  The translation workplace | |||
| |||
| |||||||||
Login or register (free and only takes a few minutes) to participate in this question.You will also have access to many other tools and opportunities designed for those who have language-related jobs(or are passionate about them). Participation is free and the site has a strict confidentiality policy.
22 hrs confidence:  
2 days20 hrs confidence:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 hr |
| Reference: comparitie Reference information: I think Frank's right on the money, but the parsing of the sentence is where there might be confusion. We have: "blah blah blah hetgeen blijkt uit de akte na comparitie van xxx zijde". As I mentioned, I don't think "akte na comparitie" is a standalone concept. Rather, I think "hetgeen blijkt uit de akte" is parenthetical, while "na comparitie van xxx zijde" clarifies when xxx actually appeared, or literally "after appearance from xxx's side"... or more idiomatically expressed: "after xxx's appearance [before the court]" As for comparitie: There are multiple options for "comparitie", and I'm not certain which is intended here, since it could mean various things. Wiki says this: "In veel rechtszaken wordt als onderdeel van de procedure een speciale rechtszitting gehouden, een comparitie (comparitie = vergelijking). De bedoeling daarvan is meer inlichtingen over de zaak te verkrijgen of te proberen de partijen tot een vergelijk te laten komen. De partijen kunnen dan onder leiding van de rechter of bijvoorbeeld tijdens een schorsing van de zitting proberen tot een schikking te komen." In this context it seems like pre-trial proceedings - "discovery", if you will; but the Dutch litigation system does not have a "discovery" phase as we do in the US for example. But in both cases, there is a part of every court "hearing" (comparitie) in which case the defendant may have an opportunity to discuss his case or defense with the solicitor before entering a plea or discussing with the complainant / plaintiff to reach a settlement without actually wasting trial time. In Belgium, they usually just send parties out of the court room to work things out on their own for a last time, then they come back to appear and the Judge issues his/her ruling to the clerk based on what was agreed. Saves time for the court to concentrate on more involved cases. I only know about this because I've done it. In these latter 2 cases it's just "comparitie van partijen" (appearance of the parties to reach a settlement, aka "schikkingscomparitie"), the first step in a "dagvaarding" or summons to appear. But your context mentions an "akte", which leads me to believe there had been some exchange of documents or some information or evidence or proof is being explained or presented (which hints that "comparitie" might mean pre-trial review, or discovery). But if that is the case then "van xxx zijde" wouldn't be there... so I'm dismissing that logic. That leaves you with the following options: appearance [before the court] hearing pre-trial review pre-trial discovery discovery Reference: http://is.gd/x94dav Reference: http://is.gd/pn8eBk |
| |
| Login to enter a peer comment (or grade) | ||
8 days |
| Reference: akte Reference information: http://www.legal.nl/juristen/inc/pdf/Landelijkprocesreglemen... "g. akte: een processtuk dat een korte mededeling, zoals een enkele erkenning of ontkenning, een bewijsaanbod, de aankondiging van een productie of een reactie daarop bevat; [...] Memorie of akte na comparitie, getuigenverhoor, tussenarrest, descente of pleidooi Indien bij comparitie, getuigenverhoor, tussenarrest, descente of pleidooi is beslist dat op een bepaalde roldatum een memorie of akte na comparitie, getuigenverhoor, tussenarrest, descente of pleidooi kan worden genomen, wordt, tenzij anders is bepaald, op deze roldatum desgewenst een eenmalig uitstel verleend van twee weken en in kort geding van één week." [NB: 'nemen' in this context means 'submit'] |
| |
| Login to enter a peer comment (or grade) | ||
 |
