University of Lapland
COURSE TITLE: Professional Legal Writing in English: Principles and
Practice
September 2015
Course requirements: clarification
To pass the course with ONE ECTS credit you have to fulfill the following:
 80% attendance AND
 Send ONE of the course tasks that we prepared in class (see below for
clarification) to me at [email protected]
Note:
1. I set no deadline for sending course tasks but the sooner the better.
2. The result is simple pass/fail, with no % or grades – just one ECTS credit.
As mentioned in the course description, if you are an exchange student and your
home university has special requirements such as a % or a grade or a score out
of e.g. 5 or 10 or 100, you should let me know during the week of the course.
If you need to earn more than one ECTS credit, you can earn ONE extra ECTS
credit by doing TWO extra course tasks.
Note: if you write two leaflets for task II (e.g. one for consumers/consumer
associations, another for companies), this counts as two tasks
Task options are:
TASK I: European Tax Law
DOCUMENT FILE I
Complete the Introduction to the text by adding the verbs:
would be
published
examines
changed
is
has been
maintaining
concluding hint at
seeking
Next, in Background, what function do the verbs perform? Find synonyms or
antonyms for these.
Third, under Purpose, find two phrases that can be rewritten as verbs. Then find
all the verbs in this short piece: what function do they perform?
Fourth, read the text under Generally, then replace Generally with a more
suitable title. Explain why the new title is more suitable.
Fifth, under Full Harmonisation, mark the key words in the text.
Sixth, under Tax Base Harmonisation, mark the words that make the text more
analytical.
Next, under Exchange of Savings Information, mark the key words and
analytical words. Can you suggest ways to improve the text?
Under Conclusion, what function do the words marked perform?
OR
Task II: create newsletter item from EU directive.
Document file II: European Consumer Law
Read, discuss, analyze and summarize the text as a newsletter.
How to approach this task?
We will discuss and establish criteria.
The summary should be analytical.
The target readership is “educated professionals”.
OR
Task III: perform linguistic analysis of the online banking contract (Document file
III). First, we will discuss and establish the criteria: e.g.language aspects, such as
vocabulary and style, sentence word order, uniformity of terminology.
OR
Test Your Writing Skills
TASK IV
You are one of a team that prepares reports and legal memoranda for Member
State governments based on decisions of the European Court of Justice. Based on
the two texts – one below, the other at Document file VI (p.) 53, prepare a short
summary memorandum. To help, some of the key words and expressions are
clearly marked. First, you will have to analyze the text of the judgment, as we did
earlier. You will also need to identify the key words and terminology. We will
discuss and agree criteria to follow in your written work.
Leading articles
September 14, 2005
Legal trespass
The European Court has gravely undermined the sovereignty of EU states
For the first time in its 53 year existence, the European Court of Justice has
given the Commission in Brussels the power to impose criminal sanctions. In a
landmark ruling that is as ominous as it is deluded, the Luxembourg based court
yesterday overruled the governments of EU member states, removing from them
the sole right to impose their own penalties on people or companies breaking the
law, and giving the unelected EU Commission an unprecedented role in the
administration of criminal justice.
The pretext for this transparent attempt at empire-building beyond the boundaries
laid down for Europe’s bureaucrats was the claim by Brussels that it had the right to
insert criminal penalties into laws to protect the environment. The Commission said
that unless it did so, its attempt to halt cross-border pollution would be ineffective.
But in 2001, 11 of the 15 members, including Britain, insisting that only a national
government had the right to fine or jail its citizens, vigorously opposed this action.
Instead they proposed a “framework decision”, excluding the Commission and
including only governments, to deal with transgressors. The Commission called in
the lawyers and, extraordinarily, the European Court agreed that it had the right to
impose criminal sanctions.
This is a dangerous step in the wrong direction. The Commission, chafing at
criticism that it is too powerful and too interfering, has been itching to reassert its
authority. It is not a sovereign power but a civil service executive, supposedly
appointed to serve EU common interests. In recent years the Commission has worried
that its right to initiate legislation, under the Treaty of Rome, was being eroded. EU
ministers, when discussing urgent issues such as terrorism, sometimes came up with
their own proposals for new laws. But to retaliate by trespassing on the sole right of
governments to imprison their citizens is a serious expansion of and misunderstanding
of the Commission’s role.
The ruling also reveals the mindset of the court, and confirms the lingering
suspicion that, when faced with a choice between subsidiarity or strengthening the
EU’s federal powers it will, invariably, choose the latter. The decision highlights the
contradiction at the court’s very heart — of course a federal court will expand
federal powers. It gives substance to all the worries in Britain and those countries
that have voted against the EU constitution that any point vague enough to require
legal clarification would always prompt a ruling reinforcing the EU’s central
bureaucracy and federal power. This lamentable judgment strikes at the heart of
national sovereignty and Britain’s ability to decide the law for itself.
The Commission is entitled to argue that draft laws should be effective. But it is up to
elected national governments to define and enforce the law. Already, elated
Commission officials are proposing similar criminal penalties in other areas. It is not
their right. Democracy yesterday suffered a grievous defeat in a court whose
contempt for sovereignty verges on the criminal.