This research is a literature and jurisprudence study into the effect of the differences in legal interpretation between the EU legal system and the US legal system regarding competition law on the...Show moreThis research is a literature and jurisprudence study into the effect of the differences in legal interpretation between the EU legal system and the US legal system regarding competition law on the translation of competition law terminology into Dutch. Both EU and US competition law addresses broadly the same categories of anticompetitive behaviour - agreements, monopolisation, mergers - but the wording and interpretation of the legislative provisions varies. EU competition law is originally based upon US antitrust law, and therefore shares a lot of the same terminology. The US antitrust law has undergone some fundamental changes in its interpretation, which has in turn driven EU and US terminology further apart. Nowadays, there are vast differences in economic interpretation, political interpretation and legal interpretation. These differences in interpretation have influence on the translation of competition law terminology from US English and EU English, respectively, into Dutch. In the jurisprudence it is shown that the ECJ interprets textually and teleologically, where the US Supreme Court uses conservative purposivism. This leads to differences in the meaning of the same term. Generally, the US Supreme Court find an additional proof of inefficiency necessary in order to establish a competition violation. Both EU competition law and Dutch competition law do not need this additional proof. Therefore, the semantic meaning of competition law terminology is narrower in the US than in the EU. For translation into Dutch it must be assessed on a case-to-case basis whether it is necessary to add ‘inefficiënte’ before a US term so that the target text reader has the same understanding of the legal term as the source text reader.Show less
