Jeremy Phillips’ and Ilanah Simon’s IPKAT intellectual property weblog is very active and up-to-date, and regularly complains about the time it takes to get translations into English of European Court of Justice decisions and Advocate General’s opinions, as again on December 14th:

bq. The Court of First Instance gave judgment yesterday in Case T-8/03 El Corte Inglés v OHIM – Pucci (EMILIO PUCCI). It is available in a number of languages including Latvian, Lithuanian and Slovak — but not English.

I don’t know who reads these rants of those who might do something about it, but here’s some evidence that these translations are really awaited.

bq. The IPKat wonders why the European Commission spends his hard-earned money on a variety of causes all over the world, but won’t provide enough cash for immediate translation of cases involving EU law into the world’s most widely-used language in intellectual property circles. Who, he wants to know, is the person responsible for the translation of ECJ and CFI cases? What is the basis of current translation policy? Does it have any official sanction? How are English-speaking lawyers expected to compete in the provision of legal advice, with lawyers from France, Germany and other countries in the lucrative market for intellectual property services when the others can rely on official texts and translations but English-speakers must make to with unofficial translations? Why is this state of affairs being allowed to continue? How much would it cost to provide timely translation of ECJ and CFI decisions in all main EU languages? What is the Department of Trade and Industry in the UK doing about it? Why is no-one else shouting?

I have read that the translation service costs an EU citizen an average of one cappuccino a year, but whether that includes the ECJ translations I don’t know – perhaps one should add a piece of carrot cake.

The following will not be a surprise to Germans:

OK, some of the CDs don’t seem to be quite in the right category. But there is definitely a distinction here. (Drogerie Müller, Nürnberg)

Btw, the second CD refers not to Fürth, but to Furth im Wald, famous for the Drachenstich.

Yesterday, the House of Lords held that imprisoning foreign terror suspects without charging them or trying them is against the European Convention on Human Rights. (Independent – Guardian)

Here’s the text of the judgment.

Curiously, not a day after the Home Secretary, David Blunkett, was forced to retire for other reasons, this was a thumbs-down vote on his policies.

It’s a really important decision where nine law lords sit (by the way, they don’t wear robes or wigs, and there was a majority of eight to one. The full name of the court is the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords.

I wanted to see what the German papers did with it, but there is little available. The topic was promptly reported by the wonderful German weblog on human rights, Menschenrechte, which quoted an Austrian source.

From the Independent report:

bq. Lord Hoffmann, one of the panel of nine law lords, said: “[This case] calls into question the very existence of an ancient liberty of which this country has until now been very proud: freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention.”

bq. In response to government arguments that the anti-terrorism Act was necessary to protect the life of the nation, Lord Hoffmann said: “The real threat to the life of the nation … comes not from terrorism but from laws such as these.

bq. “That is the true measure of what terrorism may achieve. It is for Parliament to decide whether to give the terrorists such a victory.”

bq. Baroness Hale said that the law was clearly discriminatory: “Substitute ‘black’, ‘disabled’, ‘female’, ‘gay’, … and ask whether it would be justifiable to … lock up that group but not the ‘white’, ‘able-bodied’, ‘male’ or ‘straight’ suspected international terrorists. The answer is clear.” After being told of the ruling, detainee “A”, who is being held in Woodhill Prison, Buckinghamshire, said: “This ruling should send a message to the legislators that ‘national security’ can never take precedence over human rights.”

Linklogbuch von Bettina Winterfeld.

Willkommen zurück!

Here’s a site with information on electricity all over the world.

This is plug type G (mainly used in the United Kingdom, Ireland, Cyprus, Malta, Malaysia and Singapore).

Thanks to Christiane for mentioning it on Compuserve. – Perhaps this will compensate for the crummy links given earlier today.

Dieses früher besprochene Wörterbuch ist wahrscheinlich erschienen.

It looks as if the Talking Law Dictionary may have appeared. I mentioned it earlier.

Here are pictures of all the speakers. Do they get to speak one word at a time?

bq. Sprecher: Prof. Dr. Jutta Limbach, Präsidentin des Goethe Institutes, vormals Präsidentin des BVerfG; Prof. Dr. Günther Hirsch, Präsident des BGH; Prof. Dr. Udo di Fabio, Richter am BVerfG; Prof. Dr. Hoffman-Riem, Richter am BVerfG; Lord Hope of Craighead, Richter am House of Lords; Lord Rodger of Earlferry, Richter am House of Lords; Lord Slynn of Hadley, Richter am House of Lords; Prof. Dr. David A.O. Edward, Richter am EuGH; Prof. Dr. Ninon Colneric, Richterin am EuGH; Lady Justice Mary Arden, Richterin am Court of Appeal; Lord Justice Konrad Schiemann, Richter am Court of Appeal; Dame Rosalyn Higgins, Richterin am Internationalen Gerichtshof in Den Haag; Justice Stephen Breyer, Richter am United States Supreme Court; Professor Thomas Buergenthal, Richer am IGH; Dr. Andrew Cannon, Supervising Magistrate, Magistrate Court Adelaide (Australia); Dr. Peter Jann, Richter am EuGH; Fidelma O’Kelly Macken, Richterin am EuGH; Eckart Hien, Präsident des BVerwG; Prof. Dr. KlausTolksdorf, Richter am BGH

It appears they are also selling the book by Heidinger and Hubalek (I thought it was a CD-ROM at first, but it isn’t). Any legal translator who doesn’t know the book should take a look at it, but it’s not quite free of Germanisms (Austriacisms?). It’s Anglo-Amerikanische Rechtssprache (sold under a different title that sounds like a dictionary in the USA).