Jul 29, 2021 12:43
2 yrs ago
35 viewers *
French term
par principe
French to English
Law/Patents
Law (general)
EU law
This relates to a bill about online platforms passed by the French Parliament, despite the European Commission having heavily criticised it when it was notified to it as required by EU law.
"En toute hypothèse, même en faisant abstraction de la difficulté fondamentale qui vient d'être décrite, les conditions qui subordonnent toute possibilité de restreindre la liberté de prestation dont bénéficient par principe les prestataires de services de la société de l'information ne sont absolument pas satisfaites dans le cas présent."
"Elle préserve en outre les objectifs que s'est fixée l'Union européenne, qui interdit par principe à tout Etat membre d'édicter des restrictions de nature à perturber le développement du commerce électronique :"
"le droit français ne peut, par principe, restreindre le droit pour la concluante de fournir librement ses services sur le territoire français, ce que confirme la pièce adverse n° 12, qui synthétise les griefs formulés par certaines villes européennes à l'encontre de la Directive sur le Commerce électronique et qui fait notamment observer que toute réforme de cette Directive devrait s'attacher à garantir que :"
The first excerpt above is the one with which this case is primarily concerned : under the e-Commerce Directive (in EU law) of 2000, "information society services" enjoy certain strongly protected rights. It follows that this expression par principe must convey this. "In principle" it seems to me is thus wrong, and I have so far chosen "as a matter of principle". But maybe there's a better legal expression to convey the strict protection involved.
"En toute hypothèse, même en faisant abstraction de la difficulté fondamentale qui vient d'être décrite, les conditions qui subordonnent toute possibilité de restreindre la liberté de prestation dont bénéficient par principe les prestataires de services de la société de l'information ne sont absolument pas satisfaites dans le cas présent."
"Elle préserve en outre les objectifs que s'est fixée l'Union européenne, qui interdit par principe à tout Etat membre d'édicter des restrictions de nature à perturber le développement du commerce électronique :"
"le droit français ne peut, par principe, restreindre le droit pour la concluante de fournir librement ses services sur le territoire français, ce que confirme la pièce adverse n° 12, qui synthétise les griefs formulés par certaines villes européennes à l'encontre de la Directive sur le Commerce électronique et qui fait notamment observer que toute réforme de cette Directive devrait s'attacher à garantir que :"
The first excerpt above is the one with which this case is primarily concerned : under the e-Commerce Directive (in EU law) of 2000, "information society services" enjoy certain strongly protected rights. It follows that this expression par principe must convey this. "In principle" it seems to me is thus wrong, and I have so far chosen "as a matter of principle". But maybe there's a better legal expression to convey the strict protection involved.
Proposed translations
(English)
| 4 | a priori |
AllegroTrans
|
| 5 +3 | as a matter of principle |
Nikki Scott-Despaigne
|
| 4 | in principle |
Katarina Peters
|
| 3 | as a general rule |
Adrian MM.
|
References
| 2 definitions |
AllegroTrans
|
Votes to reclassify question as PRO/non-PRO:
Non-PRO (2): Nikki Scott-Despaigne, philgoddard
When entering new questions, KudoZ askers are given an opportunity* to classify the difficulty of their questions as 'easy' or 'pro'. If you feel a question marked 'easy' should actually be marked 'pro', and if you have earned more than 20 KudoZ points, you can click the "Vote PRO" button to recommend that change.
How to tell the difference between "easy" and "pro" questions:
An easy question is one that any bilingual person would be able to answer correctly. (Or in the case of monolingual questions, an easy question is one that any native speaker of the language would be able to answer correctly.)
A pro question is anything else... in other words, any question that requires knowledge or skills that are specialized (even slightly).
Another way to think of the difficulty levels is this: an easy question is one that deals with everyday conversation. A pro question is anything else.
When deciding between easy and pro, err on the side of pro. Most questions will be pro.
* Note: non-member askers are not given the option of entering 'pro' questions; the only way for their questions to be classified as 'pro' is for a ProZ.com member or members to re-classify it.
Proposed translations
3 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
Selected
a priori
Compare with my definitions in French in ref. box
A priori
Definition
A Latin term meaning "from what comes before." In legal arguments, a priori generally means that a particular idea is taken as a given.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 3 hrs (2021-07-29 15:59:51 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
A priori is a Latin term meaning "derived from the former" or "from the cause to the effect." People better understand the term when they hear it is synonymous with deductive reasoning. It is the idea that certain things can be deduced and accepted without needing a significant amount of proof, from former events that have occurred. This applies to evidence presented in a court, or precepts a court holds about how to interpret law. In either case, anything deduced is regarded as not needing to be proven with additional experimentation or evidence; it logically proceeds from some former knowledge.
There are some kinds of evidence that can be admitted without needing to prove its validity. For example, one witness has perhaps happened upon a dead body. There are a priori assumptions that go immediately with this, that the person who was killed is dead. This may not require much additional proof.
When a prosecutor puts together all the evidence for a trial, there might be certain a priori evidence that comes along with this. Some facts are automatically admitted by deductive assumption and others need to be proven. Attorneys have to evaluate all evidence and find necessary proofs for evidence not based on deductive and easy to assume reasoning from the facts that precede it.
Not all evidence is a priori; some things are much more obvious. A witness to a murder is not presenting a priori evidence but is confirming details that a crime occurred. The witness doesn’t deduce the murder if he saw it first hand. He could conclude he is witnessing a murder as opposed to an accident, and many things about what the witness saw could make this a logical deduction.
Other forms of evidence are more difficult to deduce, and require lots multiple proofs before they can be admitted in court. This may mean having witnesses that can tell the same story about events, or using a variety of experts to support conclusions that are made about what happened during a crime. Sometimes it’s even necessary to provide evidence that witnesses are qualified to testify, instead of deducing this is the case.
Acceptance that forensic science works in a specific way, without experimenting to prove it, could be an example of a priori acceptance by jurors and sometimes the courts. Defendants may be free to challenge this and offer expert witnesses to discredit testimony that is assumed scientific and thus without error. They may provide their own experts to prove that “expert testimony” isn't proof of a deduced scenario or that assumption of science's perfect conclusions is incorrect.
The term a priori is not always used positively in law, and can be an accusation leveled at opposing attorneys. Instead of meaning logically deduced, it could be mean that it is unsupported by other evidence. If an attorney argues that someone else's evidence is deduced only, he may be stating that opponents haven't provided enough proof to support a deduction, and that such assumptions should be inadmissible.
https://www.wise-geek.com/in-legal-terms-what-is-a-priori.ht...
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 3 hrs (2021-07-29 16:04:53 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Example (R v Clarke (Appellant) (On Appeal from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)) R v McDaid (Appellant) (On Appeal from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)) (Consolidated Appeals):
This shows that there is no a priori requirement that some defined step be taken in order to convert a bill into an indictment, nor did the abolition of the grand jury leave a gap which necessarily required the provision of something to fill it. That conversion may under the Northern Irish legislation take place through presentment of the bill to the Crown Court, although the indictment will not be valid unless one of the conditions set out in section 2(2) of the 1969 Act is satisfied. It also shows, however, that when the 1933 Act was brought into law in respect of the courts in England and Wales Parliament deliberately required the interposition of such a defined step, viz the signature of the bill by the proper officer.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 3 hrs (2021-07-29 16:10:23 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
And again
The wording, taken, as it should be, in its context, seems to me perfectly clear: it is not the legal form that matters, nor the legal nature of the body within the framework of national public law, but rather the effective part played by such body in trade between Member States. It follows that one cannot exclude a Priori a public service, if it is an industrial or commercial public service, from the sphere of application of Article 37.
And from the mouth of a philosopher:
Kant called a priori knowledge, knowledge originating independently of
experience, because no knowledge derived from any particular experience,
or a posteriori knowledge, could justify a claim to universal and necessary validity.
A priori
Definition
A Latin term meaning "from what comes before." In legal arguments, a priori generally means that a particular idea is taken as a given.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 3 hrs (2021-07-29 15:59:51 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
A priori is a Latin term meaning "derived from the former" or "from the cause to the effect." People better understand the term when they hear it is synonymous with deductive reasoning. It is the idea that certain things can be deduced and accepted without needing a significant amount of proof, from former events that have occurred. This applies to evidence presented in a court, or precepts a court holds about how to interpret law. In either case, anything deduced is regarded as not needing to be proven with additional experimentation or evidence; it logically proceeds from some former knowledge.
There are some kinds of evidence that can be admitted without needing to prove its validity. For example, one witness has perhaps happened upon a dead body. There are a priori assumptions that go immediately with this, that the person who was killed is dead. This may not require much additional proof.
When a prosecutor puts together all the evidence for a trial, there might be certain a priori evidence that comes along with this. Some facts are automatically admitted by deductive assumption and others need to be proven. Attorneys have to evaluate all evidence and find necessary proofs for evidence not based on deductive and easy to assume reasoning from the facts that precede it.
Not all evidence is a priori; some things are much more obvious. A witness to a murder is not presenting a priori evidence but is confirming details that a crime occurred. The witness doesn’t deduce the murder if he saw it first hand. He could conclude he is witnessing a murder as opposed to an accident, and many things about what the witness saw could make this a logical deduction.
Other forms of evidence are more difficult to deduce, and require lots multiple proofs before they can be admitted in court. This may mean having witnesses that can tell the same story about events, or using a variety of experts to support conclusions that are made about what happened during a crime. Sometimes it’s even necessary to provide evidence that witnesses are qualified to testify, instead of deducing this is the case.
Acceptance that forensic science works in a specific way, without experimenting to prove it, could be an example of a priori acceptance by jurors and sometimes the courts. Defendants may be free to challenge this and offer expert witnesses to discredit testimony that is assumed scientific and thus without error. They may provide their own experts to prove that “expert testimony” isn't proof of a deduced scenario or that assumption of science's perfect conclusions is incorrect.
The term a priori is not always used positively in law, and can be an accusation leveled at opposing attorneys. Instead of meaning logically deduced, it could be mean that it is unsupported by other evidence. If an attorney argues that someone else's evidence is deduced only, he may be stating that opponents haven't provided enough proof to support a deduction, and that such assumptions should be inadmissible.
https://www.wise-geek.com/in-legal-terms-what-is-a-priori.ht...
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 3 hrs (2021-07-29 16:04:53 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Example (R v Clarke (Appellant) (On Appeal from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)) R v McDaid (Appellant) (On Appeal from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)) (Consolidated Appeals):
This shows that there is no a priori requirement that some defined step be taken in order to convert a bill into an indictment, nor did the abolition of the grand jury leave a gap which necessarily required the provision of something to fill it. That conversion may under the Northern Irish legislation take place through presentment of the bill to the Crown Court, although the indictment will not be valid unless one of the conditions set out in section 2(2) of the 1969 Act is satisfied. It also shows, however, that when the 1933 Act was brought into law in respect of the courts in England and Wales Parliament deliberately required the interposition of such a defined step, viz the signature of the bill by the proper officer.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 3 hrs (2021-07-29 16:10:23 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
And again
The wording, taken, as it should be, in its context, seems to me perfectly clear: it is not the legal form that matters, nor the legal nature of the body within the framework of national public law, but rather the effective part played by such body in trade between Member States. It follows that one cannot exclude a Priori a public service, if it is an industrial or commercial public service, from the sphere of application of Article 37.
And from the mouth of a philosopher:
Kant called a priori knowledge, knowledge originating independently of
experience, because no knowledge derived from any particular experience,
or a posteriori knowledge, could justify a claim to universal and necessary validity.
Note from asker:
| Thanks, yes this is convincing. My slight worry is that, as mrrafe says, the more common use of this expression in law (in English) is in a negative sense. I think (s)he alludes thereby to its use when questioning the quality or consistency of an adverse counsel's line of argument. Of course the two contexts are very different, so there shouldn't be any problem there... |
4 KudoZ points awarded for this answer.
Comment: "Thanks. Although my solution is a bit different this answer was "most helpful". I think the French expression is slightly coy: it seems almost as though the drafter is slightly uncomfortable with spelling out that EU law has the power to squash French law. So several solutions are no doubt possible."
+3
10 mins
Nikki Scott-Despaigne
Native in English
Works in field
Psychologist, Court-certified legal
Native in: English
Works in: French to English
Related KudoZ points
:
451
as a matter of principle
I see no reason for deviating from the ordinary meaning and agree with "as a matter of principle".
Note from asker:
| OK, but people do things "as a matter of principle", in reference to a set of values. It seems to me that this legal context is actually quite different, relating to degrees of legal compulsion, and somehow the expression feels awkward. |
| Not only that, but "as a matter of principle" is only one suggested translation of <i>par principe</i>: Wiktionary also suggests "out of principle" or "on principle", so the claim that "as a matter of principle" is the "ordinary meaning" is spurious. |
Peer comment(s):
| agree |
philgoddard
48 mins
|
| neutral |
AllegroTrans
: I think it's "stronger" in meaning than this, i.e. a "given" or "self evident"
3 hrs
|
| agree |
Eliza Hall
7 hrs
|
| agree |
SafeTex
: I've read most of the comments etc. but would still go with this at present
7 hrs
|
3 hrs
Katarina Peters
Canada
Canada
Native in English
Specializes in field
Canada
Accuracy and A1 presentation
Native in: Hungarian 
, English (Variant: US)
Works in: English to Portuguese, Portuguese to English, Hungarian to English, and 13 more.
Related KudoZ points
:
83
in principle
Note from asker:
| Sorry, completely the opposite meaning: "in principle" means "yes, this *should* happen ... but sometimes, or often, doesn't" (for any number of possible reasons). |
5 hrs
Adrian MM.
Austria
Austria
Native in English
Specializes in field
Austria
Retd.T&I, Barrister & Austro-Advokat
Native in: English (Variants: British, Scottish)
Works in: Spanish to English, English to Spanish, French to English, and 5 more.
Related KudoZ points
:
359
as a general rule
Third entry for 'pirincipe' in FHS Bridge: a general rule.
Again, there may be a non-native French drafter at work and who is getting mixed up with the different permutations and combinations of the prepositions prefacing 'principe' :
First weblink translation for '*de* principe' > a priori.
Contrast '*en* principe' > as a matter of principle or 'in principle', a formulation to qualify our shaky answers to clients in our overseas law offices in Paris and Madrid.
PS as the late Professor Wade said in the preface to the textbook of British Constitutional and Administrative Law: 'all debate may be misguided'....
Again, there may be a non-native French drafter at work and who is getting mixed up with the different permutations and combinations of the prepositions prefacing 'principe' :
First weblink translation for '*de* principe' > a priori.
Contrast '*en* principe' > as a matter of principle or 'in principle', a formulation to qualify our shaky answers to clients in our overseas law offices in Paris and Madrid.
PS as the late Professor Wade said in the preface to the textbook of British Constitutional and Administrative Law: 'all debate may be misguided'....
Example sentence:
— In speaking of the suprenacy of the rule of law, a general principle is ... cannot restrict the powers granted by the text itself
Reference comments
3 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
Reference:
2 definitions
Par principe, en vertu de l'application automatique d'une règle qu'on s'est fixée.
Larousse
Par principe.
Par respect de la règle fixée; par à priori. Elle avait obtenu de lui les réalités de l'amour plus libéralement qu'il ne les accordait à l'ordinaire, par principe (A. France, Anneau améth.,1899, p. 300).Je suis décidé, par principe, à toute opération destinée à prévenir l'attaque de Vichy contre l'Afrique libre (De Gaulle, Mém. guerre,1954, p. 429).
https://cnrtl.fr/definition/principe
Larousse
Par principe.
Par respect de la règle fixée; par à priori. Elle avait obtenu de lui les réalités de l'amour plus libéralement qu'il ne les accordait à l'ordinaire, par principe (A. France, Anneau améth.,1899, p. 300).Je suis décidé, par principe, à toute opération destinée à prévenir l'attaque de Vichy contre l'Afrique libre (De Gaulle, Mém. guerre,1954, p. 429).
https://cnrtl.fr/definition/principe
Note from asker:
| Thanks. Yes, the notion of "automatic" in fact fits pretty nicely... |
Discussion
I realised that the context gives the clue, in reality: there are higher (EU law) and lower (national law) orders of legislation at work here, and my reading is simply that the expression par principe here in fact references this hierarchy of orders of law, without each time spelling out the fact that it is specifically EU law which trumps national law.
It makes sense that there is nothing mystical, a "principle" "above" the law, which explains why service-providers enjoy a given freedom: this freedom has simply been enacted by... a law!
A priori, thunder and lightning are caused by an electrical storm
As a matter of principle, the court will give the parties sufficient time at a hearing to present their evidence
A priori, the parties have a right to be represented by a lawyer of their choice
But to me a "matter of principle" really is not the same as your suggested paraphrases: "as a given" is much more faithful to the French, as I read things. As has been said in this discussion "a matter of principle" in English references a moral code, the subtext being "it's the right thing to do".
It really is quite different to how I read the French expression, i.e., yes, "it's a given", "it's fundamental", "intrinsically": it alludes to the nature of the obligation, and basically says this is absolute.
(ah... I see AllegroT says it, and says it better...)
Indeed I'm confused: you seemed to say this yourself in your earlier post: re "in principle": "... the applicability of the principle is qualified ..." (!)
Anyway, answering your question to me/mrrafe, maybe I haven't thought deeply enough about the source text but in all three instances it seems to be saying that the principle should be enforced - not that the present case falls within some exception to the principle. So my preference is "as a matter of principle." But the difference between that and "in principle" is subtle, and some would say there isn't any! Again, I don't understand either to be a legal term.
For clarity's sake, I never use "a priori" except in the negative sense mentioned in Allegro's wise-geek cite (last paragraph). Thus, the question "were you driving when your car hit my client" includes a priori assumptions, which may be unproven and objectionable, as to who owned the car and whether the client was hit.
I just looked up Wiktionary: it has "out of principle", "on principle" for par principe. Neither of these seems to convey the legal meaning either: again the connotation of a moral foundation, as you put it, is predominant.
I've got a feeling that par principe is closer to this idea of "it is fundamental". I even briefly wondered whether the phrases could all be reworded ... but a) it's a common expression, b) there are a lot of instances in this text, c) it would be exceptionally tortuous, and d) a better legal expression may be out there (hence the question).