This site uses cookies.
Some of these cookies are essential to the operation of the site,
while others help to improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.
For more information, please see the ProZ.com privacy policy.
French to English translations [PRO] Law/Patents - Law (general)
French term or phrase:Ne peut être utilisée comme pièce de procédure
Rôle no 2019L03732 Page no Copie délivrée à titre de simple renseignement Ne peut être utilisée comme pièce de procédure Copie délivrée à titre de simple renseignement Ne peut être utilisée comme pièce de procédure TRIBUNAL DE COMMERCE DE MARSEILLE
Explanation: Pièce de procédure often is translated as "pleadings," but that's not what it means here. According to the source below, which is a guide on the use of the term, a "pièce de procédure" can also mean:
In other words, evidence or proof. So when the original text says, "Copie délivrée à titre de simple renseignement Ne peut être utilisée comme pièce de procédure," ...it just means that this is an unofficial copy provided for informational purposes, and not an official copy that could serve as legal evidence/proof that what it says is true.
there might well be a presumption that "Asker is always right" built in the design of Kudoz, but occasionaly it's plain obvious that at times it's a rather brave assumption.
I'm not going to bore you to death by plucking examples after examples from past Kudoz questions ...
As a general rule, "Asker choose this answer" IS NOT a rock-solid infaillible proof that it was indeed the best answer (sometimes it's even a plain wrong one) - so it's the kind of argument to "handle with extreme caution".
This reminds me of the question on "classifier". You spend hours telling everyone they were wrong and then the asker too chooses "classify". It's clearly a borderline case and we all know that you are a lawyer as you keep reminding us.... by the way you never stop arguing.
You said: "This particular disagree is like someone disagreeing with another person saying that a colour is not purple but mauve where it is a borderline case..."
Except it's not a borderline case, nor is the difference like purple vs. mauve. A better analogy would be an argument over the word "blue," with you saying "it means the color of the sky!" and me saying, "Yes, it can mean that, but in this case it means depressed, because the sentence says, 'I've been feeling blue lately, so I started taking antidepressants.'"
In that blue/color vs. blue/depressed argument, it's not borderline; there actually is a right answer and a wrong one. And as a native English speaker, you know which one is which.
You said: "I've found a document on line from the Tribunal de Commerce de Marseilles with the words 'Ne peut être utilisée comme pièce de procédure'...and it's NOT evidence/proof but 'un jugement' (procedural document).... As to... why it can't be used (maybe cos it is not stamped or signed), that is an interesting question"
You just answered your own question, and in so doing, demonstrated that I'm right.
That copy of the judgment cannot be used as evidence that the judgment written on it really happened, because, as you note, that copy is not stamped or signed. It's not an official copy.
If you know the judgment was real and you just want to know what it says, then this document is useful to you: it serves "de simple renseignement." But if you need to prove that a judgment was entered against X party on Y date, then you can't use this copy; you need to go get an official copy (stamped, signed etc.). This unofficial copy cannot be used as evidence/proof.
This particular disagree is like someone disagreeing with another person saying that a colour is not purple but mauve where it is a borderline case and then giving them a lecture on their eye-sight.
While we can't stop the person from doing this, she can't stop others from reacting to her ridiculous and pretty systematic disagrees/lecturing.
So I guess that these clashes are going to continue for some time :)
an answer to be wrong, even more if are sure that it's a wrong one, whether you propose another answer or not makes no difference whatsoever. Even pointing out that an answer is wrong is helping the Asker, which the whole point, as far as I understand it.
Yes, there are also cases when people disagree for all sort of non-linguistic / pretend-linguistic reasons, but that's a different story - I'm talking here only of people disagreeing because they are fairly sure the answer is a wrong one.
No immunity at all. I would not have minded if you had put the Disagree yourself since you did not put forward an answer; on the contrary, I would have accepted it if justified. The issues are different: one disagree by someone who did not submit an answer; a disagree slapped by someone who submitted an answer. Hope that clears it up for you
With due respect, I know that there are no rules for disagrees on this but I've said before that I too think it's unethical to do so when you have your own answer up unless the other answer is COMPLETELY off target. The problem yet again is that certain people (and one person in particular) hand out disagrees far too readily and we've seen a number of occasions where the answer disagreed with is actually chosen by others and/or the asker. For this particular question, the disagree was YET AGAIN for an answer that merits careful consideration and could well be RIGHT. This just ends up pissing others off and causing confusion for new users who can be mislead by such disagrees.
Thank you. I find it very unethical when a person who has answered slaps a 'disagree' and should not be allowed by the site itself. This, apart from the reasoning itself.
and it's NOT evidence/proof but "un jugement" (procedural document)
As to who added this text, the Tribunal or the Association de Défense des Investisseurs Maranatha (who published it) and why it can't be used (maybe cos it is not stamped or signed), that is an interesting question
But a decision IS a PROCEDURAL document (unless used as evidence in a future case (jurisprudence) and this is why you should not have handed out yet another one of your famous disagrees and insisted that the answer is "evidence/proof".
Within a single case, a decision CANNOT be evidence/proof as the evidence/proof has already been presented prior to the decision (cause precedes effect).
You really need to stop with your psychorigid disagrees and ensuing lectures and work more with others towards finding what could be the right answer instead of shooting down possible right answers.
"P de p" can have two meanings. "Procedural documents" in the link Josephine Cassar posted (in her response to my disagreement with her translation) are documents like those listed at her link: "a set of templates (cover sheet... table of annexes... announcement of appeal and a checklist)" to be used in filing an appeal.
That's "procedural" in the sense of "relating to the procedures used in litigation." That's also what "procédure" means with respect to the documents described in SafeTex's discussion post (ones that "intéressent le déroulement de la procédure et l'administration de la preuve").
The other meaning of "pièces de procédure" is documentary evidence -- IOW, documents that prove facts. For example, a birth certificate proves a date of birth; a marriage license proves that, and when/where, a couple got married; etc.
And THOSE are the types of documents that might be marked with something like "Delivered for informational purposes only; may not be used as evidence." You may be able to view a birth certificate online and print a copy, but you can't use it to get ID because it's not an official copy.
"Les secondes [pièces de procédure] y sont insérées en cours d'instance, elles intéressent le déroulement de la procédure et l'administration de la preuve. Parmi ces pièces figurent les exploits introductifs, les requêtes et les conclusions des parties ou dans certaines affaires celles du Ministère Public, les rapports d'expertise, les procés-verbaux contenant les auditions des témoins.
Therefore, it seems to me that the term includes for example writs, petitions, conclusions etc. and not just "hard evidence/proof".
