This question was closed without grading. Reason: Errant question
Feb 9, 2022 20:48
2 yrs ago
43 viewers *
Spanish term
parte recurrida
Spanish to English
Other
Law (general)
EU Law
"En el procedimiento tramitado ante el Tribunal Supremo han sido **partes recurridas**, además de la Administración del Estado autora del Reglamento impugnado, diversas entidades gestoras de derechos de autos en España"
Are these simply defendants?
Are these simply defendants?
Proposed translations
(English)
3 +4 | AmE: Appellee(s); BrE : Respondent(s) on Appeal | Adrian MM. |
3 | defendants | Jennifer Levey |
Proposed translations
+4
48 mins
AmE: Appellee(s); BrE : Respondent(s) on Appeal
I agree that we need more context, though Supreme Court would suggest a highest-level, cassation appeal.
demandante-recurrida in the web ref. might - and in the plural if corporate litigants - be Claimants(s)-cum-Respondent(s) in England & Wales where a Respondent is the other side to an Appellant, a Petitioner in a bankruptcy or divorce petition or to a Claimant in arbitration.
I am rather surprised that Respondent isn't already in the ProZ glossaries and even more so that Appellee had been suggested by an ex-ProZ English Solicitor.
Respondent BTW
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 56 mins (2022-02-09 21:45:10 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Respondent BTW... is also the other side to an Applicant (AmE: 'mover') for a Restraining aka Prohibitive or Mandamus / Mandatory Injunction.
Again, the parties in the London High Court, prospectively turning into fully-fledged litigants post-application or 'motion', would thus be written: X as Applicant / Claimant vs. Y as Respondent / Defendant.
demandante-recurrida in the web ref. might - and in the plural if corporate litigants - be Claimants(s)-cum-Respondent(s) in England & Wales where a Respondent is the other side to an Appellant, a Petitioner in a bankruptcy or divorce petition or to a Claimant in arbitration.
I am rather surprised that Respondent isn't already in the ProZ glossaries and even more so that Appellee had been suggested by an ex-ProZ English Solicitor.
Respondent BTW
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 56 mins (2022-02-09 21:45:10 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Respondent BTW... is also the other side to an Applicant (AmE: 'mover') for a Restraining aka Prohibitive or Mandamus / Mandatory Injunction.
Again, the parties in the London High Court, prospectively turning into fully-fledged litigants post-application or 'motion', would thus be written: X as Applicant / Claimant vs. Y as Respondent / Defendant.
Example sentence:
European Union law [EUROPEAN UNION] civil law [LAW] Consilium es parte recurrida CdT en defendant Consilium defending party Consilium *respondent* Consilium
Reference:
http://www.proz.com/kudoz/spanish-to-english/law-general/4575757-demandante-recurrida.html
Peer comment(s):
neutral |
philgoddard
: I've already said this. It's a duplicated question.
16 mins
|
agree |
Rebecca Jowers
29 mins
|
agree |
Gilda Martinez
1 hr
|
agree |
Sandro Tomasi
2 hrs
|
agree |
Liliana Lopez
17 hrs
|
1 hr
defendants
I agree with other contributors, that we need more context.
That said, the ST says, in essence, that the 'parte recurrida' includes 'la Administración del Estado autora del Reglamento impugnado, (y) diversas entidades gestoras de derechos de autos en España'. That suggests that the 'recurso' in which these administrations are involved is some kind of 'recurso de amparo' ('recurso de protección' in my current home-country) - in which case, in the court of first instance (which may well be the Supreme Court), they would be 'defendants', not 'apellees'.
"El recurso de amparo es un procedimiento subsidiario que sirve para dar protección a los ciudadanos y defender la Constitución por la vulneración de algunos derechos y libertades fundamentales (los recogidos en los artículos 14 a 29 y 30.2 de la Constitución) causada por los poderes públicos."
https://elbloglegal.com/recurso-amparo/
That said, the ST says, in essence, that the 'parte recurrida' includes 'la Administración del Estado autora del Reglamento impugnado, (y) diversas entidades gestoras de derechos de autos en España'. That suggests that the 'recurso' in which these administrations are involved is some kind of 'recurso de amparo' ('recurso de protección' in my current home-country) - in which case, in the court of first instance (which may well be the Supreme Court), they would be 'defendants', not 'apellees'.
"El recurso de amparo es un procedimiento subsidiario que sirve para dar protección a los ciudadanos y defender la Constitución por la vulneración de algunos derechos y libertades fundamentales (los recogidos en los artículos 14 a 29 y 30.2 de la Constitución) causada por los poderes públicos."
https://elbloglegal.com/recurso-amparo/
Reference comments
18 mins
Reference:
appellee
This has been asked before. The answerer didn't give any references, but it looks convincing given that "recurrir" means to appeal.
http://www.proz.com/kudoz/spanish-to-english/law-general/589...
http://www.proz.com/kudoz/spanish-to-english/law-general/589...
27 mins
Reference:
Partes recurridas
Son las partes o parte a quien favorece la sentencia motivo del recurso.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 31 mins (2022-02-09 21:19:54 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Appellee makes sense!
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 31 mins (2022-02-09 21:19:54 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Appellee makes sense!
1 day 4 hrs
Reference:
Procedure
Procedure
If a court or tribunal of a Member State finds a provision of EU law to be ambiguous, equivocal or unclear, it may seek a preliminary ruling; and if that court or tribunal is one from which there is no appeal, the court must make an application. In either case, the domestic court be adjourned until the ECJ ruling is issued. The question to the ECJ must be short and succinct, but may be accompanied by documents explaining the context and circumstances of the issue. The ECJ may decline to give judgement in the absence of a genuine dispute, on the basis that it will not consider "moot points".[3]
Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union provides:
The Court of Justice of the European Union shall have jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings concerning:
(a) the interpretation of the Treaties;
(b) the validity and interpretation of acts of the institutions, bodies, offices or agencies of the Union;
Where such a question is raised before any court or tribunal of a Member State, that court or tribunal may, if it considers that a decision on the question is necessary to enable it to give judgment, request the Court to give a ruling thereon.
Where any such question is raised in a case pending before a court or tribunal of a Member State against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law, that court or tribunal shall bring the matter before the Court.
If such a question is raised in a case pending before a court or tribunal of a Member State with regard to a person in custody, the Court of Justice of the European Union shall act with the minimum of delay.[4]
Courts that may ask questions
What constitutes a "court or tribunal" is a matter of Union law and it is not to be determined by reference to national law.[5] In determining whether or not a body is a "court or tribunal of Member State" the European Courts will take a number of issues into account, namely whether—
it is established by law,
it is permanent,
its jurisdiction is compulsory,
it has an inter partes procedure,
it applies rules of law, and
it is independent.[6]
However, these criteria are not absolute. In Broekmeulen v Huisarts Registratie Commissie[7] the ECJ ruled that a body established under the auspices of the Royal Medical Society for the Promotion of Medicine was a "court or tribunal" within the meaning of the treaty, even though that society was a private association. Also the Benelux Court of Justice was considered a court within this context, as a court common to several (Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg) Member States. Also the Unified Patent Court, as a court common to several Member States is expected to be able to ask prejudicial questions.
Right and duty to refer for a preliminary ruling
Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) establishing the preliminary reference procedure differentiates between the right and the duty of national courts to seek a preliminary ruling. Under the discretionary reference stipulated in Article 267(2) TFEU, a national "court or tribunal" may ask the CJEU to give a preliminary ruling if it considers that a decision on the question is "necessary" to enable it to give a judgment in a particular case. The obligatory reference (duty to refer) is established in two cases: with respect to national courts adjudicating at last instance (Article 267(3) TFEU ) and with respect of all courts faced with a question of the validity of EU law. The obligation of national courts of last instance to refer for a preliminary ruling when a question of the interpretation of EU law arises is subject to certain exceptions. In accordance with the jurisprudence of the Court, a national court is relieved from the duty to refer (i) when EU law questions are not relevant to the decision in the main proceedings, (ii) in a situation before a national court is “materially identical with a question which has already been subject of a preliminary ruling in a similar case” (‘acte éclairé’), or (iii) when the proper interpretation of EU law is “so obvious as to leave no scope for any reasonable doubt” (‘acte clair’).[8]
General scope of preliminary rulings
The Court of Justice Decision has the force of res judicata. It is binding not only on the national court on whose initiative the reference for a preliminary ruling was made but also on all of the national courts of the Member States.
In the context of a reference for a preliminary ruling concerning validity, if the European instrument is declared invalid all of the instruments adopted based on it are also invalid. It then falls to the competent European institutions to adopt a new instrument to rectify the situation.[9]
If a court or tribunal of a Member State finds a provision of EU law to be ambiguous, equivocal or unclear, it may seek a preliminary ruling; and if that court or tribunal is one from which there is no appeal, the court must make an application. In either case, the domestic court be adjourned until the ECJ ruling is issued. The question to the ECJ must be short and succinct, but may be accompanied by documents explaining the context and circumstances of the issue. The ECJ may decline to give judgement in the absence of a genuine dispute, on the basis that it will not consider "moot points".[3]
Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union provides:
The Court of Justice of the European Union shall have jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings concerning:
(a) the interpretation of the Treaties;
(b) the validity and interpretation of acts of the institutions, bodies, offices or agencies of the Union;
Where such a question is raised before any court or tribunal of a Member State, that court or tribunal may, if it considers that a decision on the question is necessary to enable it to give judgment, request the Court to give a ruling thereon.
Where any such question is raised in a case pending before a court or tribunal of a Member State against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law, that court or tribunal shall bring the matter before the Court.
If such a question is raised in a case pending before a court or tribunal of a Member State with regard to a person in custody, the Court of Justice of the European Union shall act with the minimum of delay.[4]
Courts that may ask questions
What constitutes a "court or tribunal" is a matter of Union law and it is not to be determined by reference to national law.[5] In determining whether or not a body is a "court or tribunal of Member State" the European Courts will take a number of issues into account, namely whether—
it is established by law,
it is permanent,
its jurisdiction is compulsory,
it has an inter partes procedure,
it applies rules of law, and
it is independent.[6]
However, these criteria are not absolute. In Broekmeulen v Huisarts Registratie Commissie[7] the ECJ ruled that a body established under the auspices of the Royal Medical Society for the Promotion of Medicine was a "court or tribunal" within the meaning of the treaty, even though that society was a private association. Also the Benelux Court of Justice was considered a court within this context, as a court common to several (Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg) Member States. Also the Unified Patent Court, as a court common to several Member States is expected to be able to ask prejudicial questions.
Right and duty to refer for a preliminary ruling
Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) establishing the preliminary reference procedure differentiates between the right and the duty of national courts to seek a preliminary ruling. Under the discretionary reference stipulated in Article 267(2) TFEU, a national "court or tribunal" may ask the CJEU to give a preliminary ruling if it considers that a decision on the question is "necessary" to enable it to give a judgment in a particular case. The obligatory reference (duty to refer) is established in two cases: with respect to national courts adjudicating at last instance (Article 267(3) TFEU ) and with respect of all courts faced with a question of the validity of EU law. The obligation of national courts of last instance to refer for a preliminary ruling when a question of the interpretation of EU law arises is subject to certain exceptions. In accordance with the jurisprudence of the Court, a national court is relieved from the duty to refer (i) when EU law questions are not relevant to the decision in the main proceedings, (ii) in a situation before a national court is “materially identical with a question which has already been subject of a preliminary ruling in a similar case” (‘acte éclairé’), or (iii) when the proper interpretation of EU law is “so obvious as to leave no scope for any reasonable doubt” (‘acte clair’).[8]
General scope of preliminary rulings
The Court of Justice Decision has the force of res judicata. It is binding not only on the national court on whose initiative the reference for a preliminary ruling was made but also on all of the national courts of the Member States.
In the context of a reference for a preliminary ruling concerning validity, if the European instrument is declared invalid all of the instruments adopted based on it are also invalid. It then falls to the competent European institutions to adopt a new instrument to rectify the situation.[9]
Discussion
And I apologize for my initial explanation of the scenario here. I was just starting to peruse the document and did not understand it yet, sorry if I wasted people's time. In any case, with the context clear, it is a rather interesting translation question. Some pretty specialized legalese here, if you're into this stuff.
Have a look at the Rules of the CJEU: https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/200...
Then, in your discussion entry, you say “it is an appeal (recurso) by the Spanish Government …”
Are we to understand that the Spanish Government is fighting the Administración del Estado (español) before the European Court of Justice?
Please clarify.