Discussion in 'Legal Terminology' started by Birlli, Feb 5, 2007.
"Without prejudice" ¿se traduce "sin cargos"?
Not exactly, Birlli. I believe you're talking about whether a courts' decision will allow for further action or not? If so, I think there is a better translation. My simplistic reply would be "sin perjuicios" but I'm not 100% sure.
I checked previous threads to try and refer you but there was nothing really good. So keep an eye out for Bubilay, the boss, Radiro, or Dauda98, amongst others...their translations to Spanish are very good.
Without Prejudice means that a claim, lawsuit, or proceeding has been brought to a temporary end but that no legal rights or privileges have been determined, waived, or lost by the result. It implies that a new judgment will never be considered as double jeopardy. So, this phrase means as well that the right or privilege of the complainant to sue again on the same cause of action is not thereby lost or waived. The best translation would be “sin perjuicio de las acciones que a la parte correspondan" "sin perjuicio de los derechos de parte" and even "sin efecto de cosa juzgada".
Thanks for your compliment, Logophilus, though I do not deserve it.
Que tal: "Sin prejuzgar sobre el fondo del asunto?"
Old French, from Latin praejudicium previous judgment, damage, from prae- before + judicium judgment, que también se entiende como "an attitude or disposition (as of a judge) that prevents impartiality"
Hope it works
Thank you very much, but I'm afraid my translation doesn´t have to be so technical as it is adressed to physicians. The sentence I'm trying to translate is this one:
"Within three days, the case against me was dropped without prejudice"
Do you have an easier translation?
Sorry I`m disturbing you guys so much!!!
Thank you in advance!
A los tres días, el caso en contra mía fue desechado /desestimado sin prejuzgar sobre el fondo del asunto.
sin efectos juridicos
Y que quiere decir esa expresión cuando se utiliza en el contexto de "statute X will have effect without prejudice to the application of statute Y". Significa que a la aplicación de statute X no le afecta la aplicación del statute Y, que a la aplicación del statute Y no le afecta la aplicación del statute X, o las dos cosas a la vez.
Statue x se aplicará sin prejuzgar respecto de la aplicación del Statue Y, o independientemente de lo que prevenga el statue Y
Hola, tambien se puede decir ''con reservas de ley".
Se que es algo tardio dar una explicacion o traduccion despues de mucho tiempo.
Pero "without prejudice", seria "sin reservas de ley."
Hola, without prejudice to: sin perjuicio de
Me han de dispensar, pero no me convence ninguna de estas sugerencias, desde 2007 hasta la fecha de hoy. "Without prejudice" se encuentra casi siempre en la frase "Dismissed Without Prejudice." Es una determinación del tribunal, o sea del juez, desestimando o denegando provisionalmente la demanda, querella, solicitud, petición, etc., sin limitar el derecho de la parte actora a volverla a presenter en forma modificada o corregida; la desestimación no se considera res judicata, sino que el litigio, la controversia queda sin resolver, y se permite la presentación de otras demandas fundamentadas en los mismos hechos. ¿Cuál sería el equivalente en español?
Hola, en contratos en inglés yo le he visto infinidad de veces, usado de esta manera:
Without prejudice to the foregoing, the Contractor may....
Sin perjucio de lo anterior, el Contratista puede etc. etc. etc.
Yo siempre he usado "con sobreseimiento libre" for "With prejudice" o "con sobreseimiento provisional" para decir "without prejudice". Aquí hay una buena página de España que explica los términos y cuando se produce cada tipo de sobreseimiento http://procesales.blogs.uv.es/files/2010/01/Titulo-I.pdf
¿Qué opinan de estos términos? ¿Será que son opciones válidas?
El perjuicio es un concepto principalmente de derecho civil, y no tiene que ver con el concepto de cosa juzgada.
Bucanero in post #8 and Lamemoor are referring to a different use of "without prejudice," in cases where sin limitar or sin afectar... the validity of some other provision would becorrect. Thereference given in post # 15 is to criminal procedure: sobreseimiento is criminal acquittal, not relevant here. Sobreseimiento provisional would in fact be "without prejudice," meaning that the prosecutor could file new charges.
I have seen stamped in a passport, when a visa was cancelled merely because a different one had been issued, and not because the bearer had violated any rules, "Anulado sin perjuicio" but this may be legal Spanglish. It is the sense of "without prejudice" I am looking for.
So am I correct in thinking that perjuicio (prejudice) would normally be used in civil proceedings or in contract law, whereas "with or without prejudice" would be primarily in judicial proceedings?
Looking at the definition of sobreseimiento libre I believe that it may come close to "with prejudice". Here is another definition that I found of the term in Spanish "Se habla de sobreseimiento libre cuando del sumario resulta patente que o no se dio el hecho que en principio parecía existente y delictivo, o que se ha desvanecido su apariencia delictiva, o que sus autores actuaron exentos de responsabilidad, por lo que, en tal caso, se produce la terminación del proceso con efecto de cosa juzgada material en todo semejante al de una sentencia absolutoria sobre el fondo." http://www.enciclopedia-juridica.biz14.com/d/sobreseimiento/sobreseimiento.htm
This seems to be based on the Spanish Ley de Enjuiciamiento Criminal.
In what would this differ from a "with prejudice" dismissal?
For acquittal I have always heard "absolución" in Spanish.
I would tend to think that the example from your passport would indicate not there is an effect of res judicata as you mentioned earlier (since it is not a court proceeding), but that it means no prejudice in the sense of damages or harm was caused to you, because, as you stated, another had been issued.
You are confusing perjuicio (damages) and prejuicio (prejuicio). In the passport example, the intention was to indicate that the visa was annulled with "prejudice" to the passport bearer's right to obtain another visa. There is no reference to damages.
Actually I'm just trying to understand this. You used the word perjuicio, as did Lamemoor, which is correct in the case of a contract. In any case, care must be taken with the English word "prejudice", which has different meanings in different contexts. " “Prejudice” also means injury, loss, or damnification." http://thelawdictionary.org/prejudice/
This corresponds to the Spanish perjuicio, which is defined in Mexico as "la privación de cualquiera ganancia lícita, que debiera haberse obtenido con el cumplimiento de la obligación."
This also agrees with the Diccionario LID de Empresa y Economía, which defines it as "Ganancia lícita que deja de obtenerse o deméritos o gastos que se ocasionan por acto u omisión de otro, y que este debe indemnizar, a más del daño o detrimento material causado por modo directo".
As I stated before, the example cited of a contract obviously has nothing to do with res judicata or cosa juzgada. In that case, prejudice is correctly translated as perjuicio. I don't think that a decision made by an immigration officer to grant a visa would have to do with that concept either, although I am not sure, and could very well be mistaken on this.
So then my question would be whether the Spanish "perjuicio" has anything to do, in Spanish-speaking countries, with the "efecto de cosa juzgada" or not.
If so, then great! My search has ended. If not, then are the terms that I proposed adequate translations? What are alternative translations for court proceedings?
Thanks for you help on this!
If the lawsuit was dropped or dismissed without prejudice, it means that the plaintiff can file the same lawsuit again, for example, if they find more evidence. It's done, for now.
If the lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice, it means the plaintiff cannot file any more suits for the same claim. It's done, forever.
If you're not talking about lawsuits, then "without prejudice" could mean something completely different.
Absolutely! So now we get back to the original question. Does anybody know some good Spanish equivalents?
I have no idea what post #19 is about, but I note again that perjuicio and prejuicio are different, and here perjuicio, damage(s), is not relevant.
Exactly. The original post was concerning a lawsuit which was dismissed without prejudice, according to #5. This is the meaning that I am looking for. So far, I have proposed sobreseimiento libre for with prejudice, sobreseimiento provisional for without prejudice, but no one has offered any confirmation/objection to these terms other than stating that sobreseimiento means acquittal (absolución), which I am not entirely in agreement with, based on the definitions that I found earlier. To further establish the difference in sobreseimiento y absolución, this link http://agendamagna.wordpress.com/2009/01/28/absolucion-sobreseimiento/.
So, if anyone has any thoughts on dismissal of charges with/without prejudice, I would be most grateful!
I have never mentioned "prejuicio", and I don't believe it to be relevant to this thread at all. You can search for its meaning on rae.es and find that it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. The only time where the word "prejuicio" has appeared in the thread was in #18, written by you.
I was simply stating that prejudice can also be translated as perjuicio, and that prejudice can also mean "“Prejudice” also means injury, loss, or damnification." http://thelawdictionary.org/prejudice/.
This is not the meaning that I am seeking to translate. We must be careful to not confuse these meanings of prejudice, as they have been confused throughout this thread.
In further support of my previous proposal of sobreseimiento libre o provisional I would also cite this website from from Chile, which calls it sobreseimiento definitivo in contrast with absolución (which is acquittal) http://www.juicios.cl/dic300/ABSOLUCION.htm
Perhaps I have not been as clear as I would like, since this is somewhat of a confusing topic. Hopefully I have clarified my position a little with this post!
Separate names with a comma.