Talk:Commission v Austria

	Austria portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Austria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles about Austria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.AustriaWikipedia:WikiProject AustriaTemplate:WikiProject AustriaAustria articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Law

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Requested move 25 November 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Commission v Country (Case No.) format where disambiguation is needed. Sceptre (talk) 03:31, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Commission v Austria → C-147/03
Commission v France (1997) → C-265/95
Commission v Germany (1987) → C-178/84
Commission v Germany (2007) → C-112/05
Commission v Ireland (1982) → C-249/81
Commission v Italy (1972) → C-39/72
Commission v Italy (2003) → C-14/00
Commission v Italy (2009) → C-110/05
Commission v Italy (2011) → C-565/08
Commission v Portugal → C-171/08
Commission v United Kingdom (2006) → C-484/04

– The CJEU often decides multiple cases brought by the European Commission against a particular member state in one year. For example, there were two Commission v Italy cases decided in 1972 and in 2009 and four in 1988. There were two Commission v Germany cases decided in 1987 and five (!) in 2007. Because the member state and the year is not sufficient to distinguish the case, Commission v Member State cases are usually referred to in reliable sources by their case number. Prior to about 2000, the notation "Case 39/72" was more common, but in recent years the most common notation is C-39/72. (t · c) buidhe 11:34, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the move as currently proposed. Even if some WP:RS mention their case numbers, I think that the proposed move would severely restrict the average would-be reader's ability to find a case's page unless they already follow the court cases on a regular basis, know that they have to search by case number, and know what the case number is. In my view, a reasonable change would be to use case numbers to more accurately disambiguate between multiple cases against one member state in the same year, but I can't support completely removing the words "Commission v (name of a Member State)" from the title. Andrew11374265 (talk) 06:44, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It would be an improvement to replace the disambiguation by year to by case number. (t · c) buidhe 07:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Commission v COUNTRY (YEAR) -> Commission v COUNTRY (CASE NO.) as an improvement. A bit less concise but a lot more accurate. Just using the case number is not very explicatory to the average non-expert reader. FOARP (talk) 12:00, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I interpret the precision criterion as requiring that the title unambiguously distinguishes the article's subject from other subjects for which we have articles (or at least coverage in related articles). That does not seem to apply here. e.g. even if there were 5 Commission v Germany cases in 2007, it seems we have no coverage of the other four. Presumably if these moves were effected, then Commission v Germany (2007) would continue to exist as a redirect to C-112/05 or Commission v Germany (C-112/05). Why redirect from one name to another name which is less recognizable and natural? If it's unambiguous enough for a redirect, it's unambiguous enough to be the title. Colin M (talk) 23:35, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
oppose but support to Commission v COUNTRY (CASE NO.) format. The ones suggested in nomination are way too ambiguous. They sound like IC number, processor name/number. They literally can refer to anything from any field. This time it is something from law. —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 16:06, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.