I've just started reading Language Rights and Political Theory, and footnote 26 on page 23 got me to type the name Hermann Josef Goerres into a search engine. Amongst the results was the text of this judgment against him. What had he done to become linguistically footnoteworthy?
5. Mr [Hermann Josef] Goerres runs a food market in Eschweiler, near Aachen. On 13 January 1995, he offered products for sale in his shop which were not labelled in German but only in French, Italian or English. The products in question included: 'Fanta orange, soda au jus d'orange' (labelled in French), 'Corn Flakes' (labelled in Italian and French), 'I Pelati di San Marzano — il Vero Gusto del Pomodoro' (labelled in Italian), and 'Pasta sauce with olives and capers' (labelled in English).
OK. Germany has some pretty strict rules about the labeling and presentation of foodstuffs sold within its borders. Many countries do. And, so:
6. On 6 July 1995, the Oberkreisdirektor imposed an administrative penalty of DM 2 000 on Mr Goerres for infringement of Paragraph 3(3) of the LMKV [Verordnung über die Kennzeichnung von Lebensmitteln (Regulations of the labelling of foodstuffs)].
But, what was his defense?
7. Mr Goerres lodged an objection to the penalty notice before the Amtsgericht Aachen. Relying on a legal opinion from the University of Hamburg (Professor Dr Meinhard Hilf) of 14 July 1994, he submitted that the use of a particular language could not be imposed; that, under Article 14 of the directive [Council Directive 79/112/EEC of 18 december 1978], the decisive factor was the intelligibility of the labelling; and that, in the case of products which were well known to the public, the use of labelling in a foreign language did not adversely affect the consumer's interest in receiving information. He further stated that he had placed in his shop, adjacent to the products in question, supplementary signs giving the required information in German.
In the end, Mr Goerres lost his case, but it should be noted that "The costs incurred by the Belgian, French, Austrian and Swedish Governments and by the Commission of the European Communities, which have submitted observations to the Court, are not recoverable. Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court."
[Addendum 08/13/03: I'd forgotten, until I read this entry this morning, that I'd got the name of the language policy book from Scott M. at Pedantry. He had mentioned it in an earlier posting, and we both received the book about the same time. I'm looking forward to his review]
This is interesting. Does the book confirm that he lost the main case in Aachen? I would be interested to know how the costs fell eventually. Mr Goerres challenges the penalty notice, thus starting criminal proceedings (apparently), and since the matter derives from EU law, the court itself applies to the European Court for a preliminary ruling. The preliminary ruling says: we have to ensure everyone sees their own language on goods not just in the shop but when they come to use/consume them, so no luck. Then the matter goes back to Aachen, and presumably there was judgment against Mr Goerres. But did he have to pay the costs of the application to the European court? I haven't been able to trace anything, but it's probably common knowledge among German lawyers!
Posted by: MM on August 13, 2003 12:05 AMNo, his case is literally a footnote in the introductory article and just concerned with language policy. Here's an text excerpt from that paragraph and the footnote: "Most states regulate non-public language use to some degree. For example, it is standard for states to insist that products marketed by private firms have commercial packaging, warning labels, and so on, written in certain languages … the European Court of Justice has considered whether linguistic packaging requirements amount to a non-tariff barier in violation of the European Union's commitment to the free movement of goods. (26)
"26. Hermann Josef Goerres, Case C-385/96, Judgment of 14 July 1998; Yannick Geoffrey v. Casino France, Case C-366/98, Judgment of 12 September 2000."
Hope this helps. You might try contacting the professor in Hamburg. I linked to his home page.
Good god. This is the sort of thing that makes me feel Europe is on a different planet. On this planet they have generous vacation policies, but insane language laws.
Posted by: language hat on August 13, 2003 08:37 AMThanks, I saw the European case. I wasn't sure whether you understood what happened about the costs, and I was trying to work out what points you were emphasizing in the case. I understand it seems bureaucratic. But if a large number of countries align their language policy it probably has to be.
Posted by: MM on August 13, 2003 11:03 AMSorry for my confusion. I simply quoted the judgment about costs because it struck my eye. The book had nothing to mention about that. Let me know if you figure out the answer to your question.
I am pretty sure what the answer must be, on reflection. The situation is like challenging a parking ticket. G gets a penalty notice and decides to challenge it. At the end of the day, he loses. He will have to pay the costs of the criminal proceedings (don't know how high those are), including the expert witness reports he obtained himself. The difference here is that there is an interim step where the court stops the proceedings and asks the European Court what the law is. No-one pays anything for the request to the European Court for a preliminary ruling (this is the impression I get - the costs of the EU are borne centrally by all member states. The other countries that took part in the proceedings because they were interested in the result will have to pay for their outgoings for witness reports or whatever. (I was going to ask some German lawyers about this, but then I realized I wasn't sure what point if any you were querying!) - apologies for my confusion, it's hotter than I'm used to.
Posted by: MM on August 13, 2003 12:47 PMAs I read this case, the relevant EU directive was intended to prevent countries from using labelling requirements as informal trade barriers. For example, many EU products have the symbol "e" on them in front of the product's weight. This symbol is more or less universally understood, and this regulation would prevent countries from requiring the word "weight" in some language in lieu of this more universal symbol.
The Court held that legally required information must be presented in a format that consumers can understand, and that national law can legitimately specify and enforce this requirement, but can not mandate anything beyond comprehensibility. That was the point of the first question the ECJ answered. Germany can say "must be labelled in German" unless some equally clear and equally well understood form of expression is used.
The key issue here was the second question: does providing information on signs next to products ensure adequate comprehensibility? Neither Goerres nor anyone else contended that labelling in French and English met the legal requirement for comprehensibility - there had to be a description in German. The court ruled that adjacent labelling was not good enough, because of an existing precedent and because the ultimate consumer of a product may not be the original purchaser.
The person who most needs to understand the labels may not be the person who saw the sign in the store. Imagine a case where someone with nut allergies eats a chocolate bar with nut residues in it because they can't read the foreign language label and someone else gave them the bar, meaning they weren't the original buyer. This is the type of situation envisiaged by the EU regulation.
This case doesn't seem especially bizarre or restrictive to me. Labelling laws are just as weird in the US, and are just as linguistically restrictive. All required product labels under US law are required - without exception - to be in English. [21 CFR 101.15(c)(2) - for the lawyers out there.] In the end, it isn't really any different in Germany.
Really? OK, I withdraw the reference to Europe and direct it to humanity at large. Can't consumers be allowed to decide for themselves whether they want to buy some mysterious can whose label they can't read? I may be influenced by the fact that I live in NYC, where (law or no law) such mysterious products are for sale in ethnic groceries everywhere. (The ones in Chinatown are especially piquant.)
Posted by: language hat on August 13, 2003 05:09 PM