How shall we abbreviate the Court?

According to the Curia website (here):

"Since the establishment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in 1952, its mission has been to ensure that "the law is observed" "in the interpretation and application" of the Treaties.

As part of that mission, the Court of Justice of the European Union

* reviews the legality of the acts of the institutions of the European Union,

* ensures that the Member States comply with obligations under the Treaties, and

* interprets European Union law at the request of the national courts and tribunals.

The Court thus constitutes the judicial authority of the European Union and, in cooperation with the courts and tribunals of the Member States, it ensures the uniform application and interpretation of European Union law. 

The Court of Justice of the European Union, which has its seat in Luxembourg, consists of three courts: the Court of Justice, the General Court (created in 1988) and the Civil Service Tribunal (created in 2004). Since their establishment, approximately 15 000 judgments have been delivered by the three courts".

How then should we abbreviate the name of the European Union's top court?  "ECJ" is commonly used, standing for"European Court of Justice", an appellation which is both incorrect and liable to be confused with the European Court of Human Rights, since the latter too purports to dispense justice. "CJEU" (for "Court of Justice of the European Union") is technically a blanket term for the not-the-ECJ and two other tribunals, while "CJ" for "Court of Justice" can be confused with a national court and can also stand for "Chief Justice".

This blog is accordingly running a poll, to let readers express their opinion.  Please use this facility: if a consensus is established it might govern not only the house style of the Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice but other periodicals and titles in the English language. The poll is located at the top of the jiplp weblog sidebar.

American spellings -- or English?

A respected contributor to JIPLP, having received his proofs and being a little puzzled by some of the changes made to his submitted text, has written to me today to ask:

“Just as a matter of interest, may I enquire about the reasons for amending words such as characterised to characterized and emphasise to emphasize?”

Naturally, being aware of the leading role played by Oxford University Press in the maintenance of the highest standards of written English, he had taken great care to make sure that, in his spelling of verbs, the English "-ise" form was deployed rather than the American "-ize". Why then had his spellings been changed?

I asked this very question of the same publisher in 2003, when the same words – and others – were changed in the same manner. The response I received was that "-ize", rather than "-ise" was the Oxford University Press house style. When I objected that OUP was an English publisher but that this was an American style, I was curtly informed that it had been the OUP house style before the United States existed and that the publisher saw no reason to change it.