Tuesday, 14 May 2013

ECHR Articles in Liber Amicorum Pieter van Dijk

A liber amicorum for the recently retired Dutch jurist Pieter van Dijk, also a former judge at the European Court of Human Rights, has been published with Intersentia. It is entiteld 'Fundamental Rights and Principles. Liber Amicorum Pieter van Dijk' and includes the following directly ECHR-related chapters:

* Fried van Hoof and Leo Zwaak, 'The Concurring and Dissenting Opinions of Pieter van Dijk as a Judge of the European Court of Human Rights'.

Egbert Myjer, 'Pieter van Dijk and His Favourite Strasbourg Judgment. Some Remarks on Consensus in the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights'.

Janneke Gerards, 'Judicial Minimalism and ‘Dependency’. Interpretation of the European Convention in a Pluralist Europe'.

Giorgio Malinverni, 'Switzerland before the European Court of Human Rights'.

Martin Kuijer, 'The Impact of the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights on the Political Debate in the Netherlands concerning the Court'.

Thijs Drupsteen, 'Environmental Protection under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights'.

Zdravka Kalaydjieva, 'State Obligations to Adequate Judicial Response in Cases under Article 2 of the Convention. Issues of Admissibility'.

Monday, 13 May 2013

New ECHR Publications

Please find below another batch of new academic articles on the European Convention of Human Rights:

* E. Brems and L. Lavryse, 'Procedural justice in human rights adjudication: the European Court of Human Rights', Human Rights Quarterly, vol. 35, no. 1 (2013)  pp. 176-200.

* L. Groen, 'The ‘Iukos affair’. The Russian judiciary and the European Court of Human Rights', Review of Central and East European Law, vol. 38, no. 1 (2013)pp. 77-108

* K. Margaritis, 'The framework for fundamental rights protection in Europe under the prospect of EU accession to ECHR',  Journal of Politics and Law, vol. 6, no. 1 (2013) pp. 64-79.

Finally, for those who read French, the newest issue of the Revue trimestrielle des droits de l'homme, No. 94 (April 2013) has been published. ECHR-related content includes::

* Béatrice Pastre-Belda, 'La Cour européenne des droits de l’homme - Entre promotion de la subsidiarité et protection effective des droits'.
* Benoit Frydman, 'L’arrêt RTBF c. Belgique : un coup d’arrêt au contrôle judiciaire préventif de la presse et des médias' (obs/s. Cour eur. dr. h., RTBF c. Belgique, 29 mars 2011).
* Steve Gilson & France Lambinet, 'La liberté d'expression syndicale' (obs/s. Cour eur. dr. h., Gde Ch., Palomo Sanchez e.a. c. Espagne, 12 septembre 2011; Cour eur. dr. h., Vellutini et Michel c. France, 6 octobre 2011) .
* Dimitri Yernault, 'Expropriation déguisée, impôt et droit de propriété : l’affaire Yukos, un épisode de la guerre des oligarques russes devant la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme' (obs/s. Cour eur. dr. h., OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos c. Russie, 20 septembre 2011) .
* Valérie Junod, 'Transparence contre confidentialité' (obs/s. Cour eur. dr. h., Gde. Ch., Gillberg c. Suède, 3 avril 2012) .
* Nicolas Hervieu, 'Le droit de vote des détenus : histoire sans fin pour un contentieux décisif' (obs/s. Cour eur. dr. h., Gde Ch., Scoppola (n° 3) c. Italie, 22 mai 2012).
* François Finck, 'L’application de sanctions individuelles du Conseil de sécurité des Nations Unies devant la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme' (obs/s. Cour eur. dr. h., Gde Ch., Nada c. Suisse, 12 septembre 2012)
* Michel Puéchavy, 'Une amnistie générale ne peut couvrir les crimes de tortures et de traitements inhumains et dégradants' (obs/s. Cour eur. dr. h., Margus c. Croatie, 13 novembre 2012)

Thursday, 9 May 2013

Prior Vs. Previous



Mr. Richard Pryor. One of the greatest comedians of all time.

I thought about pacing myself here, perhaps even being stingy with the new material, because you know that one day it’ll dry up again, and then we’ll be on hiatus for another thousand years. But, if I have something nice I can’t wait to share it, even if it crumbles slightly in the sharing. So having said all that, here, have a slice of crumbly, sticky, Word pie...

Prior and previous are aninteresting pair of words that suffer from similar problems  as start and begin, and end and finish. They are largely synonymous, but prior also has an extra definition, and sometimes this creates discord in the rhythm of a sentence. Let’s look at those definitions:

1. Previous (adj) Existing or coming before in time or order.
2. Prior (adj) Existing or coming before in time, order or importance.

The classic example of prior’s extra definition is, ‘I’m sorry Piotr, I can’t meet you on Tuesday as I have a prior engagement.’ Here, priorfulfils all of its duties. The obvious fact is that the speaker has already agreed to do something else on Tuesday, before they were invited somewhere by Piotr. The implied fact is that this is not something that can be cancelled or rearranged  Maybe it’s a job interview, or a funeral, or a date with someone hot? Otherwise, hanging out with Piotr would be the happening thing on Tuesday. 

As far as our translations go, the problem is that we’re using priorwhen what we need to use is previous. To simplify, prior works at its absolute best when it’s prior to (which is generally less of a problem, interestingly).

In the following examples, prior is being used incorrectly:

- These financial statements do not cover any events related to prior years.
- The prior year’s losses did not impact heavily on our financial standing.
- Increased sales throughout 2011 created significant profits compared to the prior year’s    figures.
- In prior years, the lack of our own facilities has made this a problematic area.


Now let’s do them again, with previous:
- These financial statements do not cover any events related to previous years.
- The previous year’s losses did not impact heavily on our financial standing.
- Increased sales throughout 2011 created significant profits compared to the previous year’s   figures.
- In previous years, the lack of our own facilities has made this a problematic area.

Do they read any better to you now? To anglik eyes (and ears), the sentences flow more smoothly, like hot chocolate dripping off a golden spoon into a lake of melted marshmallows.


Because I love you all so much, here's the recipe too!

Now, here are some goodexamples of prior (all from our concordance, all from different clients). None of them would work with previous, and all of them work because they come with the extra nutty crunch of to.

- Prior toreceiving the new information, we had thought the task impossible.
- Carrying amount prior to acquisition…
 - The number of shares held prior to the change is not larger than it was previously.
-  Writers must submit their manuscripts for editing prior to their publication.
- The Purchaser agrees to take control of the Company prior to the closing date of the sale.

There are two reasons for all of this chocolaty, nutty mess. The first is that, in terms of prior’s 4th sense, the year before does not inherently take precedence over this year in terms of importance. The second is that using prior alone as your adjective sounds odd, even in stiffer, more formal contexts.

Final thought: There are times when prior does work on its own, or when it’s part of an established phrase. If any of you deal with accounting translations, you’ll doubtless be familiar with the IFRS and their thrill-a-minute IAS(International Accounting Standards). Within these standards, there are several uses of prior which conflict with what I’m saying above (prior year, prior period i inni). Remember, what the IFRS say, we must do, so don’t change your habits there!

 Another one of Rich, because I do so love him.

Thursday, 2 May 2013

Start Vs. Begin

 I would say 'Sorry I was away so long', but I suspect the silence was golden ;)

This is something I was asked about recently by one of my new colleagues. (By “new colleagues” I mean ‘one of my colleagues in the translating office that I work in at my new job (yes, I am once again gainfully employed and free of the glass-walled tyranny of freelancing from home – hence the new material. ;)).
Let’s begin, as we traditionally do, with the OED definitions:

begin(v) 1) perform or undergo the first part of an activity; 2) come into being, or have its starting point at a certain time or place

Jakub had just begun a life sentence for murder.
It was beginning to snow.
The cycle path begins at the base of Kopiec Kościuszki.
Our story begins in France, in 1412.
The event began quietly, with minimal fuss or bother.
The road to understanding begins with one small email.
We began unpacking the sniper rifle after the proofreader had left the building.

start(v)
1) cause to happen or begin; 2) to cause a machine to begin operating; 3) begin or be reckoned from a particular point in time or space

Two men started the fire.
I’m starting a campaign to get the law changed.
It began to be obvious that he wasn’t a real  policeman when his gun started leaking.
The kids had already started eating by the time I sat down.

He started the car and drove off.
The lawnmower started with a bang and sped off through the grass.

Now, I’ve been working on this for a while, and I have found it to be quite unsatisfying. There is a great degree of interchangeability between startand begin, and sometimes they’re not interchangeable at all, so it’s very hard to say ‘Do it this way and you’ll always be right’. However, if we look at those dictionary definitions again, we can see something that might help increase our confidence about their use, or at least provide a reliable mental check:

A great song from a great band. If you like songs with proper narratives, give them a listen.

Startis active, begin is passive. In other words, things that start often imply deliberate action, while things that beginoften do so without our intervention.
You can still see that either word could have either quality, but it’s as good a way of putting this idea as any that my stupid brain can come up with. There are other considerations too, but we’ll burn those horses when we cross them. In the meantime, let’s see how the active/passive idea applies to our own examples:

The cycle path begins at the base of Kopiec Kościuszki.
The road to understanding begins with one small email.
Good. A path, road or track etc is an inanimate thing that lies passively on the ground and needs no initial work to be usable. This also works for our figurate ‘road’.

We began unpacking the sniper rifle after the proofreader had left the building.
Could be either, depending on the construction of the sentence. From my own point of view, start, which collocates with finish (as begin collocates with end, (more on this later)), implies a definite, measurable process, while begin is something more meandering and lazy – this ties in with the active/passive idea. Therefore, if we were in a race to unpack the rifle and blow the proofreader’s brains out, we would better start to do so, but if there was no specific, defined reason to hurry, begin wins.

Our story begins in France, in 1412.
Definitely begin. We can start reading a book (we take it from the shelf, open it up and go to the first page), but we begin to read. Of course, we could startreading, but again, it’s not a race.

It was beginning to snow.
You could phrase it either way, depending on the tense and construction, but if you want to make it simple, remember the active/passive rule. We humble worms cannot magically cause it to snow; mother nature has to do that for us.

The event began quietly, with minimal fuss or bother.
From my point of view, began works the best here because although ‘an event’ technically requires someone to switch on a speaker, unlock a door, cut a ribbon, tap a microphone etc, crucially it is not us ­– the audience, spectators, experiencers etc ­– doing it. Therefore, almost like the falling snow, it is beyond our control; we must wait passively for the event to begin. (weren’t expecting philosophy, were you?).

 "Press START to begin" is a typical bit of videogame phrasing, but try finding a good picture of it!

Two men started the fire.
He started the car and drove off.

The lawnmower started with a bang and sped off through the grass.
In contrast, one does not usuallyhang around waiting for fires to begin. Rather, somebody has to get their hands dirty (or bum a lighter off somebody else) and apply it to something flammable. Hence, start is our champion here. So fires, like machinery and equipment, need active human intervention to get going.

I’m starting a campaign to get the law changed.
Mostly start, although it could also depend on the tense. A campaign is not a machine the way a motorcycle or lawnmower is, but it is a quite complicated process in and of itself. Political campaign, campaign strategy, propaganda campaign – not simple ideas. We could say, ‘He began a campaign to free Jakub from jail’, which works well for being  past simple. Whereas, ‘He’s starting a campaign to…’ doesn’t sound right, for being present continuous. Instead, this tense needs begin, as in our law-change example above. (I might have dug myself a terrible hole here, but my brain refuses to think too far ahead on this topic ;).

The kids had already started eating by the time I sat down.
Well, one starts doing things – “deliberate action”. She started a fire, he started the car, they started eating, so this one’s okay.

It began to be obvious that he wasn’t a real  policeman when his gun started leaking.
Hmm. By our current logic, the gun would have to begin leaking. But ‘…his gun beganleaking’ doesn’t – to me, anyway – sound as good here. Started does work for me though, because it has more impact, and serves to make a humorous sentence more funny. Funny because our would-be policeman’s own weapon seems to be conspiring against him, and as a rule, the idea of inanimate objects rebelling against their owners is a pretty funny one. (How about that crazy lawnmower, eh?). What this means then, is that there will be occasions when considerations of tone, style and register play a part in our choice. There might also be a tense issue here (other than the tension headache this piece is giving me). What do you guys think?

Well, it’s a nice little can of worms we’ve got going, so let’s sit back and see how many escape. Before I go, there’s one more thing that I want to share with you: If our idea about start and begin is reasonably sound, how far can we apply it to finish and end? Think about that for a while too, and we’ll cover it in a future post.

Don’t forget to come and visit our Facebook page, where you can discuss this and any other language questions with other translators, linguists and language learners.

     - Jim :-) (with especial thanks to M.B. for the original question, and the wise and munificent Dotty, without whom this piece would be utterly worthless).


Finally, Ghostbusters. Because a) they're awesome, and b) they kept showing up in the
'start begin' image search I did for these pictures. :D














Wednesday, 1 May 2013

New Book Constituting Europe

Next month, the book 'Constituting Europe. The European Court of Human Rights in a National, European and Global Context' will be published by Cambridge UP. It was edited by Andreas Follesdal, Birgit Peters, and Geir Ulfstein. It especially looks at multilevel issues of interaction of the Court with other institutions. The proofs are already available on google books. This is the abstract:

At fifty, the European Court of Human Rights finds itself in a new institutional setting. With the EU joining the European Convention on Human Rights in the near future, and the Court increasingly having to address the responsibility of states in UN-lead military operations, the Court faces important challenges at the national, European and international levels. In light of recent reform discussions, this volume addresses the multi-level relations of the Court by drawing on existing debates, pointing to current deficits and highlighting the need for further improvements.

Tuesday, 30 April 2013

Tymoshenko Judgment - Former Ukranian Prime Minister Arbitrarily Detained

Today, the Court issued its judgment in the very sensitive case of Yuliya Tymoshenko, the currently detained former prime minister of Ukraine. Tymoshenko's predicament has already led to political tensions within Ukraine, obviously, but also between Ukraine and other countries (as well as the EU). The Court now adds its voice to the chorus of criticism, by finding a number of violations. Most importantly, it held that the detention was arbitrary (several violations of article 5 ECHR) and a violation - very rare - of Article 18, the provision which holds that "shall not be applied for any purpose other than those for which they have been prescribed." No violation of her detention conditions (Article 3) was found, although the Court was divided on the latter issue. Although the judgment in itself is a quite damning verdict on the state of the rule of law in Ukraine, the concurring and dissenting opinions go even further in pointing at some very problematic aspects. The press release can be found in Englis here and in Ukranian here.

Friday, 26 April 2013

PACE Approves Draft Protocol 15

Today, just before the start of the weekend, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) approved Draft Protocol 15 to the ECHR. With a large majority it voted in favour. Without any amendment being necessary in the view of PACE, the Draft Protocol can now be adopted by the Committee of Ministers at its next session and be opened for signature and ratification. For more on  Protocol 15, see my earlier post here. For the press release of PACE, see here.