Influence of the French Language on EU Legal Acts
The European Commission, headquartered in Brussels, Belgium, plays a pivotal role in the legislative process of the European Union. The location of the Commission significantly impacts the language used in its documents and legal texts. This influence is particularly evident in regulations such as the European Travel Information and Authorisation System (ETIAS) regulation. The EU is characterised by its linguistic diversity, with 24 official languages. However, French has historically been one of the primary working languages of the EU institutions, including the European Commission. As a result, many documents are drafted initially in French before being translated into other languages, including English.
Gallicisms in Legal Texts
Gallicisms refer to expressions or constructions that are characteristic of the French language but may not be idiomatic or appropriate in other languages. In legal texts like the ETIAS regulation, these gallicisms can manifest as phrases or sentence structures that are directly translated from French. For example, certain legal terms may retain their French form or structure even when translated into English, leading to awkward phrasing that lacks clarity for native English speakers.
Literal Translations and Their Implications
Literal translations from French can create confusion and ambiguity within legal texts. This is particularly problematic in regulations where precise language is crucial for interpretation and enforcement. The ETIAS regulation serves as an example where such translations may hinder understanding among stakeholders who rely on English versions for compliance and implementation.
Impact on Stakeholders
The presence of gallicisms and atypical translations can affect various stakeholders involved with EU regulations, including member states’ governments, businesses operating within the EU, and citizens seeking to understand their rights and obligations under these laws. Misinterpretations arising from poorly translated texts can lead to compliance issues or disputes regarding regulatory requirements.
Ongoing Efforts for Clarity
Recognising these challenges, there have been ongoing efforts within EU institutions to improve translation practices and ensure that legal texts are more accessible across all official languages. This includes using the services of professional translators who are not only linguistically proficient but also well-versed in legal terminology specific to each language.
Language Inaccuracies in the ETIAS Regulation
1. "Take a decision" vs. "Make a decision": the sentence "take a decision" is commonly used in legal and formal contexts but is considered less idiomatic in English compared to "make a decision." This usage may stem from direct translation from French, where "prendre une décision" is standard.
2. "Technical impossibility": while this sentence is technically correct, it can sound awkward or overly formal in English. A more natural expression might be "system unavailability", "technical difficulties" or "technical challenges," or "interruption of service", or "software or system malfunctioning", depending on the context.
3. "High epidemic risk": this sentence is somewhat ambiguous. While it is understandable, it could be more clearly stated as "significant risk of epidemics" to enhance clarity.
4. "Coherent with the specific objectives": The sentence "coherent with" is technically correct but less common in English. A more standard phrase would be "consistent with."
Literal Translations from French
1. "To lay down rules": this sentence is a direct translation of "établir des règles" from French. While it is acceptable in English, alternatives like "establish rules" or "set rules" are more commonly used.
2. "To ensure the protection of personal data": this is a direct translation from "assurer la protection des données personnelles." While accurate, it could be simplified to "to protect personal data."
3. "Should consist of": the sentence "should consist of" translates directly from "devrait consister en" in French. A more natural phrase in English might be "should include."
4. "To verify the admissibility of applications": this sentence could be seen as a direct translation from French legal terminology. A more straightforward expression could be "to check if applications are valid."
5. "Should have the obligation to verify": this sentence translates from "devrait avoir l'obligation de vérifier." A more natural English expression might be "should be required to verify."