Translating Spanish Appellate Terminology

Legal Spanish for Translators

(ilustración: Fernando Vicente)

There are several keys to deciphering Spanish appellate terminology. The first is to have a clear understanding of the difference between recursos devolutivos and recursos no devolutivos. A recurso devolutivo is an appeal from (or against)* the decision of a trial court (or administrative agency) that will be heard and adjudicated by a higher court (or higher administrative authority). When an appeal is heard by a higher court or administrative authority, it is said to have efecto devolutivo. In contrast, a recurso no devolutivo is actually a petition for a rehearing or for reconsideration filed before the same court or administrative agency that issued the original decision being appealed.

This distinction may not be readily understood by English-speaking audiences since in Anglo-American law an appeal is, by definition, to a higher court or authority. Translations dealing with any of the many recursos no devolutivos existing in Spanish procedure should clearly reflect the fact that the appeal will be adjudicated by the same court or authority that issued the original decision. For this reason, this type of remedy is often described as a “reconsideration appeal” or, perhaps more appropriately, a “motion for reconsideration” since, in essence, it is a motion petitioning a court or administrative authority to reconsider and reverse its initial ruling.

A second aspect to consider is whether the appeal suspends the execution (enforcement) of the original decision while the appeal is pending (called efecto suspensivo). When an appeal is said to be admitido en un solo efecto, this is a reference to the fact that the appeal tiene efecto devolutivo, i.e., is a recurso devolutivo, an appeal to a higher court or authority. The expression recurso admitido en ambos efectos denotes a recurso devolutivo con efecto suspensivo, that is, an appeal to a higher court or authority that also stays (suspends) the execution of the lower court’s judgment while the appeal is pending.

A third point is to distinguish between recurso (or recurrir) and apelación (or apelar), which are often assumed to be synonymous. But recurso is actually a generic term for many types of appeal, while apelación denotes a specific remedy (called recurso de apelación), which is always adjudicated by a higher court or authority (i.e., it is a recurso devolutivo). Translators may be prompted to assume that recurrir and apelar are synonyms, given that recurso and apelación do indeed appear as such in many bilingual legal sources that inevitably translate both as “appeal.” However, they are not interchangeable. As indicated above recurso is a broad term used to denote generically many types of appeals and legal remedies, both judicial and administrative. Thus, recurso may be a superordinate term meaning “appellate remedy” or may refer to a specific type of appeal, depending on the context. In contrast, recurso de apelación specifically denotes an appeal from the decision of a trial court (tribunal de primera instancia). In that regard, recurso de apelación may be described as an “appeal in second instance” (or perhaps an “appeal to an intermediate appellate court” in those instances in which further appeal is available if the apelación is unsuccessful). The verb describing the filing of a recurso de apelación is recurrir en apelación.

Another classification divides appeals into recursos ordinarios filed as of right, and recursos extraordinarios that may only be filed in extraordinary circumstances and for reasons defined by law (motivos tasados en la ley). Appeals to the Spanish Tribunal Supremo, called recursos de casación, are extraordinary appeals (even the one called recurso de casación ordinario). Although often translated literally as “casation appeals,” recursos de casación may likewise be rendered simply as just that: “appeals to the Supreme Court.”

A final point to remember (and a source of much confusion) is the fact that the same type of appeal may have different names in different jurisdictions. For example, in Spain a recurso no devolutivo filed in civil courts is called recurso de reposición. That same type of appeal in the criminal and labor courts has different names depending on whether it is filed from a decision issued by a juzgado or órgano unipersonal (single-judge court) or tribunal or órgano colegiado (multi-judge court). Thus in criminal procedure recursos no devolutivos filed from certain decisions of juzgados de instrucción are called recursos de reforma, while recursos no devolutivos from the decisions of multi-judge criminal courts are called recursos de súplica. A similar distinction is a feature of labor procedure in which there are two recursos no devolutivos, the recurso de reposición (filed from certain orders issued by juzgados de lo social) and the recurso de súplica (filed from certain orders issued by the Salas de lo Social de los Tribunales Superiores de Justicia). This disparity in nomenclature likewise exists among recursos devolutivos. Indeed, as noted above, what might generically be termed a recurso en segunda instancia is a recurso de apelación in civil, criminal and administrative procedure, but is called recurso de suplicación in labor proceedings.

This summary certainly doesn’t address all of the pitfalls of translating Spanish appellate terminology and, ultimately, unless the context requires otherwise, the majority of these recursos may be translated simply as “appeal.” Likewise, both recurrente and apelante, as well as recurrido and apelado can usually be rendered respectively as “appellant” and “appellee” (or “respondent” in British English).

Read more here:

Víctor Moreno Catena and Valentín Cortés Domínguez. Derecho Procesal Civil, Parte General and Derecho Procesal Penal (Valencia: Tirant lo Blanch, 2015) pp. 339-398 and 579-655; Víctor Moreno Catena, dir. Esquemas de Derecho Procesal Laboral (Valencia: Tirant lo Blanch, 2013, pp. 117-135.

*US usage: “to appeal from a judgment;” form preferred in British English: “to appeal against a judgment”

 

 

 

Mistranslation of “personal property”

Mistranslations-2

Although not a frequent translation mistake, I have seen “personal property” translated several times literally as bienes personales. But of course there is really nothing personal about personal property! Also called “personalty” and sometimes “chattels,”  personal property is the common law counterpart of bienes muebles. This contrasts with “real property,” also called “real estate” or “realty,”  which is bienes inmuebles in Spanish. In English-speaking civil law jurisdictions, in bijural jurisidictions (such as Canada) and in international organizations such as the EU or the Council of Europe,  personal property and real property may also be referred to respectively as “movable property (or) movables”  and  “immovable property (or) immovables.” Thus, (just as a recap):

bienes muebles—personal property; personalty; chattels; movable property; movables

bienes inmuebles—real property; real estate; realty; immovable property; immovables

Expressing Civil Law Concepts in Common Law Terms: frutos; disfrute

ExpressingCivil LawConcepts

The property law section of the Spanish Civil Code contains multiple references to frutos, and it is obvious that the literal rendering “fruits” is probably not the most natural sounding in English (although this is indeed the term used in the Civil Code of Louisiana). General references to frutos may often be translated simply as “proceeds.” As an example, derecho del acreedor a los frutos de la cosa might be rendered as “creditor’s right to proceeds from the property.” Or, with respect to the obligation to make restitution after a contract is rescinded, restitución recíproca de las cosas que fueron objeto del contrato con sus frutos y el precio con sus intereses could be translated as “mutual restitution of the goods/property that were the subject-matter of the contract with any proceeds therefrom, and the price paid plus interest.”

A distinction is traditionally made between frutos naturales, frutos industriales and frutos civiles. Frutos naturales are naturally-occuring proceeds from property, such as timber and animal offspring. Frutos industriales are labor-produced proceeds from property, such as cultivated crops. And frutos civiles denotes income from property, such as rent, interest or dividends. These three concepts aren’t easily rendered with one-word terms, although frutos naturales may be described (as above) as “natural proceeds from property,”  frutos industriales may be translated as “cultivated crops” and frutos civiles perhaps as “revenue from property.”

Regarding the term disfrute, expressions such as derecho real de goce and derecho real de disfrute are generally treated as synonymous and translated as “right to the enjoyment of property.” But it should be noted that, strictly speaking, disfrute refers specifically to enjoyment of the proceeds (frutos) of property, el derecho de hacer suyo los frutos que la cosa produzca.

Expressing Civil Law Concepts in Common Law Terms: the Diligence Standard

ExpressingCivil LawConcepts

buen padre de familia ; ordenado empresario

In Spain (and in other Spanish-speaking countries) the measure for ordinary diligence is how a buen padre de familia would act, and is described as diligencia de un buen padre de familia (or diligencia media). With respect to the performance of obligations, Article 1104.2 of the Código Civil provides that cuando la obligación no exprese la diligencia con la que ha de prestarse en su cumplimiento, se exigirá la que correspondería a un buen padre de familia, while Article 1094 underscores that el obligado a dar una cosa lo está también a conservarla con la diligencia propia de un buen padre de familia. The common law counterpart of buen padre de familia is the “reasonable person” or “reasonably-prudent person,” acting with the diligence or care ordinarily exercised by a reasonable and prudent person under the circumstances. Here the standard of care is “based on what a reasonable person might be expected to do considering the circumstances and foreseeable consequences.”*

Just as the measure for diligence in ordinary affairs is how a buen padre de familia would act, the standard of care in business contexts (estándar mercantil de diligencia) is la diligencia de un ordenado empresario. In that regard, in defining the duty of care required of corporate directors, Article 225 of the Ley de Sociedades de Capital provides that deberán desempeñar el cargo y cumplir los deberes impuestos por las leyes y los estatutos con la diligencia de un ordenado empresario, teniendo en cuenta la naturaleza del cargo y las funciones atribuidas a cada uno de ellos. In common law jurisdictions the counterpart of this ordenado empresario is often referred to as the “reasonable business person,” and the standard of care required in commercial transactions is the “diligence of a reasonable business person.” As an example, in Canada directors of charitable organizations must exercise “a degree of skill and prudence comparable to a reasonable business person caring for his or her own property.”** To determine whether directors have acted negligently, courts often apply the “reasonable business person test” to compare their actions with what a reasonable business person would be expected to do in similar circumstances.

*Elizabeth A. Martin and Johnathan Law, eds. Oxford Dictionary of Law, 6th ed., Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.

** http://www.millerthomson.com/en/publications/newsletters/education-law-newsletter/february-25-2016/education-foundations-directors-personal

Capsule Vocabularies: Análisis forense

images
In their work ES-EN legal translators (and lawyers and professors) often require a minimum basic vocabulary in a specific area of law, something that they will be hard pressed to find searching word-by-word in a dictionary. (In this case, the “problem” with dictionaries is that they are in alphabetical order!) Blog entries labeled “Capsule Vocabularies” will feature some of the basic terminology lists developed for use by my students of legal English that may also be of interest to translator and interpreter colleagues and other legal professionals.

(Análisis forense) Forensic Analysis

  • policía científica—forensic police; crime scene investigators
  • inspección ocular técnico policial—crime scene investigation
  • análisis dactiloscópico; dactiloscopia—fingerprint analysis; dactyloscopy
  • prueba dactiloscópica—fingerprint evidence
  • análisis lofoscópico; lofoscopia—handprint/footprint analysis
  • análisis de ADN—DNA analysis
  • marcadores de ADN—DNA markers
  • análisis toxicológico—toxicological analysis
  • análisis balístico (balística forense)—ballistic analysis (forensic ballistics)
  • análisis acústico (acústica forense)—acoustic analysis (forensic acoustics)
  • muestra de voz—voice sample/exemplar
  • fonograma verbal—voice print; speech spectogram
  • análisis documentoscópico (documentoscopia)—document analysis
  • análisis grafoscópico (grafoscopia)–handwriting analysis
  • perito calígrafo—handwriting expert
  • cuerpo de escritura—handwriting sample/exemplar
  • análisis entomológico (entomología forense)—entomological analysis (forensic entomology)
  • cronotanatodiagnóstico—analysis/calculation of the time of death
  • análisis informático (informática forense)—computer analysis (computer forensics)
  • análisis antropológico (antropología forense)—anthropological analysis (forensic anthropology)
  • autopsia; necropsia—autopsy; necropsy; postmortem examination

Source: Rebecca Jowers, Léxico temático de terminología jurídica español-inglés. Valencia: Tirant lo Blanch, 2015, pp. 353-355.

The Difference between bonos and obligaciones

Legal Synonyms,Confusing Terms(what's the difference between..._)

bonos vs. obligaciones

It is customary to see bonos translated as “bonds” and their counterpart obligaciones rendered as “debentures.” But this translation may be misleading. In some jurisdictions a bond is a debt security secured by specific assets of the issuing corporation, while a debenture  (also known as an “unsecured bond”) is a debt security that is not secured by specific assets, but rather by the issuing corporation’s general creditworthiness. In contrast, in Spain the difference between bonos and obligaciones is merely their maturity dates. Bonos mature in less than five years, while obligaciones are longer-term bonds. Thus, rather than rendering obligaciones as “debentures,” perhaps it is more appropriate to translate bonos and obligaciones respectively as “medium-term bonds” and “long-term” bonds.

Mistranslations: Consejo Europeo; Consejo de Europa

Mistranslations-2
“Mistranslations?” includes examples of what I believe may be considered mistranslations that I have encountered over a twenty-five year period while working as a legal translator and teacher of legal English in Spain. Some may be actual mistranslations, while others are perhaps all-too-literal renderings of expressions that may have sufficiently close counterparts (“functional equivalents”) in the other language. Still others are translations that may simply not be accurate in the context in which they originally appeared.

Consejo Europeo–European Council

Consejo de Europa–Council of Europe

These institutions are sometimes confused in translation, Consejo Europeo often being mistranslated as “Council of Europe,” rather than as “European Council,” even in academic publications. Examples I have encountered include mistranslating Directiva xxxx/xx CE del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo Europeo as “EC Directive xxxx/xx of the European Parliament and the Council of Europe,” or rendering the expression “cuando el Consejo Europeo empiece a adoptar medidas en codecisión con el Parlamento…” incorrectly as “when the Council of Europe begins to adopt codecision procedures with the Parliament…”.

Likewise, in the other direction, “Council of Europe” has often been confused with Consejo Europeo when translating, for example, “Council of Europe Committee of Ministers” as Comité de Ministros del Consejo Europeo (rather than Comité de Ministros del Consejo de Europa) or rendering “Publication of the Council of Europe, Strasbourg” as Publicación del Consejo Europeo de Estrasburgo. And an article entitled “The Limited Powers of the European Parliament and the Council of Europe” most likely intended to address the limited powers of the European Parliament and the European Council.

Briefly, the European Council (Consejo Europeo) is an institution of the European Union; the Council of Europe is not. Consejo Europeo and “European Council” refer to the Council of Ministers of the European Union (EU), which currently (pre-Brexit) has 28 member states. In contrast, the “Council of Europe” (Consejo de Europa) is a totally separate international organization located in Strasbourg, France, devoted to working toward European integration and protecting human rights since its founding in 1949. The principal achievement of the Council of Europe (COE) is the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (not to be confused with the European Union’s Charter of Fundamental Rights). The Council of Europe’s European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) rules on applications concerning alleged human rights violations in the 47 Council of Europe member states. All European Union member states are likewise members of the Council of Europe. Negotiations for the EU to accede to the European Convention on Human Rights are ongoing.

The fact that these institutions are often confused, even by legal professionals, has been noted in a research guide on the Council of Europe prepared by librarians at the Duke University Law Library: “Although it has a close relationship with the European Union, the Council of Europe (Conseil de l’Europe, Consejo de Europa, Europarat, Consiglio d’Europa) is not part of the EU. Be especially careful not to confuse it with an EU institution called the European Council (Conseil européen, Consejo Europeo, Europäisher Rat, Consiglio europeo) which is a special meeting of the EU’s Council of Ministers.”

https://law.duke.edu/lib/researchguides/councileurope/

Same Thing, Different Name: Ombudsman in Spain

One of the pitfalls of legal translation is that the same concept may often be known by several different terms. Lawyers are aware of these variants; legal translators may not be. In this section I will include some of the legal terms in Spanish law that are essentially the “same thing with a different name.”

Same thing, different nameheading

Defensor del Pueblo; Ombudsman

The institution set up in Spain to hear citizens’ complaints concerning violations of their fundamental rights and public liberties is the Defensor del Pueblo, following the (originally) Swedish ombudsman model. Many of Spain’s autonomous communities (comunidades autónomas) have created similar institutions at the local level, two of which are likewise known as Defensor del Pueblo: Defensor del Pueblo Andaluz and Defensor del Pueblo de Navarra.

But this same institution is known by other names in other autonomous communities. Procurador is the term used in Castilla y León (Procurador del Común de Castilla y León). The ombudsman in Aragón is known as El Justicia de Aragón, while in the Canary Islands the term is Diputado del Común de Canarias. And still others are known by the term in the co-official language of their comunidad: Sindic de Greuges de Catalunya in Catalonia, Sindic de Greuges de la Comunitat Valenciana in the Comunidad Valenciana, Valedor do Pobo Galego in Galicia, and Ararteko in the Basque Country. The Defensor del Pueblo de Navarra is also known by its name in euskera, Nafarroako Arartekoa.

Asturias previously had an ombudsman (2005-2013) known as Procurador General del Principiado de Asturias (Procurador Xeneral del Principáu d’Asturies in asturiano), as did La Rioja (Defensor del Pueblo Riojano (2006-2013) and Murcia (Defensor del Pueblo de la Región de Murcia (2008-2012). The Defensor del Pueblo de Castilla-La Mancha was likewise eliminated in 2011. The autonomy statutes (estatutos de autonomía) of Cantabria and Extremadura provide for an ombudsman (to be known respectively as Defensor del Pueblo Cántabro and Personero del Común), but those provisions were never implemented. A 1993 law provided for a Sindic de Greuges de les Illes Balears, but at the time of this writing the successive governments of the Balearic Islands have never appointed anyone to that post.

 

Español jurídico : Cortes Generales; Cortes Españolas

Legal Spanish for Translators

Although Spaniards of a certain age would probably not confuse these terms, I have seen the former called by the latter’s name several times both in translation and on the Web, so it is perhaps worth underscoring the difference. Cortes Generales is the name of Spain’s bicameral parliament including, as its lower house, the Congreso de los Diputados (“House of Deputies”) and upper house, the Senado (“Senate”). Las Cortes Generales were established and are regulated in Title Three of the Spanish Constitution of 1978, and its members are known respectively as diputados and senadores.

In contrast, Cortes Españolas was the unicameral legislative assembly under the Franco regime, established in 1942 and existing until 1977. Its members were known as Procuradores en Cortes and should not be confused with procuradores de los tribunales, who represent the interests of their respective parties before the Spanish Courts.

Differences in Case Citation in the US and UK

us-uk-friendship

Differences in court case citation in the US and UK (and in other Commonwealth countries) may sometimes be a source of confusion. As an example, in the US a civil action is generally styled “Smith v. Jones,” Smith being the plaintiff (demandante, now known as the claimant in England and Wales) and Jones the defendant (demandado). The case name is read aloud as “Smith versus Jones.” In England that same civil case would be written in the same way (Smith v. Jones), but would be read aloud as “Smith and Jones.”

Criminal cases in the US are easily identified by the fact that the first party, represented by the prosecutor or district attorney (fiscal), is the government, whether federal or state, as in the “United States v. Jones” or the “People of the State of Michigan v. Jones.” Here, as in civil cases, “v.” is also read aloud as “versus,” In England and in other Commonwealth countries criminal cases are prosecuted by the Crown in the name of the monarch, and therefore this same  case would be styled “R v. Jones,” “R” standing for the Latin “Regina” (queen) or “Rex” (king). However, the case name would be read aloud as “The Queen against Jones” (and not “The Queen versus Jones”).

In the US “v.” is often read aloud as “vee,” rather than “versus” (pronouncing “v.” like the letter “v”), although legal linguist Bryan Garner cautions against this practice in his “Garner’s Dictionary of Legal Usage” (Oxford, 2011, p. 920).