GLOSSARY ENTRY (DERIVED FROM QUESTION BELOW) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
10:40 May 18, 2018 |
Spanish to English translations [PRO] Law/Patents - Law (general) | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
| Selected response from: Charles Davis Spain Local time: 05:48 | ||||||
Grading comment
|
Summary of answers provided | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
4 +3 | it cannot have breached / violated (the appellant insurer's) right of defence |
|
it cannot have breached / violated (the appellant insurer's) right of defence Explanation: "Indefensión" means that as a result of a procedural impropriety the defendant/respondent is unable to defend itself: "2. f. Der. Situación en que se coloca a quien se impide o se limita indebidamente la defensa de su derecho en un procedimiento administrativo o judicial." http://dle.rae.es/?id=LMKMHpN "La indefensión es un concepto procesal referido a la actuación de los tribunales cuando ante los mismos se quiebra el derecho fundamental a la defensa." http://guiasjuridicas.wolterskluwer.es/Content/Documento.asp... So it doesn't mean helplessness or defenceless and it doesn't mean lack of a proper defence (translations which can be found); the defendant could have had a proper defence but was denied the right to present it. That's what is alleged here. As article 48.2 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights says: "2. Respect for the rights of the defence of anyone who has been charged shall be guaranteed." http://fra.europa.eu/en/charterpedia/article/48-presumption-... Personally I think that's the right way to put it: indefensión means breach/violation/denial of the right of defence. The appellant, an insurance company, has said that the complainant's failure to identify himself properly breached its right of defence. The court is saying that it couldn't have done so, because the proper place to introduce its defence ("al corresponder su introducción") was in the denial of the complainant's legal standing ("negación de la legitimación activa") in its answer to the complaint ("en la contestación a la demanda)." In other words, the appellant says it was denied the opportunity to challenge the complainant's lack of proper self-identification. Not so, says the court, that couldn't have happened, because it had the opportunity to do so: it should have denied the complainant's legal standing in its answer to the complaint. If it failed to do so, tough. Or words to that effect. At least that's how I understand it. Not easy, though. -------------------------------------------------- Note added at 2 hrs (2018-05-18 12:49:03 GMT) -------------------------------------------------- Just to be clear, what I'm saying is that "ninguna indefensión" is the object, not the subject, of "pudo causar": it means "no pudo causar ninguna indefensión a la aseguradora recurrente". The subject of "(no) pudo causar" is the complainant's failure to identify himself propertly. |
| |
Grading comment
| ||