ProZ.com global directory of translation services
 The translation workplace
Ideas
KudoZ home » Italian to English » Law (general)

compensare ... le spese

English translation: see translation provided below


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.
19:47 May 10, 2005
Italian to English translations [PRO]
Law/Patents - Law (general) / Court decision
Italian term or phrase: compensare ... le spese
Full context:

Esistono giusti motivi per compensare per intero tra le parti le spese di questo giudizio di legittimità.

I'm inclined to assume that this sentence at the end of a decision of the Supreme Court may be translated as "There are rightful grounds for the parties to pay the entire amount of costs in the cause."

But the use of the word 'compensare' as opposed to 'pagare' raises some doubts in my mind. Any help greatly appreciated.
Alexandra Scott
Local time: 08:54
English translation:see translation provided below
Explanation:
I would render the entire sentence as follows (please note that "apportioned" is just a legalism for "shared", although apportioned in legal jargon is more technically appropriate):
There are ample grounds to warrant an order for the costs of these constitutionality proceedings to be equally apportioned between the parties to the dispute.
Please note that in the case where the parties are more than 2, "between" should be replaced by "amongst". I further presume it is a constitutional dispute, though you may have to change the wording appropriately in the case of a suit before the administrative courts (contesting the lawfulness of an administrative order, rather than the constitutionality of a statute).
Sources and resources in support of the above are abundant in the related literature, but for greater reassurance see: http://www.cisg.law.pace.edu/cisg/biblio/gotanda.html that provides an excellent general overview of the issue.
Hope that was helpful.
Selected response from:

kmaciel
Local time: 14:54
Grading comment
Thanks kmaciel, I adopted your approach; there were indeed more than two parties so the costs were apportioned 'amongst' them. The proceedings related to a motor vehicle accident, and therefore it was not a constitutional issue.
4 KudoZ points were awarded for this answer



Summary of answers provided
4 +1see translation provided belowkmaciel
3 +1equitably split the costs
Riccardo Schiaffino
4expense reimbursement
esoft


  

Answers


4 mins   confidence: Answerer confidence 4/5Answerer confidence 4/5
expense reimbursement


Explanation:
since they are talking about expenses, I would say "reimburse expenses" or "expense reimbursement".

If it were for damages, you would say "damage compensation"...

esoft
Native speaker of: Native in ItalianItalian, Native in EnglishEnglish
PRO pts in category: 39
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)

7 mins   confidence: Answerer confidence 3/5Answerer confidence 3/5 peer agreement (net): +1
equitably split the costs


Explanation:
The key words are "tra le parti": if the rest of the context warrants it, I think that this may mean that

"There are good/rightful grounds/reasons for the costs to be equitably split between the [two] parties"

Riccardo Schiaffino
United States
Local time: 06:54
Specializes in field
Native speaker of: Native in ItalianItalian
PRO pts in category: 31

Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
agree  PaoloM
1 hr
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)

9 hrs   confidence: Answerer confidence 4/5Answerer confidence 4/5 peer agreement (net): +1
see translation provided below


Explanation:
I would render the entire sentence as follows (please note that "apportioned" is just a legalism for "shared", although apportioned in legal jargon is more technically appropriate):
There are ample grounds to warrant an order for the costs of these constitutionality proceedings to be equally apportioned between the parties to the dispute.
Please note that in the case where the parties are more than 2, "between" should be replaced by "amongst". I further presume it is a constitutional dispute, though you may have to change the wording appropriately in the case of a suit before the administrative courts (contesting the lawfulness of an administrative order, rather than the constitutionality of a statute).
Sources and resources in support of the above are abundant in the related literature, but for greater reassurance see: http://www.cisg.law.pace.edu/cisg/biblio/gotanda.html that provides an excellent general overview of the issue.
Hope that was helpful.


    Reference: http://www.cisg.law.pace.edu/cisg/biblio/gotanda.html
kmaciel
Local time: 14:54
Specializes in field
PRO pts in category: 36
Grading comment
Thanks kmaciel, I adopted your approach; there were indeed more than two parties so the costs were apportioned 'amongst' them. The proceedings related to a motor vehicle accident, and therefore it was not a constitutional issue.

Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
agree  silvs: thanks to alexandra for bringing it up and heartfelt thanks to kmaciel for solving the issue so cogently - you got me out of a bind!
726 days
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)




Return to KudoZ list


KudoZ™ translation help
The KudoZ network provides a framework for translators and others to assist each other with translations or explanations of terms and short phrases.



See also: