soustrait à la connaissance

English translation: is/are not to be considered [or] is/are not justiciable

15:59 Oct 14, 2019
French to English translations [PRO]
Law/Patents - Law (general)
French term or phrase: soustrait à la connaissance
This is a court case about Russian Empire bonds. These respondent pleadings are arguing that the claimant's claims (to have the Russian Federation reimburse them) are non-starters.

There are several lines of argument. This particular one is saying that the cancellation of the bonds in 1918 by the Soviet State, and the 1997 Agreement between the Russian Federation and France, cancelling all such obligations, are political in nature and therefore not a matter for a French court.

"Interroger la validité et les effets juridiques de l’emprunt comporterait ainsi nécessairement une part d’ingérence du juge français dans les affaires intérieures d’un Etat étranger. Ces actes, a raison de leur nature intrinsèquement politique, sont soustraits à la connaissance du juge national."

"Tout comme l’opération aux fins de lever des capitaux étrangers sur les marchés internationaux repose sur un choix fondamentalement politique du souverain étranger consistant notamment à faire peser sur les générations futures la répartition des charges publiques, la décision d’annuler des dettes est de nature intrinsèquement politique et ne peut qu’être soustraite à la connaissance d’un juge étranger"

I'm tempted to think this simply means "beyond the jurisdiction of the judge". But I've never heard this particular expression before.

Anyone say differently?
Mpoma
United Kingdom
Local time: 19:40
English translation:is/are not to be considered [or] is/are not justiciable
Explanation:
There are two ways to say this in English. I would go with the first one suggested above in this case, because it's the closest in meaning to your FR original, but they both work.

In English, judges "consider" facts, laws and arguments when making their decisions. When talking about something that a judge should not take into account when making their decision, we commonly say it should not be "considered."

Without getting into way too much detail, a basic example is that in the US, appellate judges are not supposed to consider witness credibility questions (i.e. they can't overturn a lower court's decision on the grounds that XYZ witness wasn't credible), because witnesses testify in lower courts -- not appeals courts -- so determining their credibility is the task of lower-court judges, not appellate judges. That's just one of approximately 1 zillion examples. Anything that a judge isn't supposed to take into account in reaching their decision "should not be considered" by the judge.

As for the second possibility, in the US we have a doctrine similar to the one that's being argued in your case: the political question doctrine. It's similar in subject matter, but different in that it's about political questions that are still up in the air, as opposed to ones that (as in your case) have already been decided by the political bodies in question. Such questions are "not justiciable," i.e., US judges are not allowed to rule upon them: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/political_question_doctrine

As I said, I think the first option is closer to your original and works better grammatically/syntactically. But it's your call.
Selected response from:

Eliza Hall
United States
Local time: 15:40
Grading comment
Selected automatically based on peer agreement.
4 KudoZ points were awarded for this answer



Summary of answers provided
5 +2is/are not to be considered [or] is/are not justiciable
Eliza Hall
4do not come under the jurisdicion of XXX
SafeTex


Discussion entries: 5





  

Answers


22 mins   confidence: Answerer confidence 5/5 peer agreement (net): +2
is/are not to be considered [or] is/are not justiciable


Explanation:
There are two ways to say this in English. I would go with the first one suggested above in this case, because it's the closest in meaning to your FR original, but they both work.

In English, judges "consider" facts, laws and arguments when making their decisions. When talking about something that a judge should not take into account when making their decision, we commonly say it should not be "considered."

Without getting into way too much detail, a basic example is that in the US, appellate judges are not supposed to consider witness credibility questions (i.e. they can't overturn a lower court's decision on the grounds that XYZ witness wasn't credible), because witnesses testify in lower courts -- not appeals courts -- so determining their credibility is the task of lower-court judges, not appellate judges. That's just one of approximately 1 zillion examples. Anything that a judge isn't supposed to take into account in reaching their decision "should not be considered" by the judge.

As for the second possibility, in the US we have a doctrine similar to the one that's being argued in your case: the political question doctrine. It's similar in subject matter, but different in that it's about political questions that are still up in the air, as opposed to ones that (as in your case) have already been decided by the political bodies in question. Such questions are "not justiciable," i.e., US judges are not allowed to rule upon them: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/political_question_doctrine

As I said, I think the first option is closer to your original and works better grammatically/syntactically. But it's your call.

Eliza Hall
United States
Local time: 15:40
Specializes in field
Native speaker of: English
PRO pts in category: 145
Grading comment
Selected automatically based on peer agreement.

Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
agree  Adrian MM.: non-justiciable (by a domestic court - quaere: tribunal) - in the UK at least.
2 hrs

agree  AllegroTrans: non-justiciable
4 hrs

disagree  SafeTex: "Not within the jurisdiction of" is better here.
1 day 5 hrs
  -> No, it isn't. Do you always argue with lawyers about legal terms (which BTW is ridiculous), or just with female lawyers?

agree  Michael Confais (X)
4 days
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)

1 day 2 hrs   confidence: Answerer confidence 4/5Answerer confidence 4/5
do not come under the jurisdicion of XXX


Explanation:
Hello

I'm sure this is how we would say it. "Justiciable" is very similar but not quite the same perhaps. A case can be "justiciable" but not in this case by the "juge national"


    https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part11
    https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/the-justice-system/jurisdictions/
SafeTex
France
Local time: 20:40
Specializes in field
Native speaker of: Native in EnglishEnglish
PRO pts in category: 87

Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
disagree  Eliza Hall: This is not a question of jurisdiction at all.
44 mins
  -> Thanks for sharing "your great and unmatched wisdom" :)

agree  Marco Solinas: Yes, this is the right interpretation: the actions discussed are of political nature and fall outside the jurisdiction of the court system.
1 hr
  -> Thanks Marco
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)



Login or register (free and only takes a few minutes) to participate in this question.

You will also have access to many other tools and opportunities designed for those who have language-related jobs (or are passionate about them). Participation is free and the site has a strict confidentiality policy.

KudoZ™ translation help

The KudoZ network provides a framework for translators and others to assist each other with translations or explanations of terms and short phrases.


See also:
Term search
  • All of ProZ.com
  • Term search
  • Jobs
  • Forums
  • Multiple search