Glossary entry (derived from question below)
French term or phrase:
prévisible
English translation:
predictable
Added to glossary by
Charles Davis
Apr 13, 2017 03:06
7 yrs ago
6 viewers *
French term
Mexico
Translating full-time since 1998
Native in: English (Variant: British) 
Works in: Spanish to English
prévisible
French to English
Law/Patents
Law (general)
drug trafficking case (Luxembourg French to UK English)
Good evening.
I'm reviewing a translation of a case involving drug trafficking with the aggravated charge of "association de malfaiteurs" (criminal conspiracy?).
My question here concerns the use of "prévisible". The translator has used "predictable" but it doesn't appear to make sense in the context.
"Le mandataire de XXXXXX conclut à la violation de l’article 7 de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme qui établit le principe de la légalité des peines en ce sens que l’application de la circonstance aggravante de participation à l'activité d'une association prévue par l'article 10 de la loi modifiée du 19 février 1973 concernant la vente de substances médicamenteuses et la lutte contre la toxicomanie ne serait pas claire ni ****prévisible****.
The way I understand "prévisible" here is that it relates to the word "prévue" used previous in the sentence, i.e., that the offence cannot be construed from the statute ("...l'activité d'une association prévue par l'article 10 de la loi modifiée...ne serait pas claire ni prévisible").
Assuming that "predictable" is the wrong choice in this context, what would be an appropriate translation?
Thanks in advance.
I'm reviewing a translation of a case involving drug trafficking with the aggravated charge of "association de malfaiteurs" (criminal conspiracy?).
My question here concerns the use of "prévisible". The translator has used "predictable" but it doesn't appear to make sense in the context.
"Le mandataire de XXXXXX conclut à la violation de l’article 7 de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme qui établit le principe de la légalité des peines en ce sens que l’application de la circonstance aggravante de participation à l'activité d'une association prévue par l'article 10 de la loi modifiée du 19 février 1973 concernant la vente de substances médicamenteuses et la lutte contre la toxicomanie ne serait pas claire ni ****prévisible****.
The way I understand "prévisible" here is that it relates to the word "prévue" used previous in the sentence, i.e., that the offence cannot be construed from the statute ("...l'activité d'une association prévue par l'article 10 de la loi modifiée...ne serait pas claire ni prévisible").
Assuming that "predictable" is the wrong choice in this context, what would be an appropriate translation?
Thanks in advance.
Proposed translations
(English)
| 4 +4 | predictable |
Charles Davis
|
| 4 +1 | stipulated / mandated / to be expected by law |
Daryo
|
| 4 | anticipated |
Ben Gaia
|
| 3 | foreseeable |
AllegroTrans
|
References
| Larousse Fr-En |
writeaway
|
Change log
Apr 20, 2017 06:42: Charles Davis Created KOG entry
Proposed translations
+4
1 hr
Selected
predictable
Hi Robert. Fancy meeting your here :)
I think predictable is right. I understand what you're getting at, in terms of relating it to "prévue", which would lead to the idea that "prévisible" would mean something like includable within the purview or scope of a given law. However, I can't find any support for that use of "prévisible", and in any case I think the obvious meaning is more likely.
"Clair(e) et prévisible", clear and predictable, is something of a mantra in itself. It was articulated by Lord Bingham in a much-quoted 2006 lecture on the Rule of Law:
"First, the law must be accessible and so far as possible intelligible, clear and predictable. This seems obvious: if everyone is bound by the law they must be able without undue difficulty to find out what it is, even if that means taking advice (as it usually will), and the answer when given should be sufficiently clear that a course of action can be based on it. There is English authority to this effect, and the European Court of Human Rights has also put the point very explicitly: [...]"
https://www.cpl.law.cam.ac.uk/sir-david-williams-lectures200...
But he didn't invent the idea; predictability, as a fundamental requirement, is common to much writing on the subject; see, for example, Hayek:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rule-of-law/#Haye
So I think the argument here is that the application complained of would be contrary to Article 7 of the ECHR because it would violate the principle of predictability. And that, after all, is what Article 7 is about:
"1. No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_7_of_the_European_Conv...
I think predictable is right. I understand what you're getting at, in terms of relating it to "prévue", which would lead to the idea that "prévisible" would mean something like includable within the purview or scope of a given law. However, I can't find any support for that use of "prévisible", and in any case I think the obvious meaning is more likely.
"Clair(e) et prévisible", clear and predictable, is something of a mantra in itself. It was articulated by Lord Bingham in a much-quoted 2006 lecture on the Rule of Law:
"First, the law must be accessible and so far as possible intelligible, clear and predictable. This seems obvious: if everyone is bound by the law they must be able without undue difficulty to find out what it is, even if that means taking advice (as it usually will), and the answer when given should be sufficiently clear that a course of action can be based on it. There is English authority to this effect, and the European Court of Human Rights has also put the point very explicitly: [...]"
https://www.cpl.law.cam.ac.uk/sir-david-williams-lectures200...
But he didn't invent the idea; predictability, as a fundamental requirement, is common to much writing on the subject; see, for example, Hayek:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rule-of-law/#Haye
So I think the argument here is that the application complained of would be contrary to Article 7 of the ECHR because it would violate the principle of predictability. And that, after all, is what Article 7 is about:
"1. No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_7_of_the_European_Conv...
Note from asker:
| Fantastic, Charles, I wondered if you might see this, I noticed a while back that you do answer the odd French question here and there. I didn't really think to look for evidence of "predictability" in English in this context, it just seemed so literal and wrong to me. Makes total sense now though. Thanks very much. |
Peer comment(s):
| agree |
JohnMcDove
: Sans doute... ;-)
1 hr
|
|
Merci John :) ¡Esto parece una reunión de republicanos exiliados al final de Guerra Civil!
|
|
| agree |
Chakib Roula
2 hrs
|
|
Thanks, Chakib :)
|
|
| agree |
Nikki Scott-Despaigne
: Yes, stability and predictibility and all that, not to mention stare decisis. (A UK classic for the FR "prévu par" would be "as provided for under" or "as set out in the provisions of", etc. No relevant link between "prévu" and "prévisibilité" here.)
2 hrs
|
|
Thanks, Nikki :) Agree about "provided for": a useful standby!
|
|
| agree |
B D Finch
5 hrs
|
|
Thanks, Barbara
|
|
| neutral |
Daryo
: yes and no - this would sound to me like "statistically predictable" (like snow in winter, or rain in autumn) which is not the idea expressed in the ST, whatever clumsy term was used! Unless you think that law is just applied randomly?
1 day 1 hr
|
|
Thanks for your comment, Daryo. "Predictability" (droit prévisible) is a legal term of art, meaning that the law must be predictable in its effects (they can't "move the goalposts").
|
4 KudoZ points awarded for this answer.
Comment: "Many thanks, Charles, and everyone else who contributed. "
6 hrs
AllegroTrans
United Kingdom
United Kingdom
Native in English
Specializes in field
United Kingdom
Sensible solutions
Native in: English (Variant: Wessexois)
Works in: French to English, English, English to French
Related KudoZ points
:
1355
foreseeable
I think this would work
+1
1 day 8 hrs
French term (edited):
prévu par la loi
stipulated / mandated / to be expected by law
"Le mandataire de XXXXXX conclut à la violation de l’article 7 de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme qui établit le principe de la légalité des peines en ce sens que l’application de la circonstance aggravante [de participation à l'activité d'une association prévue par l'article 10 de la loi modifiée du 19 février 1973 concernant la vente de substances médicamenteuses et la lutte contre la toxicomanie] ne serait pas claire ni prévisible [=> ***"prévu par la loi"*** NON "statistiquement prévisible"].
what should have been used is "... prévu par la loi":
l’application de la circonstance aggravante [...] ne serait pas claire ni prévu par la loi
makes perfect sense, but whoever wrote this gave priority to some silly "rule of good style" about repetitions and replaced "... prévu par la loi" by "prévisible" (malgré l'effet facilement prévisible que le résultat ne voudra pas dire grand-chose ...)
literally: the existence/applicability of "aggravating circumstances" in this specific case is not "to be expected according to the law" IOW there is no element of "predictability" in the sens of "statistically to be expected" (nor it's about the general principle about the desirable "predictability of the law") but the question is in fact about "applicability of the law" in this specific case, [nothing to "predict" - just to an argument about the facts of the case]
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 day8 hrs (2017-04-14 11:36:38 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
l’application de la circonstance aggravante [...] ne serait pas claire ni prévue par la loi
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 day18 hrs (2017-04-14 21:47:29 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
« Article 7 - Pas de peine sans loi #Nul ne peut être condamné pour une action ou une omission qui, au moment où elle a été commise, ne constituait pas une infraction d'après le droit national ou international. De même il n'est infligé aucune peine plus forte que celle qui était applicable au moment où l'infraction a été commise. #Le présent article ne portera pas atteinte au jugement et à la punition d'une personne coupable d'une action ou d'une omission qui, au moment où elle a été commise, était criminelle d'après les principes généraux de droit reconnus par les nations civilisées. »
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_7_de_la_Convention_eur...
so claiming infringement to this article will boil down to a dispute about the existence or non-existence of applicable legal dispositions ( .... prévu [ou non] par la loi), about legal dispositions applicable to the case at the time it happened!
what should have been used is "... prévu par la loi":
l’application de la circonstance aggravante [...] ne serait pas claire ni prévu par la loi
makes perfect sense, but whoever wrote this gave priority to some silly "rule of good style" about repetitions and replaced "... prévu par la loi" by "prévisible" (malgré l'effet facilement prévisible que le résultat ne voudra pas dire grand-chose ...)
literally: the existence/applicability of "aggravating circumstances" in this specific case is not "to be expected according to the law" IOW there is no element of "predictability" in the sens of "statistically to be expected" (nor it's about the general principle about the desirable "predictability of the law") but the question is in fact about "applicability of the law" in this specific case, [nothing to "predict" - just to an argument about the facts of the case]
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 day8 hrs (2017-04-14 11:36:38 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
l’application de la circonstance aggravante [...] ne serait pas claire ni prévue par la loi
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 day18 hrs (2017-04-14 21:47:29 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
« Article 7 - Pas de peine sans loi #Nul ne peut être condamné pour une action ou une omission qui, au moment où elle a été commise, ne constituait pas une infraction d'après le droit national ou international. De même il n'est infligé aucune peine plus forte que celle qui était applicable au moment où l'infraction a été commise. #Le présent article ne portera pas atteinte au jugement et à la punition d'une personne coupable d'une action ou d'une omission qui, au moment où elle a été commise, était criminelle d'après les principes généraux de droit reconnus par les nations civilisées. »
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_7_de_la_Convention_eur...
so claiming infringement to this article will boil down to a dispute about the existence or non-existence of applicable legal dispositions ( .... prévu [ou non] par la loi), about legal dispositions applicable to the case at the time it happened!
1 hr
anticipated
by the statute
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 day19 hrs (2017-04-14 22:49:09 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
as in provided for, which has also been suggested.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 day19 hrs (2017-04-14 22:49:09 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
as in provided for, which has also been suggested.
Note from asker:
| Thanks, Ben. |
Reference comments
7 hrs
Reference:
Larousse Fr-En
prévisible [previzibl]
adjectif
foreseeable, predictable
ses réactions ne sont pas toujours prévisibles his reactions are sometimes unexpected OU unpredictable
son échec était prévisible it was to be expected that he'd fail
adjectif
foreseeable, predictable
ses réactions ne sont pas toujours prévisibles his reactions are sometimes unexpected OU unpredictable
son échec était prévisible it was to be expected that he'd fail
Peer comments on this reference comment:
| neutral |
Daryo
: yes and no - this would sound to me like "statistically predictable" (like snow in winter, or rain in autumn) which is not the idea expressed in the ST, whatever clumsy term was used! Unless you think that law is just applied randomly?
18 hrs
|
|
no need to make a mountain out of a molehill.
|
Discussion
I'm not saying your suggested rewrite doesn't make sense; I'm just saying it's a different text.
of course it's not - that's the problem - when something simply doesn't fit you take it out and try to see what would fit - here it's "prévue par la loi" and the whole sentence would be:
"Le mandataire de XXXXXX conclut à la violation de l’article 7 de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme qui établit le principe de la légalité des peines en ce sens que l’application de la circonstance aggravante de participation à l'activité d'une association prévue par l'article 10 de la loi modifiée du 19 février 1973 concernant la vente de substances médicamenteuses et la lutte contre la toxicomanie ne serait pas claire ni prévue par la loi.
que l’application de la circonstance aggravante ... ne serait pas claire ni prévue par la loi.
is straightforward and unambiguous, and also in tune with "le principe de la légalité des peines" which means that whatever rules you apply they must be on a very practical level "prévu par la loi" i.e. stipulated / mandated / to be expected by law
l’application de la circonstance aggravante [...] ne serait pas claire ni prévue par la loi
as this Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights isn't a grand declaration of principle but on a very practical level says that you can apply only existing laws (= prévue par la loi)
démonstration par l'absurde: if you maintain that "prévisible" was used correctly, you end up with logical contortions trying to fit a very general principle of "droit prévisible" in a sentence about a specific case - and it simply won't fit.
@Melissa McMahon you are on the right track "indicated by law" makes perfect sense.
Charles: to your point that "predictable" is the way to go here, I agree that looking at it in light of your references, it probably should be used as the term of art here rather than anything else that might be more understandable to the layman.
For context, I believe the lawyer is arguing that, under Art. 7 of the ECHR, the application of the aggravated charge of conspiracy was not clear or predictable:
Art. 10.
Les infractions visées à l'article 8 seront punies des travaux forcés de 15 à 20 ans et d'une amende de 50.000,- à 50.000.000,- Fr.:
a) si elles constituent des actes de participation à l'activité principale ou accessoire d'une association;
http://legilux.public.lu/eli/etat/leg/loi/1973/02/19/n1/jo
I don't really see what they're getting at here, because the cited Art. 8 seems quite clear to me.
And yes, the context is important, because the idea I'm defending would mean that the aggravating circumstance whose application is complained of was not applicable at the time of the offence. In other words, the offence must have been committed before 19 February 1973. If that's not the case, I don't understand how ECHR Art. 7 is relevant, unless I'm missing something (which is quite possible!).