Coordination, ambiguity and divergence in legal acts of the European Union

 

Johanna Mattissen

19. November 2019

urn:nbn.de:hbz:38-103133

 

---

Open Access PDF Download from USB Journals, Zeitschrift für Europäische Rechtslinguistik

---

Contents

1. Preliminary remarks
    1.1 The aim of this study
    1.2 The readings of coordinators
2. Coordinators and divergences in legal texts
     2.1 Ambiguity of conjunctive (‘and’) readings
     2.2 Ambiguity of disjunctive (‘or’) readings
     2.3 Synoptical ‘and’ vs. ‘or’ in EU legal texts
     2.4 Resolving divergence: the role of context
     2.5 Exhaustivity of lists
3. Linguistic means resolving exhaustivity disparateness
     3.1 “Factoring out” exhaustivity
     3.2 Use of resumptive expressions
     3.3 Full coverage of the frame of reference
     3.4 Modulation of referentiality values
4. Interaction of operators: nexion chains
5. Interaction of operators: negation and modification
     5.1 Negation
     5.2 Modification
6. Scope barriers under coordination
7. Overview and conclusion
Appendix
Endnotes
References

 

1. Preliminary remarks

1.1 The aim of this study

< 1 >

Among the cases brought before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), prelimi­nary ruling procedures which center around divergent wordings in the 24 different language versions of EU legal acts are of special linguistic interest. The CJEU then takes a synoptical view in legal interpretation by comparing the different language versions. Coordination, along with the ambiguities and divergences it causes, features among several recurrent types of linguistic issues in multilingual legal texts.

The present study is a sequel to “Semantics of coordinators in EU languages - the multiple readings of ‘and’, ‘or’, ‘but’” by the same author. Having dealt with the coordinators from the grammatical point of view there, their use will be studied in legal acts of the European Union here. By taking up exemplary relevant CJEU cases, the interpretation of the coordina­tors ‘and’ and ‘or’ in different contexts will be outlined and classified, and linguistic concepts and terminology for their description provided.

In the context of EU institutions, awareness of the correspondences and disparateness of coordinators is of help in drafting legal texts in order to avoid unequal law in the Member States, and in legal interpretation with regard to the notorious “Wortlautgrenze”. Moreover, ‘and’ or ‘or’ may be interpreted by legal professionals in a way which does not correspond to the grammatical language usage and understanding of the forms (cf. Visconti 2018).

Language for special purposes, including legal language, has its own terminology and idioms, but not the sovereignty of interpretation over the functioning of grammar; gram­ma­tical rules are conventionalised among the community of native speakers. As it is language which is em­ployed to materialise law, a legal text is subject to the grammatical rules of the language used for it. As an ultimate consequence, slightly overstated, the rule of law is sub­ject to the rules of grammar.

< 2 >

In the following, a spe­cial focus is laid on

(i)    ambiguity and disambiguation of ‘and’ and ‘or’,
(ii)   exhaustivity of enumerations,
(iii)  different sets of referents ensuing from the use of ‘and’ and ‘or’,
(iv)  the interaction of coordinators with other grammatical operators, viz. negation and
       modification, in terms of scope (a linguistic technical term comparable to “ambit” or “purview”) and
(v)   strategies for avoiding such ambiguities and divergences in particular contexts.

Context frequently distinguishes problematic wordings from pseudo-ambiguities and pseu­do-divergences (in the sense of Burr 2013: sections 6.1.2, 6.1.3). Pseudo-divergences look like, but are not, a semantic deviation of one or more language versions.

The presentation will proceed as follows:

Section 2 discusses divergences in legal texts based on coordinators including ambiguities and exhaustivity of lists, section 3 presents linguistic means balancing such divergences. Section 4 deals with interaction of coordinators with each other in nexion chains and section 5 with interaction of coordinators with negation and modification. Section 6 treats different types of scope barriers as linguistic means of scopal disambiguation, while section 7 con­cludes.

< 3 >

The presentation addresses linguists as much as lawyer-linguists and legal professionals. It should not be forgotten, however, that linguistics is a science of its own, complete with its own mode of thought, methods, concepts, classifications and terminology, which makes it difficult to follow a linguistic analysis even of a familiar language without training. Plain lan­guage, on the other hand, does not provide the necessary terminology.

The custom of using marginals (e.g. < 1 > above) follows jurisprudential practice. The cus­toms of setting examples in italics, numbering them in round brackets (e.g. (1)), giving trans­lations in single quotes and glossing examples of lesser known languages are international linguistic notational conventions. The glosses in the second of three aligned lines in an exam­ple explain the inherent structure of the language concerned, the third line furnishes an idio­matic translation. An expression marked by an asterisk * is ungrammatical.

Examples are taken primarily from French, German, Spanish and English, but the findings can be compared cross-linguistically not only among the official languages of the European Union (OLEU, see the list in the appendix < 40 >). Synoptical and French texts (working lan­guage of the CJEU) are not translated here, German, Spanish and Italian are given with only idiomatic translations.

 

1.2 The readings of coordinators

< 4 >

The previous study (Mattissen, submitted) discussed coordinators in several languages with a focus on words expressing conjunctive (‘and’), disjunctive (‘or’) and adversative coordi­na­tion (‘but’). The notations ‘and’ and ‘or’ stand for the cross-linguistic translational equiva­lents of the coordinators. The idea of “translational equivalent” does not imply a direction, i.e. it does n o t take one language as the (primary) source, original or blueprint in relation to others, but it describes an equally-ranked bilateral meaning relation of expressions of any two languages under comparison.

This means that the term translational equivalent may legitimately be used for the descrip­tion of legal texts of the European Union. These texts are equally authoritative in all their language versions, i.e. no version is authoritative on its own or counts as the source text.

A structure conjoined to another one is called a connect here (regardless of its form), the con­joining of connects is called nexion.

The most important readings of the coordinators ‘and’ and ‘or’, as appearing in legal acts, are the following (for details see Mattissen, submitted):

< 5 >

Conjunctive ‘and’ can be read as

(i)    intersecting set ‘and’:

two or more properties applying at the same time or two or more entities forming a unitary set, i.e. the type the friends of Anne and Mary = the friends they share,

(ii)   set union ‘and’ with any intersecting set:

two or more properties or two or more entities forming one set, i.e. the type the friends of Anne and Mary = two largely discrete groups of people,

(iii)  disjunct set union ‘and’ without an intersecting set:

two or more discrete properties or entities forming one set (a “symmetrical difference” in mathematical set theory), i.e. the type retired people and football professionals,

(iv)   autonomous set union without unification of the sets:

two or more discrete properties or entities paralleled without forming one set, i.e. the type both government and opposition,

(v)    exhaustive list ‘and’, i.e. the type Anne, Mary and Beth (and nobody else),

(vi)   associative-correlative reading (‘respectively’), i.e. the type Anne and Mary are 15 and 12 years old.

< 6 >

Disjunctive ‘or’ can be read as

(i)    inclusive-disjunctive synchronous alternative:

one or both properties or entities being true at the same time, i.e. the type Peter or Paul = Peter and/or Paul,

(ii)   inclusive-disjunctive asynchronous alternative:

one or both properties or entities being true, but not at the same time, i.e. the type Peter or Paul = sometimes Peter, sometimes Paul,

(iii)  exclusive-disjunctive alternative:

one, but not both properties or entities being true, i.e. the type Peter or Paul = either Peter or Paul,

(iv)  non-exhaustive list ‘or’, i.e. the type for example Peter, Paul or Harry (or others),

(v)   dissociative-correlative reading (‘respectively’), i.e. the type Recently, John or Peter have come by car or bus.

 

2. Coordinators and divergences in legal texts

< 7 >

Studying ‘and’ and ‘or’ in action across the language versions of legal texts discloses several different types of peculiarities. Most conspicuous are ambiguities, synoptical divergences and synoptical pseudo-divergences.

The ambiguities arise because of the ranges of different readings of both ‘and’ and ‘or’ (cf. < 5 > and < 6 >), especially with respect to the exhaustivity of enumerations (see section 2.5).

Even more frequently, CJEU cases are concerned with synoptical ‘and’ vs. ‘or’ in European legal texts, i.e. with an ‘and’ occurring in one language version where another language ver­sion has ‘or’. In these cases, a divergence results when the use of the coordinators creates dif­ferent numbers of sets to choose from (see < 10 >). Another very frequent type of issue results from the interaction of coordinators with each other in nexion chains (see section 4) and with other grammatical operators, such as negation and especially modification (see section 5).

Linguistic means and the context may circumvent or balance ambiguities and divergences to the degree that synoptical ‘and’ vs. ‘or’ constitutes a pseudo-divergence (see 2.4). Such means are, for instance, “factoring out” of (non-)exhaustivity, modulation of specificity and various kinds of scope barriers (see sections 3 and 6). Thus, coordinators should not be considered in isolation, as context proves to be important in distinguishing ambiguity and pseudo-ambi­guity, divergence and pseudo-divergence.

 

2.1 Ambiguity of conjunctive (‘and’) readings

< 8 >

As the coordinator ‘and’ has several different readings, a text passage using ‘and’ may lend itself to several interpretations. A frequently arising ambiguity with relevance for legal texts is between intersecting set vs. set union ‘and’. Before studying a concrete case, consider the following fictitious example:

(1)  Adult and disabled persons may file a petition.

This clause has several possible readings: in an intersecting set reading, only disabled adults may file a petition (one set), in a set-union-with-intersecting-set reading adults (set 1), dis­abled persons (set 2) and disabled adults (set 3) may file a petition, whereas in a disjunct-set-union reading, adults (set 1) as well as disabled persons (set 2), but not disabled adults may file a petition. In a legal act, these readings offer a different number of referent sets to choose from (from one to three sets) when they specify conditions for a legal consequence (see < 10 >).

A CJEU case in point (C-52/13 ¹) is concerned with the expression misleading and unlawful comparative advertising in its English version and the translational equivalents in other lan­guage versions. For the sake of brevity, the French, German and English versions are cited in (2), and relevant parts are printed in bold.

The coordination with ‘and’ could - in the English and German wordings - be interpreted as an intersecting set of properties characterising advertising; or as a set union of different types of advertising. The linguistic context provides no clue as to the reading. The French version is not am­biguous: it expresses a set union by repeating the head noun publicité (see < 11 >, < 18 >, < 34 > for further explanations).

(2)  Directive 2006/114/EC, recitals 3, 16, 18; cf. C-52/13 ¹

(3) | Irreführende und unzulässige vergleichende Werbung ist geeignet, zur Verfälschung des Wettbewerbs im Binnenmarkt zu führen.	(3) | Misleading and unlawful comparative advertising can lead to distortion of competition within the internal market.			(3) | La publicité trompeuse et la publicité comparative illicite peuvent entraîner une distorsion de la concurrence au sein du marché intérieur.
(16) | Personen oder Organisationen, die nach dem nationalen Recht ein berechtigtes Interesse an der Angelegenheit haben, sollten die Möglichkeit besitzen, vor Gericht oder bei einer Verwaltungsbehörde, die über Beschwerden entscheiden oder geeignete gerichtliche Schritte einleiten kann, gegen irreführende und unzulässige vergleichende Werbung vorzugehen.		(16) | Persons or organisations regarded under national law as having a legitimate interest in the matter should have facilities for initiating proceedings against misleading and unlawful comparative advertising, either before a court or before an administrative authority which is competent to decide upon complaints or to initiate appropriate legal proceedings.		(16) | Les personnes ou organisations ayant, selon la législation nationale, un intérêt légitime en la matière, devraient avoir la possibilité d'introduire un recours contre toute publicité trompeuse ou toute publicité comparative illicite soit devant un tribunal, soit devant un organe administratif qui est compétent pour statuer sur les plaintes ou pour engager les poursuites judiciaires appropriées.
(18) | Freiwillige Kontrollen, die durch Einrichtungen der Selbstverwaltung zur Unterbindung irreführender und unzulässiger vergleichender Werbung durchgeführt werden, können die Einleitung eines Verwaltungs- oder Gerichtsverfahrens entbehrlich machen und sollten deshalb gefördert werden.			(18) | The voluntary control exercised by self-regulatory bodies to eliminate misleading or unlawful comparative advertising may avoid recourse to administrative or judicial action and ought therefore to be encouraged.		(18) | Les contrôles volontaires exercés par des organismes autonomes pour supprimer la publicité trompeuse ou la publicité comparative illicite peuvent éviter le recours à une action administrative ou judiciaire et devraient donc être encouragés.

 

2.2 Ambiguity of disjunctive (‘or’) readings

< 9 >

Among the different readings of disjunctive coordinators, the distinction of inclusive and ex­clusive ‘or’ constitutes a frequent issue for legal interpreters. A prominent case concerns

C-304/02 ², the “action under Article 228 EC for failure to fulfil obligation”, in which the fi­nancial imposition hinges on the possibility of both an inclusive and an exclusive reading of or in the following sentence of the treaty:

(3)  Treaty establishing the European Community, art. 228 para. 2 sub. 3 ²
       If the Court of Justice finds that the Member State concerned has not complied with its
       judgment it may impose a lump sum or penalty payment on it.

The inclusive reading of ‘or’ would allow to impose both a lump sum and a penalty pay­ment, whereas the exclusive reading allows either the one or the other. The linguistic context provides no interpretation clues here. The case is treated in more detail by Visconti (2018: 124-125).

The ambiguity is of special interest when the two different readings of ‘or’ occur in one sen­tence. In German national law texts, for instance, the two readings of disjunctive coordina­tion are frequently used in the constituent elements part on the one hand (inclusive-dis­junc­tive ‘or’) and the legal consequences part of a legal act on the other (exclusive-disjunctive ‘or’), as in (adapted for reasons of conciseness):

(4)  Wer Banknoten nachmacht oder gefälschte in Verkehr bringt, wird mit einer Freiheitsstrafe oder
       Geldbuße belegt.
       ‘Who forges or circulates counterfeited banknotes will be punished by prison or by a fine.’

The first oder is read inclusively (forging banknotes and/or circulating counterfeited ones) and the second one exclusively (either prison or a fine). This is usually not evident from the wording, but falls out from legal systematics: a judge has to consider which constituent ele­ments apply in sum (one or the other or both), but there will only be one punishment (either one or the other, cf. Handbuch der Rechtsförmlichkeit 2008:45, marginal 91) because of the prin­ciple prohibiting double punishment (“ne bis in idem”).

In order to disambiguate the inclusive-disjunctive and exclusive-disjunctive reading, the co­ordinator ‘either – or’ is used for the exclusive type and and/or, et/ou, und/oder for the inclu­sive type. However, ‘and/or’ is not considered an elegant solution by legal professionals (cf. for instance, the discussion by Adams/Kaye 2006:1189-1190 and the Handbuch der Rechtsförm­lichkeit 2008:45, marginal 93). The Joint Handbook says (2018: D.4.4.2) that

“where it is not possible to insert introductory wording, the expression "and/or" may be used”.

Adams/Kaye recommend using disambiguation signals even in unambiguous contexts to avoid misinterpre­tation (2006:1193).

In (5), et/ou in the French version does not create a divergence, as nothing prevents ‘or’ from being read inclusively in the other language versions.

(5)  Directive 2012/27/EU, art. 7 para. 4; cf. C-561/16 ³

..., wobei er in seinem Hoheitsgebiet tätige Verkehrskraftstoffverteiler oder Verkehrskraftstoff-Einzelhandelsunternehmen einbeziehen kann.

… and may include transport fuel distributors or transport fuel retailers operating in its territory.

…; il peut inclure les distributeurs de carburants destinés aux transports et/ou les entreprises de vente au détail de carburants destinés aux transports exerçant leurs activités sur son territoire.

..., y podrán incluir a distribuidores o minoristas de combustible para transportes que operen en su territorio.

 

2.3 Synoptical ‘and’ vs. ‘or’ in EU legal texts

< 10 >

An issue more frequent in EU legal acts is a non-homogeneous use of ‘and’ and ‘or’ across the language versions (called synoptical ‘and’ vs. ‘or’ here).

Stating an inhomogeneity, of course, requires that the coordinators in the languages con­cerned can be clearly compared and matched with ‘and’ and ‘or’. Polish, for instance, em­ploys lub, albo, czy or bądż in European Union legal texts where English uses or or either – or; and it uses i, oraz and a where English uses and. The Polish coordinator a has an op­po­si­tive reading and is found where English uses but, as well, while there are further Polish trans­la­tional equivalents of ‘but’, viz. ale and lecz (cf. Engel 1999:1140-1168 for a grammatical pre­sentation).

Once this difficulty settled, when ‘or’ is used in a place in one language version where ‘and’ can be found in another language version, this leads to a different number of sets of refe­rents, which are, moreover, not congruent. Table 1 gives an overview of the most frequent possibilities.

The sets of referents are (cf. < 5 > and < 6 >):

inclusive ‘or’         (xxx) = set 1, (yyy) = set 2, ((xxxyyy)) = set 3
exclusive ‘or’        (xxx) = set 1, (yyy) = set 2                                           (alternatively)
intersecting set ‘and’                ((xxxyyy)) = set 1                                    (intersection of two sets)
set union ‘and’                           (xxx(xy)yyy) = set 1                                (two sets + intersection in one set)
disjunct set union ‘and’            ((xxx)(yyy)) = set 1                                 (two sets without intersection in one set)

Language Version A uses	Sets of referents	Language Version B uses	Sets of referents	Congruent sets between versions A and B
inclusive ‘or’	3	intersecting set ‘and’	1	1 (the intersecting set)
inclusive ‘or’	3	set union ‘and’	3 in 1	1 (the intersecting set)
inclusive ‘or’	3	disjunct set union ‘and’	2 in 1	0
exclusive ‘or’	2	intersecting set ‘and’	1	0
exclusive ‘or’	2	set union ‘and’	3 in 1	0
exclusive ‘or’	2	disjunct set union ‘and’	2 in 1	0

Table 1: Comparison of referent sets of ‘and’ and ‘or’

Only inclusive ‘or’ shares a referent set with intersecting set ‘and’ and set union ‘and’: As in­clusive-disjunctive ‘or’ coordination includes the reading of both connects applying, it over­laps with conjunctive ‘and’ coordination in meaning. Both clauses in (6) are true for red fa­brics with stripes. (7a, b) are true if Peter’s and Paul’s common friends said the same thing. The Real Academia Española allows for indistinct use of (7c, d) (2013:429; cf. also Huddle­ston et al. 2002:1297 for English).

(6)  a. Rote oder gestreifte Stoffe können verwendet werden.
      b. Rote und gestreifte Stoffe können verwendet werden.
          ‘red or / and striped fabrics may be used’

(7)  a. Peters oder Pauls Freunde haben das gesagt.
      b. Peters und Pauls Freunde haben das gesagt.
          ‘Peter’s or / and Paul’s friends said so’

      c. Se puede entrar por esta puerta y por aquella.
      d. Se puede entrar por esta puerta o por aquella.
          ‘you can enter by this door and / or by that one’

Insofar, the use of or (and translational equivalents) in one text and and (and translational equivalents) in another need not necessarily lead to a divergence in meaning – an important point in the interpretation of European legal texts.

< 11 >

In other constellations, however, a relevant divergence in a EU legal act arises where synop­ti­cal ‘and’ vs. ‘or’ occurs, because ‘and’ in one language version creates a non-convergent set of referents to ‘or’ in another language version. This is the case in example (2) above: it exhibits several non-homogeneous uses of ‘and’ vs. ‘or’, both across the three recitals and the three languages.

In (8), most language versions, including English and French, use an intersecting set ‘and’ whereas German uses ‘or’ which could be read either as inclusive or as exclusive.

(8)  Directive 2001/29/EC, recital 41; cf. C-510/10 ⁴

(41) Bei Anwendung der Ausnahme oder Beschränkung für ephemere Aufzeichnungen, die von Sendeunter­nehmen vorgenommen werden, wird davon ausgegangen, dass zu den eigenen Mitteln des Sendeunterneh­mens auch die Mittel einer Person zählen, die im Namen oder unter der Verantwortung des Sendeunterneh­mens handelt.

(41) When applying the exception or limitation in respect of ephemeral recordings made by broadcasting organisations it is understood that a broadcaster's own facilities include those of a person acting on behalf of and under the responsibility of the broadcasting organisation.

(41) Lors de l'application de l'exception ou de la limitation pour les enregistrements éphémères effectués par des organismes de radiodiffusion, il est entendu que les propres moyens d'un organisme de radiodiffusion comprennent les moyens d'une personne qui agit au nom et sous la responsabilité de celui-ci.

A third party not acting ‘on behalf of’ the broadcasting organisation, but only ‘under the res­ponsibility’ of that organisation is included in the German version (using ‘or’). The other ver­sions state that a third party must fulfill both conditions (using ‘and’). That we are dealing with an intersecting ‘and’ is clear from the fact that the two modifiers acting on behalf of and acting under the res­pon­sibi­lity of the broadcasting organisation modify a single referent person (in the singular). If the wording had been “include those of persons acting...”, i.e. with a plural of ‘person’, a set union reading would have been equally possible, according to the rules of grammar.

A similar divergence is found in the following Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading concerning the General Data Protection Regulation:

(9)  EP-PE_TC1-COD(2012)0011, art. 5 lit. eb / art. 5 point e ter ⁵
       a. … using appropriate technical or organisational measures ...
       b. … à l'aide de mesures techniques ou organisationnelles appropriées ...
       c. … durch geeignete technische und organisatorische Maßnahmen ...

In this case the German version demands both technical and organisational measures be ta­ken (set union), whereas the English and French version put these kinds of measures at a choice (inclusive-disjunctive), thus allowing for a lower degree of security.

< 12 >

Another example is found in the following case (C-561/16 ³), where a non-convergence of referent sets arises from the more specific inclusive-disjunctive coordinator ‘and/or’ in the French, English and German versions being used in synopsis with ‘and’ and ‘or’ in the Spanish version of Directive 2012/27/EU, article 7, paragraph 4 ³ :

(10)  Directive 2012/27/EU, art. 7 para. 4; cf. C-561/16 ³

Unbeschadet der Berechnung der Energieeinsparungen für das Ziel gemäß Absatz 1 Unterabsatz 2 benennt jeder Mitgliedstaat für die Zwecke des Absatzes 1 Unter­absatz 1 nach objektiven und nichtdiskriminierenden Kriterien verpflichtete Parteien unter den in seinem Hoheits­gebiet tätigen Energieverteilern und/oder Energieeinzelhandels- unternehmen, ...

Without prejudice to the calculation of energy savings for the target in accordance with the second subparagraph of paragraph 1, each Member State shall, for the purposes of the first subparagraph of paragraph 1, designate, on the basis of objective and non-discriminatory criteria, obligated parties amongst energy distributors and/or retail energy sales companies operating in its territory

Sans préjudice du calcul des économies d'énergie pour l'objectif conformément au paragraphe 1, deuxième alinéa, chaque État membre désigne, aux fins du paragraphe 1, premier alinéa, sur la base de critères objectifs et non discriminatoires, des parties obligées parmi les distributeurs d'énergie et/ou les entreprises de vente d'énergie au détail exerçant leurs activités sur son territoire; ...

Sin perjuicio del cálculo de ahorro de energía para cumplir con el objetivo de acuerdo con el apartado 1, párrafo segundo, cada Estado miembro designará, a los efectos de lo dispuesto en el apartado 1, párrafo primero, con arreglo a criterios objetivos y no discriminatorios, a las partes obligadas entre los distribuidores de energía y las empresas minoristas de venta de energía que operen en su territorio,...

Whereas, according to the rules of grammar, in the language versions using ‘and/or’ the Member State may choose whether to designate obligated parties among the energy distribu­tors or the retail energy sales companies or from a set comprising both, in the divergent Spa­nish version with y ‘and’ alone the Member State does not have a choice but has to designate obligated parties from the set comprising both energy distributors and retail energy sales companies. From the jurisprudential point of view, the question is which legal consequences ensue, of course.

 

2.4 Resolving divergence: the role of context

< 13 >

On the other hand, even synoptical ‘and’ vs. exclusive ‘or’ does not necessarily lead to a di­vergence because the context may balance the coordinator.

A relevant case recently adjudicated upon by the CJEU (Joined Cases C-391/16, C-77/17 and C-78/17 ⁶) deals with the following disputed paragraph, of which we consider the French version first:

(11)  Directive 2011/95/EU, art. 14, para. 6; cf. C-391/16, C-77/17 and C-78/17 ⁶

(6) Personen, auf die die Absätze 4 oder 5 Anwendung finden, können die in den Artikeln 3, 4, 16, 22, 31, 32 und 33 der Genfer Flüchtlingskonvention genannten Rechte oder vergleichbare Rechte geltend machen, sofern sie sich in dem betreffenden Mitgliedstaat aufhalten.

6. Persons to whom paragraphs 4 or 5 apply are entitled to rights set out in or similar to those set out in Articles 3, 4, 16, 22, 31, 32 and 33 of the Geneva Convention in so far as they are present in the Member State.

6. Les personnes auxquelles les paragraphes 4 et 5 s’appliquent ont le droit de jouir des droits prévus aux articles 3, 4, 16, 22, 31, 32 et 33 de la convention de Genève ou de droits analogues, pour autant qu’elles se trouvent dans l’État membre.

The paragraphs 4 and 5 referred to in paragraph 6 cited above state under which conditions a refugee may lose this status (para. 4) or may not be granted this status (para. 5). The French version uses et and thus creates a disjunct set union of a) persons with a refugee status who lose it and b) persons without a refugee status and not eligible for it. This set union does not have an intersecting set. It is located within a single relative clause (auxquelles les paragraphes 4 et 5 s’appliquent) modifying personnes ‘people’ (in the plural).

The text passage could alternatively be read as containing an intersecting set as long as the contents of paragraphs 4 and 5 are n o t taken into account. In the intersecting case, para­graph 6 would be applicable to persons who are both encompassed by paragraph 4 and pa­ragraph 5 at the same time. As these two paragraphs describe states of affairs in a com­ple­nymic (i.e. semantically mutually exclusive and bipartite) relation, the intersecting reading is ruled out, however.

Now, the English and German versions use oder and or where French uses et. This exclusive-disjunctive use of ‘or’ is motivated by the fact that the paragraphs 4 and 5 cannot both apply to one and the same person. Still, the coordination is internal to a single relative clause modi­fying ‘persons’, which unites the two disjunct sets under one cover term ‘persons’ (in the plu­ral). In the main clause, it is predicated about these persons (the cover term) that they are en­titled to rights of the Geneva Convention.

In sum, whereas the English and German versions encode the alternative of conditions for being entitled to the rights of the Geneva Convention, the French version encodes the set union of ambits for the Geneva Convention. Thus, the same state of affairs is seen from two perspectives. In this regard, the versions are divergent in wording but convergent in mea­ning and effect: no-one is excluded from claiming rights.

The problem the Advocate General saw in this case was that paragraph 6 could be inter­pre­ted in such a way that either refugees who lost their status or refugees not eligible for the sta­tus may be entitled to the rights, as emerges from the marginals 102, 120, 121 and 122 of the opinion of the Advocate General ⁶. This would correspond to an exclusive disjunction or al­ternative of ambits of the convention. The rules of grammar do not license this inter­pre­ta­tion, however. If this reading had been intended, the preferred wording in German would have been “(entweder) Personen, auf die Absatz 4 Anwendung findet, oder Personen, auf die Absatz 5 Anwendung findet, ...”, ‘either persons to whom paragraph 4 applies or persons to whom paragraph 5 applies ...’, i.e. the two conditions would have been split up syntactically (two relative clauses modifying two cover terms).

 

2.5 Exhaustivity of lists

< 14 >

Another complication lies in the exhaustivity of lists when synoptical ‘and’ vs. ‘or’ are em­ployed.

Usually, conjunctive coordination (‘and’) is thought to create exhaustive lists, disjunctive coordination (‘or’) to create non-exhaustive or exemplary lists (e.g. Huddleston et al. 2002: 1293). This need not be the case, however (cf. Mattissen, submitted: 2.2 (ii-b), 3.1 (iv)). For Spanish, El Buen Uso notes that for exemplary enumerations, both y and o may be used with­out distinction, whereas for a closed list, y must be used (Real Academia Española 2013: 429). In addition, a language may have two conjunctive or two disjunctive coordinators, one for an exhaustive list, the other for a non-exhaustive list. This is the case in Japanese (which has a disjunctive coor­dinator, too) and in colloquial Italian (Mauri/Giacalone Ramat 2015: 55-56; Ba­rotto/Mauri 2019):

(12)  Japanese
        a. Tarô to Jirô ga yatte kita.
             T. and J. NOMINATIVE came round
             ‘Taro and Jiro came for a visit.’ (these two only)

         b. Tarô ya Jirô ga yatte kita.
              T. and.so.on J. NOMINATIVE came round
              ‘Taro and Jiro and so on came for a visit.’

          c. Italian (Mauri/Giacalone Ramat 2015:56)
              Stasera andiamo a mangiare la pizza piuttosto che il pesce ...?
              ‘Tonight, shall we go out and have pizza or fish or something?’

In languages without such a distinction, the context plays an important role in clarifying the reading. According to their effect, the following different context classes can be established, which will be considered in turn in section 3:

(i)    factoring out of exhaustivity
(ii)   use of resumptive expressions
(iii)  full coverage of the frame of reference
(iv)  modulation of referentiality values (specificity).

 

3. Linguistic means resolving exhaustivity disparateness

3.1 “Factoring out” exhaustivity

< 15 >

The difference in exhaustivity reading between conjunctive and disjunctive coordinators in enumerations can be cancelled by “factoring out” (to borrow another mathematical term) the exemplariness (non-exhaustivity) with the help of forms like for example, zum Beispiel (z.B.) or wie (Waßner 2014:632-633). The phrases in (13a, a') are exhaustive lists with ‘and’ coordi­na­tion introduced by d.h. ‘i.e.’ and also ‘viz.’. The same introductory expressions before ‘or’ do not lead to an exhaustive list reading in (13b), i.e. the coordinators determine the reading. In (13c-d), however, the enumeration is headed by an expression indicating that the list is to be read as non-exhaustive, independent of (and therefore overriding) the coordinator.

(13) a. Waffen, d.h. Feuer-, Stich- und ABC-Waffen                           exhaustive list
             ‘weapons, i.e. firearms, pointed and ABC weapons’
        a'. Waffen, also Feuer-, Stich- und ABC-Waffen                          exhaustive list
        b. Waffen, d.h. / also Feuer-, Stich- oder ABC-Waffen               non-exhaustive list
        c. Waffen, z.B. Feuer-, Stich- und ABC-Waffen                            non-exhaustive list
        c'. Waffen, wie Feuer-, Stich- und ABC-Waffen                           non-exhaustive list
        d. Waffen, z.B. / wie Feuer-, Stich- oder ABC-Waffen                  non-exhaustive list

On the other hand, the exhaustivity of a list can be factored out by “introductory wording” as the Joint Handbook (2018: D.4.4.2) puts it, viz. by “[each/both/all]/one/one or more of the following”.

As a result, the synoptical use of ‘and’ vs. ‘or’ in such lists does not lead to a divergence in meaning, both versions are equivalent. Waßner (2014: 3.2.2.2) discusses further relevant contextual conditions for the exchangeability of ‘and’ and ‘or’.

 

3.2 Use of resumptive expressions

< 16 >

In the regulation cited in (14), the German, English, Dutch, Bulgarian, Spanish, Italian, Greek, Romanian and Hungarian versions use a conjunctive coordinator, whereas the French and Portuguese versions use a disjunctive one. As all items enumerated are exempt from a defi­ni­tion in the text immediately preceding (14), the reading is set union for the former and in­clu­sive-disjunctive for the latter versions, with one congruent set of referents (cf. table 1). A di­vergence arises, however, with respect to the exhaustivity of the list (and with respect to modification, dealt with in section 5.2).

(14) Regulation (EC) No 273/2004, art. 2 lit. a; cf. Joined Cases C-627/13 and C-2/14 ⁷
        a.  … Ausgenommen sind Arzneimittel gemäß der Definition der Richtlinie 2001/83/EG [...], pharma­zeu­tische
            Zubereitungen, Mischungen, Naturprodukte und sonstige Zubereitungen, die erfasste Stoffe ent­halten und
            so zusammengesetzt sind, dass ...
        b.  … This excludes medicinal products as defined by Directive 2001/83/EC [...], pharmaceutical prepa­rations,
             mixtures, natural products and other preparations containing scheduled substances that are compounded
             in such a way that ...
        c.  … à l’exclusion des médicaments, tels que définis par la directive 2001/83/CE [...], des préparations
             pharmaceutiques, mélanges, produits naturels ou autres préparations contenant des substances
            classi­fiées qui sont composées de manière telle que ...

According to the rules of grammar, the enumeration using ‘and’ is read as an exhaustive one, the one using ‘or’ as a non-exhaustive one. This means that in the French and Portuguese versions, further substances could theoretically fall under the excep­tion, but not in the other language versions. However, as the resumptive expression other preparations (and trans­la­tional equivalents) opens up an ample spectrum of further referents, it makes up for the ex­haustivity of the enumeration. Therefore, there is no significant divergence between the lan­guage versions with ‘and’ and those with ‘or’.

The wording of the regulation was amended by Regulation (EU) No 1258/2013 ⁷ in 2013 in a way that eliminates all ambiguities of (14) discussed in < 16 >, < 29 >, < 32 > and < 33 >. Ne­ver­theless, the older versions serve as an example of several relevant phenomena here.

A frequently occurring form of resumptive (less specific) expressions are “general ex­ten­ders” like et cetera, o altro ‘or other’, e simili ‘and the like’. They are treated in Roma (to appear).

 

3.3 Full coverage of the frame of reference

< 17 >

In contrast to a resumptive expression, which opens up an exhaustive list, an enumeration of concepts which cover the whole frame of reference closes a non-exhaustive list and thus over­rides the use of synoptical ‘and’ vs. ‘or’. In (15), ‘duplication’ and ‘overlap’ with their modi­fiers describe all pos­sible relations of sets from a proper subset up to congruency, so the dif­ference in coor­dina­tors across the versions does not lead to a difference in coverage.

(15)  Regulation (EU) 2018/1724, art. 19 para. 6 ⁸
         a. ... que les liens […] ne comportent pas de doublons ou de chevauchements inutiles, qu’ils soient
             complets ou partiels, ...
         b. ... que los enlaces […] no contengan ninguna duplicidad ni ningún solapamiento innecesario,
             total o parcial, ...
         c. ... that the links […] do not contain any unnecessary full or partial duplication and overlaps ...

Further means of signalling full coverage of the reference frame are an identifying copula (‘to be’) or equivalence constructions (e.g. ‘to mean’) serving as (legal) definitions, such as

(16)  Regulation (EU) 2019/787, annex I, no 23 lit a ⁹
         a. A caraway-flavoured spirit drink or Kümmel is a spirit drink produced by flavouring ethyl alcohol
             of agricultural origin with caraway (Carum carvi L.).
         b. Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011, annex I, no 2 ¹⁰
             ‘fat’ means total lipids, and includes phospholipids

In fact, identifying constructions are not consistently employed in this sense in EU legal texts. In the following extract of Regulation (EU) 2019/787 ⁹, lit. a defines “egg liqueur” with the help of an identifying construction using the definite article the (the ingredients of which are ...) followed by an apparently exhaustive enumeration with and. The definite article is used for a referent concerned in totality. However, the contained alcohol, the flavours (mentioned in the modifier to “li­queur” whether flavoured or not in lit. a, as well as in lit. c) and the milk pro­ducts men­tioned in lit. d are not included in this list and thus in the definition.

(17) Regulation (EU) 2019/787, Annex I No 39 ⁹
(a) Egg liqueur or advocaat or avocat or advokat is a liqueur, whether flavoured or not, produced from ethyl
alcohol of agricultural origin, distillate of agricultural origin or spirit drink, or a combination thereof, and
the ingredients of which are quality egg yolk, egg white and sugar or honey or both. […]
(c) Only flavouring foodstuffs, flavouring substances and flavouring preparations may be used in the
production of egg liqueur or advocaat or avocat or advokat.
(d) Milk products may be used in the production of egg liqueur or advocaat or avocat or advokat.

In this regard, the list of ingredients in lit. a is by no means an exhaustive enumeration with­in the given context here, so the identifying construction does not cover the full frame of refe­rence, contrary to its grammatical function (totality and equation). This means it is not an appropriate formulation here, as it contravenes its context (which mentions further ingre­dients).

 

3.4 Modulation of referentiality values

< 18 >

Referentiality markers such as articles and quantifiers determine whether an expression is read as generic (true for a whole class), non-specific (of unknown actual existence), indefinite (not known before and a subset of the totality) or definite (known, total set, uniquely iden­ti­fiable; cf. Hawkins 1978, Chesterman 1991).

In (18), the English and French versions use expressions of non-specificity, viz. any and éven­tuels, together with disjunction. Disjunction creates a non-exhaustive list, and the non-speci­fic expressions do not refer to identifiable entities, but anything that may fall under the des­cription. Thus, an all-embracing reading in the sense of ‘any costs whatsoever’ results. The German version, on the other hand, uses the definite article, signifying a totality, and con­junctive coordination, creating an exhaustive list. The effect is an all-embracing read­ing, as well, in the sense of ‘all costs’ (cf. also Huddleston et al. 2002:1297). Insofar, the ver­sions are not divergent.

(18)  Directive (EU) 2015/2302, art. 9 para. 2 ¹¹
         a. … and for any additional fees, charges or other costs arising ...
         b. … ainsi que des frais, redevances ou autres coûts supplémentaires éventuels occasionnés ...
         c. … und die […] entstehenden zusätzlichen Gebühren, Entgelte und sonstigen Kosten ...

In example (2), toute as determiner of publicité creates the same non-specific all-embracing effect. Note that in example (14) ‘other preparations’ has no article and is unspecific, as well.

 

4. Interaction of operators: nexion chains

< 19 >

Coordinators are grammatical/syntactic operators operating over clauses. Other operators are, for example, negation, modality (expressions of wish, permission, possibility, source of information and evaluation by the speaker), illocution (declaration, pledge, question, com­mand, etc.), quantification or modification (further characterisation). When more than one such operator is present in a clause, these operators interact semanti­cally, according to the rules of grammar. As they are applied one after the other, the operator applied later takes the outcome of the one applied earlier as its input, i.e. has scope (“ambit” or “purview” in less technical terms) over the operator applied earlier. The final outcome thus differs in depen­dence on the order of application of operators, as will be shown now.

< 20 >

When at least three connects are conjoined, bracketing ambiguities ensue because of at least two different possible orders of application of the coordinators. The nexion (coordination) effected later takes scope over the earlier one (cf. also Adams/Kaye 2006:1191).

(19) a. Anne and Mary and Beth played against each other.
        b. Der Antragsteller ist EU-Bürger oder hat seinen Wohnsitz in einem Mitgliedsstaat und steht
            in einem Beschäftigungsverhältnis.
            ‘The applicant is an EU citizen or is a resident of a Member State and is in employment.’

(19a) has several different interpretations licenced by the rules of grammar: either all three played for themselves, or Anne and Mary formed a team against Beth, or Mary and Beth formed a team against Anne.

The fictitious example (19b) illustrates the possible grammatical and semantic complications in clause nexion: The structure is ambiguous as to which clause is in the scope of which other one (with the excep­tion of the clauses at the margins which cannot be directly within each other’s scope). Logi­cally stated, the (single) propositions are

p  Der Antragsteller ist EU-Bürger.
    ‘The applicant is an EU citizen.’
q  Der Antragsteller hat seinen Wohnsitz in einem Mitgliedsstaat.
    ‘The applicant is a resident of a Member State.’
 r  Der Antragsteller steht in einem Beschäftigungsverhältnis.
    ‘The applicant is in employment.’

and the two possible nexions – stated in the propositional formula of logic - are

(p ˅ q) ˄ r , i.e. (p OR q) AND r , shown in (20a) and

p ˅ (q ˄ r) , i.e. p OR (q AND r) , shown in (20b) by bracketing.

When the fictitious example (19b) sets the condition, say, for asserting a legal right, the interpretation is unclear: variant (20a) demands an employed person being either an EU citizen or resident, variant (20b) either an EU citizen or an employed resident of any Member State.

(20) a.  [Der Antragsteller ist EU-Bürger oder hat seinen Wohnsitz in einem Mitgliedsstaat]
              und steht in einem Beschäftigungsverhältnis.
        b.  Der Antragsteller ist EU-Bürger oder
             [hat seinen Wohnsitz in einem Mitgliedsstaat und steht in einem Beschäftigungsverhältnis].

Graphic means could ensure disambiguation in such a case.

 

5. Interaction of operators: negation and modification

< 21 >

The two most common operators in legal texts, besides coordinators, are negation and modi­fication. In addition, modality comes into play, which in the OLEU is generally expressed by modal verbs (such as ‘must’, ‘may’, ‘can’). Adams/Kaye (2006:1174) discuss the effects of scope interaction between coordination, negation and modality in English (cf. also Quirk et al. 2008:934).

The present treatise focuses on negation and modification.

 

5.1 Negation

< 22 >

Besides the affirmative (“positive”) types of coordination, one connect or both (or all) may be negated. For negation of both connects, a correlative pair of conjunctions is usually em­ployed, such as neither – nor, weder – noch, ne … ni – ni, distributed over usually two struc­tural units (phrases or clauses). Although nor and weder recall or and entweder, they are nega­ted conjunctive coordinators (Quirk et al. 2008: 937).

According to the rules of grammar, English cannot use its correlative pair for clause negation with different subjects. Italian cannot use its nominal correlative pair ne ... ne in clause nega­tion, nor does Irish Gaelic have a negative correlative pair at its disposition (Haspelmath 2007:18).

< 23 >

As with other operators, the order of application of negation and coordination is relevant for the meaning of a sentence. In this point, language is different from logic. Whereas for logical NOR the forms ¬ A ∧ ¬ B and ¬ (A ∨ B) (NOT-A AND NOT-B and NOT (A OR B)) are equivalent and true iff (= if and only if) both connects are false (as in table 2), in linguistics these two forms are not universally equivalent.

p	q	p ↓ q	1 = true
1	1	0	0 = false
1	0	0
0	1	0
0	0	1

Table 2: Truth values for logical NOR

Transferred to linguistics, ¬ A ∧ ¬ B would represent the order of application “negation first, coordination second”, as in (21a). The order of application “coordination first, negation se­cond” would have to be written as ¬ (A ∧ B) (NOT (A AND B)). This notation represents logical NAND, which does not describe the intended linguistic relation (e.g. in (21b)) at all (see also Mattissen, submitted: 3.1 (v)).

p	q	p | q	1 = true
1	1	0	0 = false
1	0	1
0	1	1
0	0	1

Table 3: Truth values for logical NAND

In English, later application of negation yields the intersecting set reading (21b), and the ne­gation has wide scope over the coordination. Later application of coordination yields the dis­junct set union reading, and the coordination has wide scope over the negation (21a):

(21)  a. [Neither John] [nor Mary] scored as many goals as the 10-year-old.
        b. [John and Mary] did not score as many goals as the 10-year-old.

As the examples show, using the negative correlative pair yields a different reading from a simple coordinator within the scope of a negated verb (pace Haspelmath 2007:17). In (21b) John and Mary most probably formed a team against the child, whereas in (21a), each of them tried to beat the child separately. This is the effect of the two differing scopes: whereas in (21b), the negation has scope over the coordination, in (21a) each connect is negated sepa­rately before coordination, i.e. coordination has scope over negation.

In Spanish, the distinction is paralleled by the following idioms.

(22)  a. No se puede vivir de [pan y cebolla].
             ‘You cannot live on love and air alone.’ (lit. ‘on bread and onion’)
        b. Esto [no tiene pies] [ni cabeza].
            ‘There is neither rhyme nor reason in that.’ (lit. ‘has neither feet nor head’)

< 24 >

In addition to scope, a further complication lies in the fact that the OLEU have different structures with respect to negation harmony, as the following examples show.

Standard German uses only a single negative item in a clause, i.e. either a negator (nicht), or a negative pronoun (niemand, nichts, etc.) with an affirmative verb. There is no negation harmo­ny; two negative items in one clause cancel each other out and the meaning is affirmative and all-embracing, as in (24).

(23)  a. Ich esse nicht.                   ‘I don’t eat’
        b. Ich sehe niemanden.        ‘I don’t see anybody.’
        c. Ich sehe jemanden nicht. ‘There is somebody I do not see.’

(24) Niemand hat das nicht getan.
        nobody  has that not done
        ‘Everybody did it.’

In German it is possible to combine an affirmative indefinite pronoun with a negative verb as in (23c), which presup­poses the existence of a referent (a person or thing) which is not affec­ted by the action.

Standard English uses a single negator with a verb (not) and either a negated pronoun (nobo­dy, nothing etc.) with an affirmative verb or a negated verb + unspecific pronoun (not ... any­body etc.) when a pronoun is needed. The scope of negation always starts from the negative item to the right over the rest of the clause (Pullum/Huddleston 2002:813), and in this scope, pronouns are unspecific ones (leaving aside minor complications, Quirk et al. 2008: 777-784). (25g, h) show that two negative elements may cancel each other out, for instance two pronouns when the verb is affirmative.

(25) a.  I do not eat.
        b.  I see nobody.
        c.  I do not see anybody.                                                              *I do not see somebody.
but: d.  I do not understand some of the points.                               (Huddleston et al. 2002:829)
        e.  Nobody did that.                                                                     *Anybody did not do that.
         f.  I don’t give any money to any of them at any time.              (cf. Quirk et al. 2008:787)
        g.  None of the meat wasn’t fresh.                                               (Payne/Huddleston 2002:359)
        h.  No one has nothing to offer to society.
             = Everybody has something to offer.                                      (Quirk et al. 2008:798)

French, on the other hand, takes the form of a pair of negators (ne … pas) around the verb and of negator + negative pronoun (ne … personne/rien etc.) when a pronoun is needed. French displays negation harmony, but not fully: quantifiers, for instance, may be within the scope of negation or not, and several negations may cancel each other out (Riegel et al. 2014:713-715; leaving aside a range of complications).

(26) a.  Je ne mange pas.
        b.  Je ne vois personne.                                    *Je ne vois pas quelqu’un.
        c.  Je n’ai jamais parlé de rien à personne.
but: d. Nul n'est pas sans ignorer les lois.             = Tout le monde connaît les lois.

Polish features complete negation harmony; when a negator accompanies the verb, all pro­nouns have to be negative ones (cf. Engel 1999:1222), “harmonising” with negation. The mea­ning is negative in sum, in contrast to German.

(27)  nikt         nigdzie     nikogo   nie  widzial
         nobody nowhere nobody not saw
         ‘Nobody saw anybody anywhere.’

< 25 >

Because of these structural differences, negation interacts differently with coordination in the various languages.

English neither – nor and either – or under negation are equivalent in meaning (Quirk et al. 2008:934, 936-939), for instance, but behave differently from German weder – noch and entwe­der – oder (Waßner 2014:635):

(28) a. We met neither John nor Mary.             < = >     Wir trafen weder Hans noch Marie.
                                 < = >                                                                              < ≠ >
        b. We didn’t meet either John or Mary.     < ≠ >     Wir trafen entweder Hans oder Marie nicht.

(28b) in German means that when meeting either one of them, we did not meet the other. Note, however, that simple negated disjunction (no correlative pair) is parallel to the English case.

(29) a. Die Erde ist weder eine Scheibe noch eine Halbkugel.
                                                   < = >
        b. Die Erde ist keine Scheibe oder Halbkugel.
            ‘The earth is no disk or hemisphere.’

Spanish makes a distinction between conjunction and disjunction under negation: whereas ni is a special conjunctive coordinator under negation, o is used for both affirmative and ne­gative disjunction.

(30)  a. sin retrasos ni gastos excesivos                      (without both)                       (cf. C-486/12 ¹²)
        b. sin retrasos o gastos excesivos                       (without one or the other)
            ‘without delay nor / or excessive expenses’

For French, Grevisse/Goosse note that ou has been replacing ni more and more under ne­ga­tion (2016:1517).

< 26 >

In English, negation practically inverts the readings of and and or according to the rules of grammar, as Huddleston et al. (2002:1298f) and Quirk et al. (2008:934, 938f) show: Coor­dination with or within the scope of negation is equivalent to and-coordination of negated connects (i.e. with scope over nega­tion). This fits the logical NOR (cf. < 23 >). Reading (ii) of (31d) is less preferred.

(31)  a. no books or magazines = no books and no magazines                            (Quirk et al. 2008:966)
        b. He doesn't have long hair or wear jeans.                           < = >
            He doesn't have long hair and he doesn't wear jeans.
        c. He doesn't have long hair and wear jeans.                        < = >
            Either he doesn't have long hair or he doesn't wear jeans or both.
        d. He wasn't at work on Monday or Tuesday.                                                 (Huddleston et al. 2002:1298-1299)
            (i) ‘He wasn't at work on Monday and he wasn't at work on Tuesday.’
            (ii) ‘On Monday or Tuesday (I can't remember precisely which day it was) he wasn't at work.’

 

5.2 Modification

< 27 >

Modifiers interact with coordination, as well. A modifier modifies either a noun (this func­tion is called attribute, as in (32a)) or a verb phrase or clause (this function is called adverbial, as in (32c)). An attribute may take the form of an adjective (32a), participle, relative clause or even adverb or prepositional phrase (32b). An adverbial may take the form of an adverb (phrase) (32c), a prepositional phrase or an adverbial clause (32d).

(32)  a. ein wilder Tanz                            ‘a wild dance’
         b. ein Tanz auf dem Vulkan           ‘a dance on the volcano’
         c. er tanzt wild                                ‘he dances wildly’
         d. er tanzt, weil er fröhlich ist        ‘he dances because he is happy’

< 28 >

With modifiers in the context of coordination, the order of application has an impact on the meaning, too. In fact, the intersecting reading of ‘and’ is best described by the coordination being the innermost operation, within the scope of other operations such as modification, at­tribution, or grammatical government. In (33a) the connects as a unit are the complement, and therefore in the scope, of the preposition von ‘of’.

Set union, on the other hand, is not within the scope of the functions listed above, but takes these functions in its scope: in (33b), two prepositional phrases are coordinated.

Scope differences get particularly clear from (33c): the quantifier ten takes the union of “boys and girls” as one entity in its scope, thus indicating that there is a mixed group of ten child­ren altogether. Compare this to ten knives and forks, which are understood as twenty pieces of cutlery (Quirk et al. 2008:966, 971).

(33)  a. die Freunde von [Peter und Paul]
        b. die Freunde [von Peter] und [von Paul]
            ‘the friends of Peter and (of) Paul’
        c. ten [boys and girls] vs. ten [knives] and [forks]

Example (34) is ambiguous as to whether the modifier alte ‘old’ refers to books, newspapers and brochures (wide scope over all connects, the result of application after coordination) or just to its adjacent head noun Bücher ‘books’ (narrow scope over the adjacent connect only, the result of application before coordination). Example (35) shows two conjoined clauses in the scope of the adverbial yesterday.

(34)  a. alte Bücher, Zeitungen und Broschüren
        b. alte Bücher, Zeitungen oder Broschüren
            ‘old books, newspapers and / or brochures’

(35) Yesterday [the sun was warm and the ice melted]. (Quirk et al. 2008:950)

Thus, the order of application is relevant both for the reading of the coordinator and the scope interpretation of the modifier.

< 29 >

A CJEU case in point is

(36)  Directive 95/46/EC, art. 12 lit. a; cf. C-486/12 ¹²
         a. zonder bovenmatige vertraging of kosten
         b. without excessive delay or expense
         c. sans délais ou frais excessifs

All three language versions (and the corresponding Spanish version in (30a)) contain the same ambiguity: it is unclear whether the adjective bovenmatig/excessive/excessif/excesivo modi­fies only its adjacent noun (‘delay’ in the English and Dutch cases, ‘expenses’ in the French and Spanish cases) or both nouns coordi­nated by ‘or’. Both structures are licensed by the rules of grammar. Direction of modification is rightward for the Germanic languages as the modifier is placed to the left of the head it modifies, and leftward for the Romance lan­guages, where the modifier is placed to the right of its head. Because of the position of the modifying adjective and the direction of modification, the ambiguities lead to a divergence in the texts.

Only the synopsis of the two divergent version types suggests that the modifier is most pro­bably intended to modify both nouns.

The English version in (37) (analogously in German) leaves open whether the adjectives un­necessary full or partial modify both duplication and overlaps.

(37)  Regulation (EU) 2018/1724, art. 19 para. 6 ⁸
         a. that the links […] do not contain any unnecessary full or partial duplication and overlaps ...
         b. dass es [...] nicht zu unnötigen teilweisen oder vollständigen Überschneidungen und
             Überlagerungen kommt ...

From the point of view of sense, a “full duplication” is somewhat tautological and a “partial duplication” questionable.

To cite a last example, the relative clause in the English version “that are compounded in such a way that ...” in (38a) may either modify “scheduled substances” (its directly adjacent noun phrase) or “other preparations containing scheduled substances” (its adjacent noun phrase containing the di­rectly adjacent noun phrase) or the whole enumeration (with the restriction discussed in < 32 >).

(38)  Regulation (EC) No 273/2004, art. 2 lit. a; cf. Joined Cases C-627/13 and C-2/14 ⁷
         a. … This excludes medicinal products as defined by Directive 2001/83/EC [...], pharmaceutical prepa­rations,
             mixtures, natural products and other preparations containing scheduled sub­stances that are compounded
             in such a way that …
         b. … Ausgenommen sind Arzneimittel gemäß der Definition der Richtlinie 2001/83/EG [...], pharmazeu­tische
             Zubereitungen, Mischungen, Naturprodukte und sonstige Zubereitungen, die erfasste Stoffe ent­halten und
             so zusammengesetzt sind, dass ...

In the German version, the relative clause (die erfasste Stoffe enthalten und so zu­sam­mengesetzt sind, dass ...) comprises the contents of both the relative clause (that are com­pounded in such a way that) and the participial clause (containing scheduled substances) of the English version in coordination, so it is “only” ambiguous in a twofold manner: (i) as the modifier of “sonstige Zubereitungen” or (ii) of the whole enumeration (with the restriction discussed in < 32 >).

 

6. Scope barriers under coordination

< 30 >

Scope ambiguities can be avoided with simple linguistic means. Such “scope barriers” block scope from extending over more than its adjacent item. From the point of view of law-lin­guistics, it is important to note that the choice of a coordinator can serve as a scope barrier: German sowie and English both – and for example, create such a barrier for conjunctive co­ordination, German oder aber, English either – or (Adams/Kaye 2006:1191) create a barrier in disjunctive coordination. In (39), no ambiguities arise – the adjective only modifies its adja­cent noun in both cases, i.e. has narrow scope forced upon it by the barrier.

(39) a. alte Bücher sowie Zeitungen und Broschüren
            ‘old books as well as newspapers and brochures’
        b. alte Bücher oder aber Zeitungen oder Broschüren
             ‘old books or else newspapers and brochures’

< 31 >

Besides a special coordinator, other means have a scope barrier effect as well:

(i)      punctuation, see < 32 >,
(ii)     graphical segmentation (e.g. by numbering and indenting text),
(iii)    and, in legal texts, also cross-references, see < 32 >,
(iv)    grammatical agreement, see < 33 >,
(v)     avoiding the ellipsis of an article, preposition, head noun/verb or modifier on non-first connects,
         see < 34 >
(vi)    word order, see < 35 >,
(vii)   framing, see < 36 >,
(viii)  explication of indefinite legal concepts, see < 37 >.

< 32 >

Punctuation rules of the language concerned allowing, a simple semicolon or comma, as in (40a) and (41a), serves as a scope barrier. In (41a), the adjectives set off by a comma signal that these modifiers have wide scope as they are considered separated from their adjacent head. In contrast to German, where any relative clause has to be set off by commas, in Eng­lish in (40b) and French in (41b), the comma before a relative clause can signal both non-re­strictiveness and wide scope according to the rules of punctuation: it is not only the potatoes which are not peeled.

(40) a. alte Zeitungen; CDs und Broschüren
        b. (EU) No 1169/2011, art. 19 para. 1 lit. a ¹⁰
            fresh fruit and vegetables, including potatoes, which have not been peeled, cut or similarly
            treated

(41)  Regulation (EU) 2018/1724, art. 19 para. 6 ⁸
         a. que los enlaces […] no contengan ninguna duplicidad ni ningún solapamiento innecesario,
             total o parcial, ...
         b. que les liens […] ne comportent pas de doublons ou de chevauchements inutiles, qu’ils soient
             complets ou partiels, ...

A cross-reference is contained in example (38) from Regulation (EC) No 273/2004 ⁷, art. 2 lit. a in “medicinal products as defined by Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council [...]”. It is the content of Directive 2001/83/EC ¹³ which specifies the “medicinal pro­ducts”, the first item of the enumeration directly preceding the cross-reference. Therefore the relative clause (“that are compounded in such a way that ...”) which follows the later items of the enumeration after the cross-reference (“pharmaceutical preparations, mixtures, natural products and other preparations”) may not be understood as modifying “medicinal pro­ducts” in the English version (analogously in German; cf. Judgment of the court of 5 Februa­ry 2015 in Joined Cases C-627/13 and C-2/14, para. 51 ⁷). From the point of view of grammar, the relative clause can have scope over and thus modify “medicinal products”.

< 33 >

In Romance and Slavic languages, grammatical agreement in gender and number creates a scope barrier along the way. In French, for instance, an adjective or participle modifying more than one noun has to be masculine plural according to the rules of grammar:

(42)  une veste et un pantalon noirs

In Regulation (EC) No 273/2004, art. 2 lit. a ⁷, it remains unclear whether the modifying rela­tive clause die erfasste Stoffe enthalten und so zusammengesetzt sind, dass … and the gerund clause containing scheduled substances that are compounded in such a way that … have only their adjacent noun phrases in their scope or all coordinated nouns. In the French version, gram­matical agreement disambiguates the scope relations.

(43)  des préparations pharmaceutiques, mélanges, produits naturels ou autres préparations
         contenant des substances classifiées qui sont composées de manière telle que ...

The past participles classifiées and composées are both feminine plural and therefore cannot re­fer to any masculine noun. The list contains both masculine and feminine nouns, which to­gether would trigger masculine plural agreement. Therefore, the participles can only modify the last items autres préparations or substances, but not médicaments. Still, an ambiguity re­mains: whereas it is fairly clear that classifiées modifies substances (wavy underline in (43)), the relative clause qui sont composées de manière telle que … may modify either substances or autres pré­parations (bold and underline).

In Spanish, agreement is a scope barrier in an analogous fashion. In

(44)  Llevaba siempre sombrero y corbata negra.
         ‘he always wore a sombrero and a black tie’

the feminine singular adjective negra ‘black’ can only refer to its adjacent (feminine) noun, otherwise it would have to be masculine plural because sombrero is masculine (Real Acade­mia Española 2013:430-431). However, if all connects are feminine plural, or the adjective is utrum plural or preposed, ambiguities arise:

(45)  a. camisas y corbatas negras                                       ‘(black) shirts and black ties’
        b. hombres y mujeres jóvenes                                       ‘(young) men and young women’
        c. quedamos en vernos en el mísmo día y hora
            ‘we agreed to meet on the same day and hour’

< 34 >

Avoidance of ellipsis by using

(i) an overt (explicit) modifier for each nominal connect (as in (46a), compare synoptical (36) and (30a)), or
(ii) an overt head noun with each modifier (as in (46b)) prevents ambiguity.

(46) a. Directive 95/46/EC, art. 12 lit. a; cf. C-486/12 ¹²
             ohne unzumutbare Verzögerung oder übermäßige Kosten
        b. Directive 2006/114/EC, recital 16; cf. C-52/13 ¹
             toute publicité trompeuse ou toute publicité comparative illicite

Another example of non-ellipsis is the explicit article des after the cross-reference in the French version in (43). The indefinite article is placed before préparations pharmaceutiques but not before the enumerates following it, thus reinforcing the preceding scope barrier and join­ing the following connects more closely.

< 35 >

Changing the order of connects can help avoid scope ambiguities of modifiers, as well. This method can cause different orders of connects in different languages, however, because of different modifier positions and modifying directions (see < 29 >). In Germanic languages, for instance, modifying adjectives are preposed, in Romance, they are generally postposed.

(47)  a. CDs, Broschüren und französische Zeitungen
        b. des journaux français, des CD et des brochures

< 36 >

Framing an enumeration by having attributes which modify each of the connects surround the coordination on both sides can have a similar effect. This is, of course, only possible in languages with allow both pre-posed and post-posed attributes and/or ellipsis of articles, such as German, English, Hungarian, Polish and even French (cf. Zifonum 2016; Fischer 2016). In the reading pointed out in (48a) by the brackets, both its still life and by Van Gogh modify paintings and drawings. Of course, especially with context lacking, other inter­pre­ta­tions cannot completely be excluded (e.g. (48b)).

(48)  (Quirk et al. 2008:966)
         a. its still life [paintings and drawings] by Van Gogh
         b. its [still life paintings] and [drawings by Van Gogh]

< 37 >

The scope barrier is more evident when the framing elements stand in a content relationship to each other.

In (49), the indefinite legal concept temporary is explicated by the participle clause having a va­lidity of 12 months or less. Together they create a scope barrier by framing passports and travel documents (cf. also Fabricius-Hansen 2016:160). In addition, the preposition to (governed by the verb apply) is not elided before tem­po­rary, but before travel documents. So the participle clause does not modify iden­tity cards, as well.

(49)  Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004, art. 1 para. 3 s. 2; cf. Joined Cases C-446/12 to C-449/12 ¹⁴
         It does not apply to identity cards issued by Member States to their nationals or to temporary
         passports and travel documents having a validity of 12 months or less.

 

7. Overview and conclusion

< 38 >

The coordinators ‘and’ and ‘or’ have been discussed in their usage in EU legal acts with a fo­cus on passages where they are at the base of ambiguities or clear divergences in multilin­gual wordings. As such, they constitute one reason for multilingual legal interpretation not being possible according to the wording.

It has been shown, however, that the context plays a significant role as it can balance or over­ride the effect of a coordinator and may thus disambiguate the text, or turn a divergence into a pseudo-divergence.

Coordinators interact with each other as well as with other grammatical operators, especially negation and modification, where EU legal acts are concerned. This interaction frequently leads to scope ambiguities.

Ambiguities of reading and scope can be avoided by contextual means:

(i)    factoring out of (non-)exhaustivity
(ii)   use of resumptive expressions
(iii)  full coverage of the frame of reference
(iv)  modulation of referentiality values (specificity)

and especially by scope barriers, such as

(i)     the choice of coordinator
(ii)    punctuation
(iii)   graphical segmentation
(iv)   cross-references
(v)    grammatical agreement
(vi)   avoiding an ellipsis of syntactic elements
(vii)  word order
(viii) framing and
(ix)   explication of indefinite legal concepts.

< 39 >

A multilingual catalogue of listed linguistic means for avoiding ambiguities in the context of coordination, negation and modification agreed upon by the European legislator could not only contribute to the efficient drafting of legal acts. Together with a classification of possible readings of coordinators, ambiguities and divergences set out here and in Mattissen (sub­mitted) it could also provide European jurisprudence with further argumentation modules in comparing and interpreting multilingual legal acts.

 

Appendix

< 40 >

Genetic affiliations of the official languages of the European Union

Indo-European family
         Celtic subfamily:            Irish-Gaelic
         Germanic subfamily:    English, Dutch, German, Danish, Swedish
         Romance subfamily:    Portuguese, Spanish, French, Italian, Romanian
         Baltic subfamily:            Lithuanian, Latvian
         Slavic subfamily:           Czech, Slovak, Polish, Slovene, Croatian, Bulgarian
         Hellenic subfamily:       Greek
Finno-Ugric family:                                     Finnish, Estonian, Hungarian
Afroasiatic family, Semitic subfamily:     Maltese

 

Endnotes

¹  C-52/23: Judgment of the Court of 13 March 2014, Posteshop SpA, Divisione Franchising Kipoint v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato and Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Re­quest for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato, ECLI:EU:C:2014:150; http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?oqp=&for=&mat=or&jge=&td=%3BALL&jur=C%2CT%2CF&num=C-52%252F13&page=1&dates=&pcs=Oor&lg=&pro=&nat=or&cit=none%252CC%252CCJ%252CR%252C2008E%252C%252C%252C%252C%
252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252Ctrue%252Cfalse%252Cfalse&language=en&avg=&cid=1873265 (Access 19/11/2019)

based on Directive 2006/114/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 concerning misleading and comparative advertising (codified version) OJ L 376, 27.12.2006: 21–27, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN-FR-DE/TXT/qid=1573750328476&uri=CELEX:32006L0114&from=EN (Access 19/11/2019).

This case was chosen for a term paper by Nina Diedel and Leona Jackson during the course “Aus­legung des mehrsprachig verbindlichen Unionsrechts in der Rechtsprechung des EuGH 2014” un­der the supervision of Isolde Burr-Haase in the summer term of 2015. The present analysis is my own.

²  C-304/02: Judgment of the Court of 12 July 2005, Commission of the European Communities v French Republic, ECLI:EU:C:2005:444, http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?oqp=&for=&mat=or&jge=&td=%3BALL&jur=C%2CT%2CF&num=C-304%252F02&page=1&dates=&pcs=Oor&lg=&pro=&nat=or&cit=none%252CC%252CCJ%252CR%
252C2008E%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252Ctrue%252Cfalse%252Cfalse&language=en&avg=&cid=1869121 (Access 19/11/2019)

based on Treaty establishing the European Community (Consolidated version 2006), OJ C 321E, 29.12.2006: 37–186, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN-FR-DE/TXT/?qid=1573750144311&uri=CELEX:12006E/TXT&from=EN (Access 19/11/2019).

³  C-561/16: Judgment of the Court of 7 August 2018, Saras Energía SA v Administración del Estado, Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo, ECLI:EU:C:2018:633, http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?oqp=&for=&mat=or&lgrec=en&jge=&td=%3BALL&jur=C%2CT%2CF&num=C-561%252F16&page=1&dates=&pcs=Oor&lg=&pro=&nat=or&cit=none%252CC%252CCJ%252CR%252C2008E%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252Ctrue%252Cfalse%252Cfalse&language=en&avg=&cid=1873265 (Access 19/11/2019)

based on Directive 2012/27/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on energy efficiency, amending Directives 2009/125/EC and 2010/30/EU and repealing Directives 2004/8/EC and 2006/32/EC, OJ L 315, 14.11.2012: 1–56, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN-DE-FR/TXT/?qid=1573749925106&uri=CELEX:32012L0027&from=EN (Access 19/11/ 2019).

This case was chosen for a term paper by Pemba Toto-Kiesa during the course “Auslegung des mehrsprachig verbindlichen Unionsrechts in der Rechtsprechung des EuGH” under the super­vi­sion of Isolde Burr-Haase in the summer term of 2019. The present analysis is my own.

⁴  C-510/10: Judgment of the Court of 26 April 2012, DR and TV2 Danmark A/S v NCB, Nordisk Co­py­right Bureau, Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret, ECLI:EU:C:2012:244, http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?oqp=&for=&mat=or&lgrec=de&jge=&td=%3BALL&jur=C%2CT%2CF&num=C-510%252F10&page=1&dates=&pcs=Oor&lg=&pro=&nat=or&cit=none%252CC%252CCJ%252CR%252C2008E%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252Ctrue%252Cfalse%252Cfalse&language=en&avg=&cid=3579548 (Access 19/11/2019)

based on Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, OJ L 167, 22.06.2001: 10–19, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN-DE-FR/TXT/?qid=1573751931551&uri=CELEX:32001L0029&from=EN (Access 19/11/2019).

This case was chosen for a term paper by Magdalena Klatt during the course “Auslegung des mehrsprachig verbindlichen Unionsrechts in der Rechtsprechung des EuGH 2011” under the su­per­vi­sion of Isolde Burr-Haase in the summer term of 2012. The present analysis is my own.

⁵  POSITION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT adopted at first reading on 12 March 2014 with a view to the adoption of Regulation (EU) No .../2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation) (EP-PE_TC1-COD(2012)0011). http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+TC+P7-TC1-COD-2012-0011+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+TC+P7-TC1-COD-2012-0011+0+DOC+PDF+V0//DE, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+TC+P7-TC1-COD-2012-0011+0+DOC+PDF+V0//FR (Access 19/11/2019).

This example was chosen for a term paper by Tanja Lischka und Anne-Sophie Sander during the course “Multi­linguale Aspekte bei der Rechtsetzung in der Europäischen Union anhand des Stand­punkts des Europäischen Parla­ments zur europäischen Datenschutzverordnung 2015” under the supervision of Isolde Burr-Haase in the winter term of 2014/2015. The present analysis is my own.

⁶  Joined Cases C-391/16, C-77/17 and C-78/17: Judgment of the Court of 14 May 2019, M and Others v Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides, Requests for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud and Conseil du Contentieux des Étrangers, ECLI:EU:C:2019:403, Opinion of Advocate General M. Wathelet, ECLI:EU:C:2018:486, both at http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?oqp=&for=&mat=or&jge=&td=%3BALL&jur=C%2CT%2CF&num=C-391%252F16&page=1&dates=&pcs=Oor&lg=&pro=&nat=or&cit=none%252CC%252CCJ%252CR%252C2008E%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252Ctrue%252Cfalse%252Cfalse&language=en&avg=&cid=1880901 (Access 19/11/2019)

based on Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted, OJ L 337, 20.12.2011: 9–26, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN-DE-FR/TXT/?qid=1573753357622&uri=CELEX:32011L0095&from=EN (Access 19/11/2019).

This case was kindly brought to my attention by Ellen Heinemann. The present analysis is my own.

⁷  Joined Cases C-627/13 and C-2/14: Judgment of the Court of 5 February 2015, Miguel M. and Others, Requests for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof, ECLI:EU:C:2015:59, http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?oqp=&for=&mat=or&jge=&td=%3BALL&jur=C%2CT%2CF&num=C-627%252F13&page=1&dates=&pcs=Oor&lg=&pro=&nat=or&cit=none%252CC%252CCJ%252CR%252C2008E%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252Ctrue%252Cfalse%252Cfalse&language=en&avg=&cid=1884151 (Access 19/11/2019)

based on Regulation (EC) No 273/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 Februa­ry 2004 on drug precursors, OJ L 47, 18.02.2004: 1–10, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN-DE-FR/TXT/?qid=1573754170222&uri=CELEX:32004R0273&from=EN (Access 19/11/ 2019)

amended by Regulation (EU) No 1258/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2013 amending Regulation (EC) No 273/2004 on drug precursors, OJ L 330, 10.12.2013: 21–29, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN-FR-DE/TXT/?qid=1573754609814&uri=CELEX:32013R1258&from=EN (Access 19/11/2019).

This case was chosen for a term paper by Sarah Sandführ and Yasmin Vlase-West during the course “Auslegung des mehrsprachig verbindlichen Unionsrechts in der Rechtsprechung des EuGH 2015” under the supervision of Isolde Burr-Haase in the summer term of 2016. The present analy­sis is my own.

⁸  Regulation (EU) 2018/1724 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 2 October 2018 esta­bli­sh­ing a single digital gateway to provide access to information, to procedures and to assis­tance and pro­blem-solving services and amending Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012, PE/41/2018/REV/2, OJ L 295, 21.11.2018: 1–38, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN-FR-DE/TXT/?qid=1573754735864&uri=CELEX:32018R1724&from=EN (Access 19/11/2019).

This example was chosen for a term paper by Monika Oblonczek during the course “Auslegung des mehrsprachig verbindlichen Unionsrechts in der Rechtsprechung des EuGH 2017” under the su­per­vi­sion of Isolde Burr-Haase in the summer term of 2018. The present analysis is my own.

⁹  Regulation (EU) 2019/787 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on the definition, description, presentation and labelling of spirit drinks, the use of the names of spirit drinks in the presentation and labelling of other foodstuffs, the protection of geographical indica­tions for spirit drinks, the use of ethyl alcohol and distillates of agricultural origin in alcoholic beverages, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 110/2008, PE/75/2018/REV/1, OJ L 130, 17.05.2019: 1–54, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN-FR-DE/TXT/?qid=1573754849268&uri=CELEX:32019R0787&from=EN (Access 19/11/2019).

¹⁰  Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on the provision of food information to consumers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1924/2006 and (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Commission Di­rective 87/250/EEC, Council Directive 90/496/EEC, Commission Directive 1999/10/EC, Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Commission Directives 2002/67/EC and 2008/5/EC and Commission Regulation (EC) No 608/2004, OJ L 304, 22.11.2011: 18–63, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN-FR-DE/TXT/?qid=1573755000800&uri=CELEX:32011R1169&from=
EN (Access 19/11/2019).

A case (C-462/17) based on an earlier version of the regulation ((EG) No 110/2008) was chosen for a term paper by Charlotte Mann during the course “Auslegung des mehrsprachig verbindlichen Unionsrechts in der Rechtspre­chung des EuGH 2018” under the supervision of Isolde Burr-Haase in the summer term of 2019. The present analysis is my own.

¹¹  Directive (EU) 2015/2302 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on package travel and linked travel arrangements, amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Di­rective 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Direc­tive 90/314/EEC, OJ L 326, 11.12.2015: 1–33, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN-FR-DE/TXT/?qid=1573755273916&uri=CELEX:32015L2302&from=EN (Access 19/11/ 2019).

This example was chosen for a term paper by Agata Miksiewicz and Yasmin Vlase-West during the course “Multilinguale Aspekte bei der Rechtsetzung in der Europäischen Union am Beispiel der Richtlinie (EU) 2015/2302 des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates über Pauschalreisen und verbundene Reiseleistungen” under the supervision of Isolde Burr-Haase in the winter term of 2015/2016. The present analysis is my own.

¹²  C-486/12: Judgment of the Court, 12 December 2013, X, Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te ’s-Hertogenbosch, ECLI:EU:C:2013:836, http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?oqp=&for=&mat=or&jge=&td=%3BALL&jur=C%2CT%2CF&num=C-486%252F12&page=1&dates=&pcs=Oor&lg=&pro=&nat=or&cit=none%
252CC%252CCJ%252CR%252C2008E%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252Ctrue%252Cfalse%252Cfalse&language=en&avg=&cid=1886571 (Access 19/11/2019)

based on Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free move­ment of such data, OJ L 281, 23.11.1995: 31–50, no longer in force since 24/05/2018; Repealed by 32016R0679, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN-FR-DE/TXT/?qid=1573755578595&uri=CELEX:31995L0046&from=EN (Access 19/11/2019).

This case was chosen for a term paper by group 4 during the course “Auslegung des mehr­spra­chig verbindlichen Unionsrechts in der Rechtsprechung des EuGH 2013” under the supervision of Isol­de Burr-Haase in the summer term of 2014. The present analysis is my own.

¹³  Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, OJ L 311, 28.11.2001: 67–128, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN-DE-FR/TXT/?qid=1574472020670&uri=CELEX:32001L0083&from=EN (Access 19/11/2019).

¹⁴  Joined Cases C-446/12 to C-449/12: Judgment of the Court of 16 April 2015, W. P. Willems and Others v Burgemeester van Nuth and Others, Requests for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State, ECLI:EU:C:2015:238, http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?oqp=&for=&mat=or&lgrec=de&jge=&td=%3BALL&jur=C%2CT%2CF&num=C-446%252F12&page=1&dates=&pcs=Oor&lg=&pro=&nat=or&cit=none%252CC%252CCJ%252CR%252C2008E%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C
%252C%252Ctrue%252Cfalse%252Cfalse&language=en&avg=&cid=1895934 (Access 19/11/2019)

based on Council Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004 of 13 December 2004 on standards for security fea­tures and biometrics in passports and travel documents issued by Member States, OJ L 385, 29.12.2004: 1–6, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN-FR-DE/TXT/?qid=1573755958006&uri=CELEX:32004R2252&from=EN (Access 19/11/2019).

This case was chosen for a term paper by Sarah Sandführ and Yasmin Vlase-West during the course “Auslegung des mehrsprachig verbindlichen Unionsrechts in der Rechtsprechung des EuGH 2015” under the supervision of Isolde Burr-Haase in the summer term of 2016. The present analy­sis is my own.

 

References

Adams, Kenneth A. / Kaye, Alan S. (2006). “Revisiting the ambiguity of "and" and "or" in legal drafting”. St. John’s Law Review 80: 1167-1195.

Barotto, Alessandra / Mauri, Caterina (2019). A typology of non-exhaustivity: focus on non-ex­haustive connectives. Ms. University of Bologna.

Bundesministerium der Justiz (2008). Handbuch der Rechtsförmlichkeit. Köln: Bun­des­an­zeiger Nr. 160a.

Burr, Isolde (2013). “Article 55 [Languages and Deposit of the Treaty]”. In: Blanke, Her­mann-Josef / Mangiameli, Stelio (eds.): The Treaty on European Union (TEU). Berlin, Hei­delberg: Springer-Verlag. 1461-1525.

Chesterman, Andrew (1991). On definiteness: a study with special reference to English and Finnish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Engel, Ulrich (1999). Deutsch-polnische kontrastive Grammatik. 2 Vols. Heidelberg: Groos.

European Union (1998-2019). EUR-Lex. Access to European Union law. Brussels. https://eur-lex.europa.eu.

European Union (1998-2019). InfoCuria – Case-law of the Court of Justice. Luxembourg. https://curia.europa.eu.

European Parliament / Council of the European Union / European Commission (2018). Joint Handbook for the Presentation and Drafting of Acts subject to the Ordinary Legis­lative Procedure. Brussels.

Fabricius-Hansen, Cathrine (2016). “Vorangestellte Attribute und Relativsätze im Deutschen: Wettbe­werb und Zusam­menspiel”. In: Hennig, Mathilde (ed.): Komplexe Attribution: ein Nominal­stilphänomen aus sprachhisto­rischer, grammatischer, typologischer und funktionalstilistischer Per­spektive. Berlin: De Gruyter. 135-168.

Fischer, Klaus (2016). “Vertextungsstrategien im Deutschen und Englischen: die Attribution in der Nominal­phrase”. In: Hennig, Mathilde (ed.): Komplexe Attribution: ein Nominalstil­phänomen aus sprachhisto­rischer, grammatischer, typologischer und funktionalstilistischer Pers­pektive. Berlin: De Gruyter. 253-293.

Grevisse, Maurice / Goosse, André (2016). Le Bon Usage: langue française. Bruxelles: De Boeck Supérieur.

Haspelmath, Martin (2007). “Coordination”. In: Shopen, Timothy (ed.): Language Typology and Syntactic Description. 3 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1-51.

Hawkins, John (1978). Definitness and Indefinitness. London: Croom Helm.

Huddleston, Rodney / Payne, John / Peterson, Peter (2002). “Coordination and supple­men­tation”. In: Huddleston, Rodney / Pullum, Geoffrey K.: The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge University Press. 1273-1362.

Mattissen, Johanna (submitted). “Semantics of coordinators in EU languages – the multiple readings of ‘and’, ‘or', ‘but’”. Parallèles 33(1) 2021: 18-38.

Mauri, Caterina / Giacalone Ramat, Anna (2015). “Piuttosto che: dalla preferenza all’ esempli­ficazione di alternative”. Cuadernos de Filología Italiana 20: 49-72.

Payne, John / Huddleston, Rodney (2002). “Nouns and noun phrases”. In: Huddleston, Rod­ney / Pullum, Geoffrey K.: The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cam­bridge University Press. 323-523.

Pullum, Geoffrey K. / Huddleston, Rodney (2002). “Negation”. In: Huddleston, Rodney / Pullum, Geoffrey K.: The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge University Press. 785-849.

Quirk, Randolph / Greenbaum, Sidney / Leech, Geoffrey N. / Svartvik, Jan (²²2008). A Com­prehensive Grammar of the English Language. Harlow: Longman.

Roma, Elisa (to appear). “Allungalista generici e specifici nei testi giuridici”. Studi Italiani di Linguistica teorica e applicata 2020 (2).

Real Academia Española / Cascón Martín, Eugenio (2013). El buen uso. Madrid: Espasa.

Riegel, Martin / Pellat, Jean-Christophe / Rioul, René (⁵2014). Grammaire méthodique du français. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

Visconti, Jacqueline (2018). “Interpreting or in legal texts”. In: Kurzon, Dennis / Kryk-Kastovsky, Barbara (eds.): Legal Pragmatics. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 117-132.

Waßner, Ulrich Hermann (2014). “Alternativebasierte (“disjunktive”) Konnektoren”. In: Breindl, Eva / Volodina, Anna / Waßner, Ulrich Hermann: Handbuch der deutschen Kon­nektoren. 2 Vols. Berlin: De Gruyter. 591-681.

Zifonun, Gisela (2016). “Attribute unterschiedlicher Modifikationstypen und ihre Kombi­natorik in sprachvergleichender Perspektive”. In: Hennig, Mathilde (ed.): Komplexe Attri­bution: ein Nominalstilphänomen aus sprachhistorischer, grammatischer, typologischer und funk­tionalstilistischer Perspektive. Berlin: De Gruyter. 213-249.