IPKAT (aka ‘the’ IPKAT) occasionally posts an entry called Translation Watch. This is directed at the slowness of the European Court of Justice in providing translations, especially of the opinions of Advocates General. I’ll quote one in full (published on January 8th).

bq. The IPKat notes that the ECJ has delivered its judgment in the Rolex case concerning Council Regulation (EC) No 3295/94 of 22 December 1994 laying down measures concerning the entry into the Community and the export and re-export from the Community of goods infringing certain intellectual property rights and criminal penalties thereunder, even though the Advocate General’s decision hasn’t been translated into English yet. More on this case from the IPKat anon.

Now, for the first time I think, there is a cry of joy, or in fact a purr, recording that the ECJ has reacted:

bq. On 6 January the IPKat announced the welcome if long-overdue arrival on the ECJ website of the Advocate General’s opinion in Koninklijke KPN Nederland NV v Benelux-Merkenbureau on the registrability of composite words (in that case POSTKANTOOR, the Dutch for “post office”). The IPKat is now purring with gratitude at Mary Leger, of the ECJ, who has emailed us with the good news that the Court’s full judgment will be handed down on Thursday 12 February, more than two years after the date of the Advocate General’s Opinion. Thank you, Mary.

I believe the Advocates General’s (I had to think about that apostrophe) opinions are given to freelance translators and the judgments done in-house, but I’m not sure. Why a particular translation is delayed in a particular case I can’t say. It’s no doubt easier to tolerate if you can read French, I mean legal French, or some other EU language, as well as English.