It is European law, as in EU law, not law from a European state. In EU matters, the teleogocial interpretation, i.e. intent applies:
> When interpreting EU law, the CJEU pays particular attention to the aim and purpose of EU law (teleological interpretation), rather than focusing exclusively on the wording of the provisions (linguistic interpretation).
> This is explained by numerous factors, in particular the open-ended and policy-oriented rules of the EU Treaties, as well as by EU legal multilingualism.
> Under the latter principle, all EU law is equally authentic in all language versions. Hence, the Court cannot rely on the wording of a single version, as a national court can, in order to give an interpretation of the legal provision under consideration. Therefore, in order to decode the meaning of a legal rule, the Court analyses it especially in the light of its purpose (teleological interpretation) as well as its context (systemic interpretation).
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2017/5993...
> It is European law, as in EU law, not law from a European state. In EU matters, the teleogocial interpretation, i.e. intent applies
I'm not sure why you and GP are trying to use this point to draw a contrast to the US? That very much is a feature in US law as well.