CYIL vol. 8 (2017)

VÁCLAV STEHLÍK CYIL 8 ȍ2017Ȏ Rather specific is a case 49 on EU consumer law 50 where the SC explicitly argued with several languages (in particular, English, German and French). In the final evaluation, however, it generally referred to other language versions and stated that “ from the abovementioned language versions of the contested provision, as well as other language versions, the conclusion of difference in meaning thereof cannot be made. All of them talk about prevalence of interpretation in favour of the consumer in case there are doubts about the meaning of a certain condition… ”. This argument based on an uncertain number (perhaps all) of official versions is not fully justifiable. In addition, it is doubtful whether the SC was really able to compare all other versions and the national court should base its decision on languages that it is really able to effectively use. A more detailed comparison of language versions appeared in another noteworthy decision 51 which concerned bankruptcy procedure and the corresponding EU Regulation. 52 In particular, it related to Article 15 of the Regulation which specifies the effects of the insolvency procedure on ongoing court proceedings. This Article reads as follows: “ [e]ffects of insolvency proceedings on a lawsuit pending concerning an asset or a right of which the debtor has been divested shall be governed solely by the law of the Member State in which that lawsuit is pending. ” Unlike the previous case, the SC did not conduct comparison of all language versions of this article, but compared only the Czech, Slovak, English and German version. These language versions used the word “ solely ” behind the word “governed” ; 53 however, this adverb was omitted in the Czech version. Based on the comparison of the language versions, the SC concluded that individual versions did not differ in meaning. It stated that “ it had no doubt that the same meaning can be attributed to the Czech version of translation as to other language versions and that the law of a Member State, in which the ongoing court proceedings are conducted (lex fori processus), can be enforced only exclusively. ” The SC was persuaded that the interpretation and correct application of the EU law is identically obvious to courts of other Member States and to the CJEU. Besides the legal and language analysis of Article 15 of the Regulation, the SC referred (by way of example) to the case-law of the SC of Austria and to the (Czech) expert literature. According to the SC, the issue was, thus, acte clair and it was not necessary to initiate the preliminary ruling procedure. In any case, the decision is of a great interest as the SC conducted an effective comparison of selected language versions that resulted in a euro-conforming interpretation of the Czech version of the contested EU Regulation. Similarly interesting is also the referral to the case- law of a court of another Member State. In some recent cases, however, the SC usually referred to language versions without conducting a profound and broad comparison. 54 Sometimes it compared English, French and German language versions, 55 or even only referred to the English version. 56 49 Judgement of the SC of 19 July 2012, 28 Cdo 2552/2011. 50 The Decision works with the Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, OJ L 95, 21.4.1993, p. 29-34, and its Article 5, according to which in case of doubts the interpretation

more favourable for the consumer must be applied. 51 Decision of 27 January 2011, 29 Cdo 2181/2008 52 Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000. 53 “ Výlučne ” in the Slovak version, “ ausschließlich ” in the German version. 54 Such as resolution of 8 December 2015, 26 Cdo 3375/2014.

55 Judgement of 8 April 2016, 28 Cdo 1469/2014. 56 Resolution of 18 August 2016, 21 Cdo 5311/2015.

584