tandem with the Council of the European Union.
• European Parliament: The EP has 736 directly elected members under the modified Treaty of Nice, still in force. The latest elections were held on 4 to 7 June 2009. The EP has powers to amend (not only approve; co-decision) legislative proposals, and if the Treaty of Lisbon enters into force, these powers would increase.
• European Council: See above. Heads of state (in practice Presidents, since Kings or Queens are nominal heads of state) or government (Prime Ministers) currently meet four times each year, but extraordinary meetings can be convened.
• European Court of Justice: The Civil Service Tribunal could be mentioned for staff cases.
• Committee of the Regions, Economic and Social Committee: The current membership is 344.
• Treaties: The most convenient link would be to the Treaties web page of Eur-Lex, with the consolidated version (2006) of the current treaties, including an Annex with the modifications through the 2007 accession of Bulgaria and Romania; the consolidated version of the Treaty of Lisbon (May 2008) as well as a selection of earlier treaties and accession treaties. – Generally, the improved Eur-Lex portal could be underlined as the primary source for EU law.
• Pre-Lex and the legislative Observatory could have been highlighted more as primary tools for following legislative procedures.
• The Eur-Lex Preparatory acts and the new Directory of Community legislation in preparation are worth mentioning.
• MEPs: The number of MEPs is 736, but grows if the Lisbon Treaty enters into force.
• Languages: Irish (Gaelic) has been added.

***
Conclusions

I scanned the contents and tested some of the links on offer, without rigorous checking.

The Columbia Research Guide: European Union Legal Materials is still a useful tool for the budding researcher, but an update of the contents and the links would be in order.

Personally, I would structure the materials around the general Europa portal and the legal Eur-Lex portal (starting from the index page). [I did not look into the print resources, the library’s collections or the commercial databases.]


Ralf Grahn

Lars Raaum’s Guide to EU legislation

Good news for students of politics and law: The Norwegian researcher and blogger Lars Raaum has written a handy guide called How to track EU legislation in 3 simple steps.



Despite your possible cynical thoughts, bred by constant marketing, Lars Raaum walks you through the steps in a logical and working manner, when you need to find out more about a piece of EU legislation.

Is it too good to be true?

Raaum admits that things get complicated when you reach the third step, the Council (which I often describe as the black hole of EU information). But you can hardly blame him for that.


Ralf Grahn