Abstract | How to proceed when an EU legal act is a victim of the lost in translation syndrome? When solving the linguistic dilemmas, which principles should apply? Is the EU-Russia Partnership and Cooperation Agreement capable of producing direct effect? If so, could the plaintiff rely on Article 23(1) EU-Russia PCA, which prohibits discrimination on grounds of nationality? These were the issues that the Court of Justice had been called to deal with in the case Simutenkov. The reaction of academic commentariat to this judgment was rather muted and, prima facie, one should not be blamed for treating it merely as a footnote case. With this in mind, the aim of the present chapter is to demonstrate that Mr. Simutenkov, and his litigation with the Spanish football league, as well as the Spanish Ministry of Education & Culture, deserves a closer look. It is so for several of reasons. Firstly, this case is a good example of challenges posed by the multilingualism, which is at the heart of the EU legal order. Secondly, the commented judgment produces yet another evidence, if one were needed, of the importance of advocates general at the Court of Justice. Thirdly, this case established that the EU-Russia PCA is capable of producing direct effect. This is as far as the microscope look on the judgment in hand would take us. However, a telescope may also prove useful to see the big picture. As argued in this chapter, the effects of this judgment go beyond Mr. Simutenkov, and his litigation. In particular, two points merit attention in this respect. Case Simutenkov – at least potentially - opened the doors for direct effect of other Partnership and Cooperation Agreements, which were concluded by the then European Community with selected newly independent countries established on the ashes of the Soviet Union. Furthermore, the conclusion reached by the Court of Justice makes the decision of the Council to deprive their successors with Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova of direct effect quite indefensible. |
---|