These look-alike Spanish tax law expressions have sometimes been confused in translation but are not synonymous. Pagos a cuenta denotes “advance tax payments” made quarterly during the tax year, for example, by the self-employed (trabajadores autónomos; trabajadores por cuenta propia). In US tax terminology these are known as “estimated tax payments.”

In contrast, pagos fraccionados refers to tax payments made in installments. Spanish tax law (Ley General Tributaria) provides for splitting tax debts into installments known as fraccionamiento del pago. In the case of Spanish individual income tax (impuesto sobre la renta de personas físicas—IRPF), June 30 is the deadline for filing tax returns (presentación de la declaración de la renta). Any taxes owed may be paid in two installments, with 60% due when filing, and the remainder to be paid in November.

In Spain and other Spanish-speaking jurisdictions a distinction is made between propiedad intelectual, which principally refers to “copyright” (derechos de autor) and propiedad industrial, which includes trademarks (marcas), tradenames (nombres comerciales), patents (patentes), utility models (modelos de utilidad), industrial models and designs (modelos y diseños industriales), and the protection of domain names, semiconductor chip masks and plant varieties (protección de nombres de dominio, topografías de productos semiconductores y obtenciones vegetales), etc.

This division is underscored by the fact that in Spain propiedad intelectual and propiedad industrial are protected under totally separate laws: on the one hand, the “Consolidated Text of the Copyright Act” (Texto Refundido de la Ley de Propiedad Intelectual); and on the other, the “Trademark Act” (Ley de Marcas), “Patent Act” (Ley de Patentes), and additional legislation protecting other modes of industrial property.

Moreover, different entities handle the registration of Spanish intellectual and industrial property. The Central and Regional Copyright Registers (Registro General y Registros Territoriales de la Propiedad Intelectual) are maintained and supervised by the Ministerio de Cultura y Deporte, while industrial property rights are protected through registration at the Spanish Patent and Trademark Office (Oficina Española de Patentes y Marcas, OEPM), a division of the Ministerio de Industria, Comercio y Turismo. And, traditionally, propiedad intelectual is an aspect of property law covered in the Código Civil, while propiedad industrial was initially governed under the Código de Comercio and is considered a part of Derecho mercantil. Today, propiedad intelectual is still studied in Spanish law schools as a part of Civil Law. But, since these are such closely related disciplines, Manuales de Derecho mercantil now generally include both.

In contrast to the above, in English “intellectual property” is a broad term that encompases both the Spanish propiedad intelectual and propiedad industrial. And, in addition to copyright, trademarks, patents, etc., intellectual property textbooks used in US law schools often include related disciplines such as unfair competition (competencia desleal), trade secrets (secretos industriales), false advertising (publicidad engañosa) and the protection of publicity rights (derechos de imagen).

orden de entrada y registro; orden de registro de entrada

These expressions are admittedly confusingly similar, but couldn’t be more different in meaning. Orden de entrada y registro (often shortened to orden de registro) is a criminal law term, being the Spanish equivalent of a “search warrant” ordered by a judge incident to a criminal investigation. Although orden de registro is a commonly used expression, in Spain a search warrant must be issued in the form of an auto, and thus is more properly called an auto de entrada y registro.

In contrast orden de registro de entrada denotes the order in which an application or other document has been filed for entry on an public register and is often important for establishing prior rights in many legal transactions. The “first to file” system is characteristic of many official registers governed by the prior in tempore, potior in jure principle. This idea of “earlier in time, stronger in right” implies that earlier applicants (the first to file their applications) will have superior (prior) rights with respect to those who do so later. For example, in the context of registering a trademark, the first application received (and subsequently granted registration) at the Spanish Patent and Trademark Office (Oficina Española de Patentes y Marcas) will have exclusive rights to use that mark.

Intellectual property and other rights can be based on the “first to use” principle or the “first to file” principle.” In “first to file” systems such as in Spain and most civil law countries, regardless of prior use the first person to file an application and to be granted registration will be considered as the legal owner to the exclusion of all others. Thus the order in which applications are received at public registries or in other governmental agencies is often of paramount importance. Registro de entrada denotes a daily register of applications filed, and orden de registro de entrada is the order in which a given application was received, generally based on a date, time and an application number. Thus the expression riguroso orden de registro de entrada de las solicitudes is often used to indicate that applications will be considered “strictly in the order in which they were filed.”

These similar expressions reflect two very different legal concepts. En légitima defensa is the Spanish criminal law expression for “in self defense” and legítima defensa may contstitute a circumstance that exonerates one from criminal liability (eximente de la responsabilidad criminal). In that regard a person repelling an unlawful aggression (agresión ilegítima) in self-defense or in defense of his rights or the rights of others (en legítima defensa de la persona o de derechos propios o ajenos) may in certain circumstances be deemed free of criminal liability.

In contrast, in procedural terminology (derecho a la) autodefensa is a totally unrelated expresion denoting a party’s legally-established right (in limited cases) to represent himself at trial without the assistance of a lawyer or (in Spain) a procurador (litigar sin abogado o procurador). In the US this is known as “pro se (or) pro per representation,”* and in this context autodefensa denotes “pro se (or) pro per defense,” while el derecho de asumir (or) ejercer la autodefensa is expressed as the “right to proceed pro se (or) pro per.” In England and Wales “pro se litigation” is called “litigation in person,” and a “pro se (or) pro per litigant” is a “litigant in person.” “Self-represented litigant” and “unrepresented litigant” are additional variants.

And the idea that representing oneself in court may not be a good idea exists in both languages. Indeed, the well-known admonishment “he who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client” is often reflected in Spanish as quien se defiende a sí mismo tiene un tonto por cliente.

*pro se, Latin for “for oneself” or “on one’s own behalf;” pro per, a shortened form of the Latin expression in propria persona

Many bilingual sources equate legado with legacy, a translation that may sometimes be inappropriate. In the Spanish law of succession (Derecho de sucesiones) legado denotes a testamentary gift of either personal property (legado de bienes muebles) or real property (legado de bienes inmuebles) to someone other than the decedent’s testamentary heirs (herederos testamentarios). But legado cannot always be equated with legacy, because in English a distinction has traditionally been made between a testamentary gift of personal property (properly called a “legacy” or “bequest”) and a testamentary gift of real property (technically called a “devise”). Thus, legado de bienes muebles may be rendered as “legacy” (or “bequest”), but legado de bienes inmuebles is more properly called a “devise.” Likewise, legatario (the beneficiary of a legado) may denote either a “legatee” or “devisee,” depending on whether the beneficiary in question receives a testamentary gift of personal property (“legacy” or “bequest”) or real property (“devise”).

To further complicate matters, perhaps it should also be noted that in modern usage, particularly in the US, this technical distinction between a “legacy” or “bequest” (a testamentary gift of personal property) and a “devise” (a testamentary gift of real property) is often disregarded, and the terms may be mixed or interchanged. In fact, the Uniform Probate Code (adopted in 18 states) has eliminated the distinction altogether. “Legacy,” “legatee,” “bequest” and the verb “bequeath” are not used, while “devise” has been adopted to encompass testamentary gifts of both real and personal property. In that regard, in the Code when used as a noun “devise” denotes a “testamentary disposition of real or personal property” while as a verb “to devise” means “to dispose of real or personal property by will.”

As used in inheritance law (Derecho de sucesiones) these are related terms that are sometimes confused. An executor of a will is an albacea testamentaria, that is, a person appointed by a testator in his will to carry out its provisions upon his death. A female executor was formerly known as an “executrix” (plural: “executrices”), a term now considered archaic, “executor” now being the preferred English designation for albaceas testamentarias of both sexes.

In contrast, a person appointed by a court to manage the estate of an intestate decedent (causante muerto intestado) or when no executor has been appointed is called an “administrator” (in Spanish, albacea judicial or albacea dativo). Although “administrator” is now used for an albacea judicial of either sex, a female administrator was formerly known as an “administratrix” (plural: “administratrices”).

The labor law look-alike expressions “job safety” and “job security” would appear to be synonymous and are sometimes confused in translation. But “job safety” refers to health and safety in the workplace, i.e., the proper conditions to ensure a worker’s safety on the job (in Spanish, seguridad en el trabajo). In contrast, “job security” refers to the probability that a worker will keep his job and to possible legal impediments that make dismissing workers more difficult or onerous for employers. Thus, “job security” in Spanish may be expressed as seguridad laboral, estabilidad laboral or estabilidad en el trabajo.

In legal contexts desleal, deslealtad and infidelidad are not always translated literally as “disloyal,” “disloyalty” or “infidelity.” As examples, competencia desleal refers to “unfair competition,” while in corporate law contexts administración social desleal o fraudulenta may denote some aspect of “corporate mismanagement or fraud.” In that regard, directors have a deber de lealtad (“fiduciary duty”) to act solely in the interest of their company, defined in the DEJ as la obligación de desempeñar el cargo de administrador atendiendo únicamente a los intereses de la sociedad. In this sense, deslealtad societaria refers to a director’s “breach of fiduciary duty” to the company.

Deslealtad also appears in the expression deslealtad profesional, which in Spain refers specifically to “professional misconduct” on the part of lawyers and procuradores who, for example, by action or omission prejudice their clients, or who defend interests contrary to those of their client.

The term infidelidad is also used in Spain in criminal law contexts in which it would be more accurately rendered as “breach,” rather than literally as “disloyalty.” Two specific offenses in which this might be the case are infidelidad en la custodia de presos (perhaps expressed as “breach of duty [or] misconduct in the custody of prisoners”) and infidelidad en la custodia de documentos y violación de secretos (which might be rendered as “breach of duty in the custody of documents and disclosure of privileged information”).

These look-alike expressions concern two different aspects of procedural guarantees. Derecho de audiencia (also known as derecho a ser oído) is a party’s “right to be heard” in judicial or administrative proceedings. As expresed in the American Bar Association’s Model Code of Judicial Conduct, “a judge shall accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, or to that person’s lawyer, the right to be heard according to law.” The Diccionario de Español Jurídico underscores that this is a principio general del Derecho según el cual nadie puede ser condenado sin ser oído y vencido en juicio; implica dar a las partes la oportunidad de intervenir en el proceso, con independencia de que la utilicen o no.

In contrast and especially in British English, “right of audience” denotes an individual’s right to speak on behalf of another person in court and, more specifically, a lawyer’s right to appear in court to represent and defend the interests of his client. In Spain (and, generally, in Spanish-speaking jurisdictions) all lawyers normally have right of audience (i.e., the traditional distinction between the roles of solicitor and barrister does not exist). “Right of audience” may be rendered in Spanish as derecho de actuar ante los tribunales.