rédigés en termes identiques, réunis, et qui sont préalables

17:35 Jul 17, 2019 

(PhB): about préalable: some sources say it has something to do with le fond de l'affaire, i.e. it ought to be considered first

Big picture, yes, that can be true. But not in this context, because the cour de cassation does not consider "le fond de l'affaire." Or to quote a French law site: "La Cour de cassation est un juge du droit...C’est-à-dire qu’elle ne connaît pas du fond de l’affaire, elle ne s’intéresse pas aux éléments de fait.... Elle se contente donc de rechercher si la règle de droit a été correctement appliquée par les juges du fond."
http://pointdroit.com/cour-cassation/

Préalable in a cour de cassation context can refer to the "examen préalable des pourvois dont elle [la c. de c.] est saisie," i.e. the fact that before taking an appeal the c. de c. first evaluates the pourvois to see if there actually is a "moyen solide" for hearing the appeal (and if not, they don't hear it and no opinion is ever drafted so there's nothing for us to translate). But that's not what Roberta's passage is talking about. That wouldn't be discussed in an opinion because it goes without saying: if there's an opinion at all, then the examen préalable was done, end of story.

17:28 Jul 17, 2019 

Just saw your last addition. So it may not be a set phrase after all. Still, it's only 9 words, so not breaking any Kudoz rule :-) One last thing, about préalable: some sources say it has something to do with le fond de l'affaire, i.e. it ought to be considered first (as in au préalable). Re-Bonne soirée !

16:57 Jul 17, 2019 

"I would not split this expression for KudoZ purposes" is what I wrote this morning and I'm repeating it now. There are different ways of working out what the right translation is and looking words up separately is definitely one of them. This discussion is not about translation theory, it's about what should go into the glossary and in what form. If it's a set phrase, as it appears to be, then it should be recorded as such, even though its individual words keep their original meaning. Bonne soirée !

16:40 Jul 17, 2019 

Well for one thing, looking them up separately is how you can confirm that "préalables" and "réunis" modify "moyens" and not the other two masculine plural nouns that they could be modifying.

And I'm not sure it really counts as a set phrase when the thing it's describing must be quite rare in cour de cassation opinions. How often is the cour de cassation asked to consider multiple appeals together which all raise the same grounds drafted in identical terms, and were also all raised before the court below?

*Edited to add*: Not often. When you google the entire phrase Roberta posted about, in quotes to get exact matches, of the ten results on the first page, 6 of them are from the same 2014 case and 3 are about a different 2011 case--the one Roberta is translating.

The set phrase here is "moyen préalable." And the equivalent English set phrase is "X raised below," with X usually being "grounds" but sometimes being a legalese synonym such as "argument" or "basis."

16:34 Jul 17, 2019 

Of course you can look these words up individually and yes, chances are you're going to find them associated with interesting phrases. Set phrases, exactly. That's the whole point: they should be kept together as a question because there is evidence that it is a set phrase. Or should the words "Now therefore" be translated as Maintenant, par conséquent after you've looked them up individually? :-)

16:24 Jul 17, 2019 

I guess we can both be right :-)

16:23 Jul 17, 2019 

I vote for looking up terms individually because then you find set phrases in French court decisions that are very similar, but not identical (so you only find them if you search individually).

Here, préalable could refer, grammatically, to any of the following: the pourvois, the moyens, even the termes. But it seems to refer to the moyens: several other cour de cassation opinions use the set phrase, "Sur le [premier, second, etc. selon le cas] moyen, qui est préalable..." https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichJuriJudi.do?idTexte=JUR...

Same goes for the rest: "Sur les trois moyens réunis..." https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichJuriJudi.do?idTexte=JUR...

The "moyens" are the legal grounds or rationale for overturning the decision of the court below. Per Art. 619 of the Code of Civil Procedure, "Les moyens nouveaux ne sont pas recevables devant la Cour de cassation" -- in other words you have to have already made this argument in the court below.

So my best guess is that saying a moyen is préalable means that it was raised below and therefore can be heard by the cour de cassation.

15:45 Jul 17, 2019 

note. The 3 terms go together here. What I am saying is that they can be looked up individually and then be put together to produce a translation of the French.

15:40 Jul 17, 2019 

That's what "looking up terms individually" means. If I hadn't added that note would you have removed the question for multiple terms? If the answer is yes, then you're saying to split it up. It feels like you are deliberately missing the point and I don't understand why.

14:54 Jul 17, 2019 

It all goes together. The point is that the terms can all be looked up individually.

14:49 Jul 17, 2019 

It's a composite expression and it is pointless and misleading to split it into its components. We are not here to divide and rule.

09:13 Jul 17, 2019 

Thank you for articulating what I was trying to say much better than I was able to!

09:06 Jul 17, 2019 

I would not split this expression for KudoZ purposes as there is evidence that it is used as such. Whether or not each individual word, when literally translated, will give an acceptable translation into legal English, I wouldn't know - I don't do (E>F) court rulings. But just in case there might be an equivalent, though not literal, English expression, specialist translators should be allowed to see the whole French phrase, so that if they recognise it, they can contribute informed answers. It would be a shame if these 9 words did not make it to the glossary properly translated. And we've seen much worse here in terms of parsing/breach of the 10-word rule, etc.

08:41 Jul 17, 2019 

08:41 Jul 17, 2019 

Maybe it doesn't change the *meaning* of the specific words, but it certainly affects how the term is translated. Again, that's not what determines a fixed expression. I'm just saying that, at the very least, "rédigés en termes identiques, réunis" is a fixed expression in French law and it doesn't need to be broken into multiple KudoZ questions that don't make sense when put back together, because the whole point is that I am looking for the translation of this phrase, not the individual words in it. Again: the translation. Not necessarily the meaning.

08:37 Jul 17, 2019 

I can see it's used in French law as a sort of fixed phrase in specific cases. But I still maintain that using the words together in such a phrase does not change their individual meanings/translation.

08:33 Jul 17, 2019 

Just because there are only six results doesn't mean it's not a fixed expression. We rely so much on Google these days that it can be easy to forget that there is a huge amount of information and text that is not included in Google search results. Plus frequency of use has no correlation with whether a fixed expression is a fixed expression or not. It just means it's highly specified - like most terms translators come to the KudoZ community with. If it were ubiquitous, I would have likely found the answer on my own. That's the whole point of asking it here - it's not common enough to have a million google hits explaining it.

08:24 Jul 17, 2019 

I found 6 G-hits where they are used together. I don't think using them together in this context changes their individual meanings.