0

Robert Schütze. European Union Law 2 ed. 2018. p. 324. All

76[.] [...] Depending on the political choices on the basis of which those rules are adopted, the powers of the border guards may vary significantly, and the exercise of those powers require authorisation, be an obligation or be prohibited, for example, in relation to applying enforcement measures, using force or conducting the persons apprehended to a specific location. In addition, where those powers concern the taking of measures against ships, their exercise is liable, depending on the scope of the powers, to interfere with the sovereign rights of third countries according to the flag flown by the ships concerned. Thus, the adoption of such rules constitutes a major development in the SBC system.

This is quoted from the judgment for Case C‑355/10 and many other websites that has the omitted sentences at the outset.

I don't understand the syntax of the emboldened verb phrase. Is this ellipsis? What kind? Nominal?

Did the judges intend to say

the powers of the border guards may be an obligation or be prohibited

? The sentence's subject is "the powers of the border guards", thus "and the exercise of those powers require authorisation" interrupts and feels misplaced. I would've written

the powers of the border guards may vary significantly, may be an obligation or be prohibited, for example, in relation to applying enforcement measures, using force or conducting the persons apprehended to a specific location. The exercise of those powers require authorisation.

  • For what it is worth, while @DaleM has what I believe to be the correct answer, this is not a model of clarity in writing. Like most 56 word sentences with multiple, comma delineated clauses, it is a product of sloppy writing that falls victim to the usual vices of academic authors. – ohwilleke Aug 2 at 14:28
  • 1
    @ohwilleke: it's not just that sentence, either. Judging by the questions OP has been asking over at the Politics SE, the book is so disgustingly written that I find it incomprehensible that anyone would try to read it let alone try to understand it. – Denis de Bernardy Aug 2 at 15:26
  • @ohwilleke That quote is from an CJEU judgment, not this book. – Mark da Silva Aug 5 at 5:32
  • @DenisdeBernardy That quote is from an CJEU judgment, not this book. – Mark da Silva Aug 5 at 5:33
  • @MarkdaSilva Government officials, judges included, aren't always paragons of good writing either. – ohwilleke Aug 5 at 7:20
3

Your interpretation is wrong

Its a list. It could be rewritten:

... the exercise of those powers require:

  1. authorisation,

  2. be an obligation or

  3. be prohibited

That is, the border guard must be authorised to do X, must be required to always do X or must be prohibited from ever doing X.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.