Jul 8, 2019 09:40
5 yrs ago
English term
spectrum of appropriate respect
English to French
Law/Patents
Finance (general)
There is, however, a spectrum of appropriate respect, depending on the nature of the decision of the lower court, and caution by appellate courts is not confined to cases in which a factual finding turned on the credibility or reliability of oral evidence.
Je ne parviens pas à trouver la formule appropriée pour traduire "spectrum of appropriate respect".
Merci d'avance pour votre aide.
Je ne parviens pas à trouver la formule appropriée pour traduire "spectrum of appropriate respect".
Merci d'avance pour votre aide.
Proposed translations
(French)
4 +1 | Le pouvoir de persuasion d'une décision de tribunal inférieur donnée se décline sur une gamme |
Eliza Hall
![]() |
3 | degré de respect approprié |
Michael Confais (X)
![]() |
3 | degré/niveau de pertinence (ici) |
Ph_B (X)
![]() |
Proposed translations
+1
6 hrs
Selected
Le pouvoir de persuasion d'une décision de tribunal inférieur donnée se décline sur une gamme
Spectrum = gamme. The idea is that any given court decision falls somewhere within a range of persuasiveness or authority, from least persuasive/least deserving of respect to most.
And because the subject here is how judges in the common-law system take the decisions of other judges into consideration, I think that using the word "respect" in FR might be confusing or misleading here, even though it's usually a good translation of the EN "respect."
Here's why: If you talk in FR about respecter le jugement/la décision d'un tribunal, it sounds like you're talking about respecting the conclusion it reached for that case: in other words, is the appellate judge going to let that decision stand, or reverse it? But, speaking as a US lawyer, I don't think that's what this is about.
In the common-law system, unlike the FR civil-law system, the judge hearing Case X may considers the decisions of other judges in similar cases (let's call them past cases A, B and C), in order to decide whether to apply that same reasoning to Case X.
So what this text seems to be talking about is the degree to which the judge in Current Case X is going to find the reasoning of other judges in cases A, B and/or C persuasive, and thus apply that same reasoning to reach a decision in Case X. It's not about reversing cases A, B or C. It's about whether or not the judge in Case X is going to reach a decision, in Case X, that happens to be consistent with cases A, B and/or C.
So I think this requires rephrasing: Le pouvoir de persuasion [d'un jugement antérieur/d'une décision antérieure] donné[e] se décline sur une gamme, selon sa nature...
BTW I understand this to mean not an absolute spectrum/gamme, but one that is relative to the case in question. In other words, Past Court Decision A might be highly persuasive (deserving of great respect) in Current Court Case X, but hardly persuasive at all in Current Court Case Y, due to the different factual and legal issues at play in cases X and Y. I'm just mentioning this so you can avoid turns of phrase that might suggest that any given decision is inherently deserving of respect by all future courts in all cases.
FYI, the second bit, about caution, refers to the fact that in the US and perhaps all common-law jurisdictions, appellate courts hesitate to reverse lower-court decisions when the issue for which reversal is sought depends on the credibility of a witness. Appeals courts do not see witnesses testify; trial courts (tribunaux de 1e instance) do. So appellate judges tend to let decisions stand if the basis for the decision was whether someone's testimony was credible, since the trial judge was there and saw/heard the witness testify.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2 days 9 hrs (2019-07-10 18:43:25 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
PS @ François Boye:
"La lutte contre la fraude vise à protéger les intérêts financiers des Communautés européennes... contre tout comportement illégal. La forme que peut revêtir un tel comportement varie beaucoup et se décline sur une gamme allant du non-respect d’une norme de droit communautaire, par erreur ou mégarde, jusqu’à des actes intentionnels, voire criminels, souvent perpétrés par des réseaux organisés."
Commission des Communautés Européennes, Protection des interêts financiers des communautés et lutte contre la fraude - rapport annuel 1998, Page 10 section 1.1 (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/FR/TXT/?uri=CELEX:51...
And because the subject here is how judges in the common-law system take the decisions of other judges into consideration, I think that using the word "respect" in FR might be confusing or misleading here, even though it's usually a good translation of the EN "respect."
Here's why: If you talk in FR about respecter le jugement/la décision d'un tribunal, it sounds like you're talking about respecting the conclusion it reached for that case: in other words, is the appellate judge going to let that decision stand, or reverse it? But, speaking as a US lawyer, I don't think that's what this is about.
In the common-law system, unlike the FR civil-law system, the judge hearing Case X may considers the decisions of other judges in similar cases (let's call them past cases A, B and C), in order to decide whether to apply that same reasoning to Case X.
So what this text seems to be talking about is the degree to which the judge in Current Case X is going to find the reasoning of other judges in cases A, B and/or C persuasive, and thus apply that same reasoning to reach a decision in Case X. It's not about reversing cases A, B or C. It's about whether or not the judge in Case X is going to reach a decision, in Case X, that happens to be consistent with cases A, B and/or C.
So I think this requires rephrasing: Le pouvoir de persuasion [d'un jugement antérieur/d'une décision antérieure] donné[e] se décline sur une gamme, selon sa nature...
BTW I understand this to mean not an absolute spectrum/gamme, but one that is relative to the case in question. In other words, Past Court Decision A might be highly persuasive (deserving of great respect) in Current Court Case X, but hardly persuasive at all in Current Court Case Y, due to the different factual and legal issues at play in cases X and Y. I'm just mentioning this so you can avoid turns of phrase that might suggest that any given decision is inherently deserving of respect by all future courts in all cases.
FYI, the second bit, about caution, refers to the fact that in the US and perhaps all common-law jurisdictions, appellate courts hesitate to reverse lower-court decisions when the issue for which reversal is sought depends on the credibility of a witness. Appeals courts do not see witnesses testify; trial courts (tribunaux de 1e instance) do. So appellate judges tend to let decisions stand if the basis for the decision was whether someone's testimony was credible, since the trial judge was there and saw/heard the witness testify.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2 days 9 hrs (2019-07-10 18:43:25 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
PS @ François Boye:
"La lutte contre la fraude vise à protéger les intérêts financiers des Communautés européennes... contre tout comportement illégal. La forme que peut revêtir un tel comportement varie beaucoup et se décline sur une gamme allant du non-respect d’une norme de droit communautaire, par erreur ou mégarde, jusqu’à des actes intentionnels, voire criminels, souvent perpétrés par des réseaux organisés."
Commission des Communautés Européennes, Protection des interêts financiers des communautés et lutte contre la fraude - rapport annuel 1998, Page 10 section 1.1 (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/FR/TXT/?uri=CELEX:51...
Peer comment(s):
neutral |
Francois Boye
: se décliner? Please clarify in French!
21 hrs
|
See p.10 of EU publication "Protection des interêts financiers des communautés et lutte contre la fraude - rapport annuel 1998"... see PS above.
|
|
agree |
Ph_B (X)
: Pas sûr de « pouvoir de persuasion » dans ce contexte, mais les explications sont convaincantes pour autant que je puisse en juger, alors agree au moins avec ça.
22 hrs
|
4 KudoZ points awarded for this answer.
Comment: "Merci beaucoup ! ☺"
28 mins
degré de respect approprié
Bonjour juristrad,
à part le fait que je n'ai pas trouvé, sur internet, d'équivalent identique dans le langage du droit français, une traduction littérale de "spectrum" par quelque chose comme "portée, étendue, gamme, etc." risquerait probablement de sonner un peu maladroite.
« degré de respect approprié »
(page 1, milieu du gros paragraphe)
http://www.ilo.org/dyn/triblex/triblexmain.fullText?p_lang=e...
1 day 3 hrs
degré/niveau de pertinence (ici)
Pas une traduction littérale, évidemment, mais inspirée par les explications d'Eliza (credit where credit's due) ci-dessus et dans la conversation.
There is, however, a spectrum of appropriate respect, depending on the nature of the decision of the lower court, and...
>
« Toutefois, la pertinence de la décision de la juridiction inférieure dépend(ra) de sa nature et... »
ou, pour éviter l'ambiguïté de « sa » (décision ? juridiction ?),
« Toutefois, s'agissant de la décision de la juridiction inférieure, sa nature détermine(ra) son degré/niveau de pertinence et... »
Après tout, s'il y a degré/niveau, c'est qu'il y a une gamme (spectrum), une échelle.
À faire vérifier, évidemment, par un spécialiste de la procédure.
Discussion
Your proposal, "pertinence," or my "pouvoir de persuasion" work for either situation (appeals court deciding whether to uphold or reverse a trial court's decision in the same case, OR courts in general considering the persuasiveness of other courts' decisions).
If the passage is talking about appeals courts deciding to uphold or reverse, then the main distinctions are whether the lower court's decision turned on (1) oral evidence (i.e. testimony), (2) questions of fact or (3) questions of law (e.g. what statute applies to these facts, how to apply it, etc.).
Questions of law are appealed de novo; the trial court gets no deference/respect on them. Here's a link on that: https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/what-is-a-standard-of-revi...
Voilà, c'est ça.
In common law systems, judges literally make the law: an appeals-court decision on Point X requires all trial courts within that appellate jurisdiction to apply the same reasoning if Point X arises in their subsequent cases.
And courts in other jurisdictions, which are under no obligation to follow that appellate court's reasoning on Point X, might still find that reasoning persuasive and decide that they will apply it. If Point X has never been addressed by an appeals court, judges of both trial courts and appeals courts may still look to trial courts that addressed Point X, to see if their reasoning makes sense and should be applied.
Part of the job of a US lawyer is to find other cases that address the same point and bring them to the attention of the judge, for exactly this purpose.
This is the key distinction between common-law systems (UK, US etc.) and civil-law systems (France, Spain etc.).