The downside of European Union law.
A typical sentence from a European Court of Justice opinion:It must be stressed that, unlike Daily Mail and General Trust, which concerned relations between a company and the Member State under whose laws it had been incorporated in a situation where the company wished to transfer its actual centre of administration to another Member State whilst retaining its legal personality in the State of incorporation, the present case concerns the recognition by one Member State of a company incorporated under the law of another Member State, such a company being denied all legal capacity in the host Member State where it takes the view that the company has moved its actual centre of administration to its territory, irrespective of whether in that regard the company actually intended to transfer its seat.
Case C-208/00, Überseering BV v. Nordic Construction Company Baumanagement GmbH, 2002 ECR I-9919, at [62].
The upside is that the ECJ always states their holding very clearly in the final section. You don't have to go hunting through a whole 20-page opinion and think up a helpful way to frame the holding for the purposes of your case, as you do with Supreme Court ops.
The downside is that you have to read a hundred or so paragraphs written about as incomprehensibly as (if not more so than) the one above. Especially the holding, which, since the ECJ is operating in a largely civil-law environment, is particularized and tied to the circumstances of the given case.
I want to buy twenty-five copies of The Elements of Style and send them to the ECJ. They've gotta do something about those endless strings of prepositional phrases and comma-less dependent clauses...
Case C-208/00, Überseering BV v. Nordic Construction Company Baumanagement GmbH, 2002 ECR I-9919, at [62].
The upside is that the ECJ always states their holding very clearly in the final section. You don't have to go hunting through a whole 20-page opinion and think up a helpful way to frame the holding for the purposes of your case, as you do with Supreme Court ops.
The downside is that you have to read a hundred or so paragraphs written about as incomprehensibly as (if not more so than) the one above. Especially the holding, which, since the ECJ is operating in a largely civil-law environment, is particularized and tied to the circumstances of the given case.
I want to buy twenty-five copies of The Elements of Style and send them to the ECJ. They've gotta do something about those endless strings of prepositional phrases and comma-less dependent clauses...