Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: headache sentences

Expand Messages
  • janvanek
    ... It would seem to, but IANAL. Possibly it is just general redundancy, possibly the key is in the modifiers which could have been intended to be bracketed
    Message 1 of 2 , Sep 27, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In Czechlist@yahoogroups.com, Charles Stanford <charliestanfordtranslations@...> wrote:

      > Pokud je nìkterý soud èlenského státu nadán pravomocí (mezinárodní
      > pøíslu¹ností) a ve vìcí jedná a pøedev¹ím meritornì rozhoduje, pou¾ije se
      > Naøízení jako ***jednotný, univerzálnì a shodným zpùsobem obligatornì***
      > pou¾itelný pøedpis mezinárodního práva soukromého a - s výhradou
      > mezinárodních úmluv, jich¾ je èlenský stát stranou (èl. 25 odst. 1 Naøízení)
      > - je jeho pou¾ití povinné.
      >
      > I do not get why the pøedpis is "obligatornì pou¾itelný" and "je jeho
      > pou¾ití povinné." Does it not mean exactly the same thing?

      It would seem to, but IANAL. Possibly it is just general redundancy, possibly the key is in the modifiers which could have been intended to be bracketed "([shodnym zpusobem] obligatorne) pouzitelny", i. e. the earlier phrase would mean roughly the same thing as "jednotny, univerzalne", i. e. that in each country (each case?) the Directive must be applied in the same way, with the latter bit meaning that it must be invoked always, with no leeway for ignoring it and dealing with the issue by other means.


      > Samozøejmým pøedpokladem, jak vý¹e uvedeno a jak vyplývá z podrobného
      > komentáøe k èl. 1 Naøízení, je, ***¾e výsledek kolizní hodnoceni kvalifikace
      > skutkového a právního stavu a jeho porovnání s úpravou vìcného rozsahu
      > Naøízení vede k závìru, ¾e dochází k prùniku tìchto obou rovin.***
      >
      > Thank you for clues. Anything would help.

      I see: the first quote seemed like some Eurospeak that could be solved by looking up the relevant regulation in another language, source anyway, but this is clearly a home-made commentary. I can't think of any other possible meaning than a very high-blown lawyerese/zdeurednictina for "you must think hard about facts in the case to see if they fall within the Directive's scope". Unless there are any two levels explicitly mentioned earlier in the text, of course.

      BTW, it should be "ve veci" (no acute above I) and "vysledek kolizniho hodnoceni"; I suppose these are just your oversights in retyping?

      Just my 50 hellers late at night.

      --
      Jan Vanek jr. http://massabob.cz

      "... dvanáctiletou dívku a ètrnáctiletého chlapce; otec jim koupil kolt, mìli ho schovaný v kùlnì za domem. Kdovíjaká zbraò to tedy nebyla, ale odpoledne jim chodil naproti, kdy¾ vystoupili ze ¹kolního autobusu, a ukazoval jim, jak zacházet s koltem, lasem a ohlávkou. Chlapci se ten kolt líbil, ale holka se do nìho úplnì zamilovala a po veèeøi odcházela do chladného veèera, sedla si v kùlnì na slámu a promlouvala k nìmu."
      - Cormac McCarthy, Mesta na planine, Argo 2010, str. 284(?)
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.