Lori Cirefice Dec 20, 2013:

agree with arguing what Didier said!

Didier Fourcot Dec 20, 2013:

Agree with arguing "concluant" is in the meaning of conclusion of the party's arguments, this is rather the court that should conclude, the party is arguing that the court should not consider or take into account the documents.
The conditionel is just IMHO to do not upset the court with too direct a dictation of the conclusions

Scott de Lesseps (asker) Dec 20, 2013:

any thoughts on "arguing" Any thoughts on "arguing", pro or con, would be appreciated.

Scott de Lesseps (asker) Dec 20, 2013:

Thanks Thanks for the link, Mercedes. The examples there seem to concur with the idea of "should" in this context. Here is another example of the use of "concluant" in the text:

Le 16 septembre 2002, les demanderesses ont déposé leur mémoire sur la compétence et
le fond daté du 11 septembre 2002, concluant à ce que le Tribunal décide notamment
que :
« - L'Investissement réalisé a été conforme à ....

Mercedes Claire Gilliom Dec 19, 2013:

keep "should not consider" Here's a fun discussion of "conclure à ce que" from WordReference (it's standard FR legal phrasing, and EN translations tend to be followed by "should" + verb):
http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=950527
Googling "that the court should not consider" gets many hits for contexts similar to the one you're translating.
<p>
Is it possible that "concluant" in this example is in fact an action that the defendant can take, perhaps to petition the court to do something? or arguing that the court should do something? That also seems to be what's happening here:
<p>
"Le client a alors ouvert action devant le Tribunal de première instance de Genève en concluant à ce que le gérant soit condamné à lui payer USD 36’490,34 à titre de dommages-intérêts. Le Tribunal lui a partiellement donné raison..."
(http://www.cdbf.ch/857/)

...

Victoria Britten Dec 19, 2013:

Not sure about "arguing" It would be good to know what the Tribunal did in the end: to my mind this unorthodox construction COULD mean "with the conclusion=result [of the defender's objections] being that the court didn't take into account....".

Scott de Lesseps (asker) Dec 19, 2013:

Thanks, writeaway I realize it's the subjunctive tense, but in the context of arguing, it seemed as though the conditional in English might work (that the tribunal should not ....). Perhaps I was reading too much into it, and it is simply arguing that the tribunal is not taking into account ....

writeaway Dec 19, 2013:

concluant à ce que le Tribunal ne prenne pas en compte
prenne is the subjunctive, not the conditional and it's triggered by the à ce que
fyi prendrait is the 3rd person conditional of prendre