The Observer reports on calls for prisoners in the UK to be given the vote.

The government faces being hauled before the European court of human rights unless it gives prisoners the right to vote as a matter of urgency.

The article correctly refers to Strasbourg and to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. But what has the term Eurosceptics to do with this?

But any move that recognises the ECHR ruling on prisoner voting is likely to spark an angry reaction from Eurosceptics. In the House of Lords last year Lord Tebbit attacked the measure as a form of “judicial imperialism” effectively foisted on the UK by a foreign court.

A challenge within the UK would first have to go through the UK courts, which are now subject to the Human Rights Act, so the matter would probably not even reach Strasbourg.

The commenter Sverdlovsk writes:

The ECHR is not an EU institution.

It is part of the Council of Europe, which includes countries such as Russia and Turkey. It is an institution that is strongly ‘British’ in character, insofar as it was set up with strong British involvement and support – among others Winston Churchill was a strong supporter.

It’s sad that people will use this as yet another ‘reason to hate the EU’ (cf Raptorjezus), but this is what always seems to happen on these threads.

Once again, the ECHR has nothing to do with the EU.

The Times Online is about to disappear from my radar because there will be a charge for using it.

I will miss the law section.

This is no doubt why the Guardian, which I already read for news together with the Independent, has now got a law section. It’s also possible to get a weekly email newsletter called the Bundle.

Getting ready for Saturday: the German entry to the Hardchorus European Song Contest, Ein bisschen Frieden.

England

(Via vowe.net)

Mark Liberman at Language Log commented on a confusion between caught short and cut short. The comments took up this British meaning (photographed in a loo at Covent Garden recently).

LATER NOTE: here is the information on Sat Lav from the City of Westminster council. I like the logo at the bottom left.

Since I wrote on this topic, at least two weblogs have taken it up, and there are comments on the entries. And last week there was an article in Die Zeit.

First, law blog had an entry, Englisch soll deutsche Gerichtssprache werden. One of the commenters wonders whether he is entitled to an interpreter if he wants to watch the proceedings.

Frage: Ich würde gern mal einer in englischer Sprache geführten Gerichtsverhandlung als Zuhörer beiwohnen, um im Rahmen der Öffentlichkeit der Sitzung deren Qualität nachzuvollziehen. Habe ich jetzt einen Anspruch auf Beiordnung eines Dolmetschers, der mir den Verlauf der Verhandlung ins Deutsche übersetzt? Oder muss ich als Zuhörer den Dolmetscher selbst bezahlen? Gelten vielleicht PKH-Grundsätze? Wie steht es mit dem gesetzlichen Richter, wenn für bestimmte Verhandlungsarten nur noch ein sprachlich ausgebildeter Richter in Betracht kommt? Habe ich als Richter vielleicht einen Anspruch auf LLM-Fortbildung, um nicht als Depp dazustehen?…

When I commented there myself, it occurred to me that I suspect two German lawyers and three German judges discussing German law in English are understanding each other despite the language.

And in German Joys, Andrew Hammel had an entry English in German Courtrooms.

Anotherone also had an entry.

Die Zeit has an article on this topic, by Pierre-Christian Fink.

Some points from that article:

BASF is mentioned as a company that conducts a lot of litigation abroad.

A lawyer for another company says the reform would save costs and avoid the common arguments about translation errors. (I have my doubts about this. I certainly think that interpreters, even qualified and court-certified interpreters, often make mistakes, but on the basis of the single case in Bonn, mistakes were not avoided. On the other hand, there were no native speakers of English involved in that case, so maybe it was atypical).

The discussion is about far more than language. It’s about which legal system will establish itself internationally.

I’ve commented before on the Bündnis für das deutsche Recht (Alliance for German law).
I don’t think I ever traced the English document to which it was a reaction – till now. This is mentioned in Die Zeit as ‘England und Wales – das Rechtssystem erster Wahl’ – it was in fact England and Wales: The jurisdiction of choice, published by the Law Society and sponsored by Herbert Smith, Norton Rose and Eversheds. And here is a PDF of it. Incidentally, one point in it is that nothing stops English courts from deciding on German law, which rather removes the argument that for German law to succeed, German courts have to try cases in English:

Cross-border disputes can be tried in English courts whatever the governing law
Parties may agree to select England and Wales as the jurisdiction in which to resolve their dispute whatever the law governing their dispute. The English High Court is experienced in hearing evidence of foreign law and deciding issues in accordance with that law.

Back to Die Zeit. A lawyer is quoted to the effect that a case in the USA that has taken ten weeks and is not over would have been finished in two days in Germany, because of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(Via Richard Schneider)

The draft legislationon introducing English states plainly that there will be financial advantages. This will profit German lawyers too.

Klaus Tolksdorf, President of the Federal Court or Justice, warns against euphoria: will this be the end or the beginning of linguistic confusion in German courts?

Finally, how many German statutes have been translated into English? The Ministry of Justice had no idea. Jan Scharlau of the Centre for German Legal Information (linked in my sidebar and the best place to start looking for English translations) points out that only very few statutes are available in really good English translations. Most of them are either translated in a slovenly manner or not translated at all.

The German European Commissioner Günther Oettinger became famous on YouTube for speaking English badly (earlier entry).

His main problem was his ignorance of stress. It’s hard to understand English when unexpected syllables are emphasized.

It’s now reported that Oettinger is trying to improve his English. Südkurier (in German, quoting Hamburger Abendblatt) and other papers report that he is increasing his English vocabulary by ten to twenty words a week.

Über seine Lernmethoden sagt Oettinger: „Abends schaue ich öfter ins Wörterbuch. Wenn es einen englischen Fachbegriff gibt, den ich nicht kenne, dann lerne ich ihn auf diesem Weg. So kommen jede Woche 10 bis 20 neue Wörter hinzu.“ Auch im Urlaub wird nun Englisch gepaukt: „Ich habe mir fest vorgenommen, in meinem Sommerurlaub einen Sprachkurs zu absolvieren.“

He looks in the dictionary every evening and if he finds a technical term he doesn’t know, he learns it. He also intends to take a language course in his summer holiday.

Which dictionary is he using, I wonder? I should think the language course will be more help with his pronunciation.