Competenza indelegabile

18:20 Dec 6, 2010 

"non delegable powers" Googles very convincingly with two US law schools and a board of directors. Also there is a semantic difference between delegate (downwards, with *perhaps* the possibility to revoke or direct) and assign or transfer (losing all control).

http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&=&q="Non d...

17:44 Dec 6, 2010 

Its an old chestnut which I always hesitate over, so I just decided to post it and get a line on it once and for all. Liz's post was the most enlightening: there's an answer just staring us in the face "undelegable" which seems in reputable use.

17:39 Dec 6, 2010 

for the title. Exactly what is meant (i.e. the fact that these powers are non-assignable) is explained in the body of the article.

16:27 Dec 6, 2010 

HI :
'sole and exclusive competence/power/authority' .. would be meaningful enough to me in that second word reinforces the first.. p.s. 'authority' sounds best ..
cheers

16:20 Dec 6, 2010 

That is practically what I have written "sole powers". The problem is "indelegabile" which is the term posted and the title of the article.
14.2.- **Competenza indelegabile** del Consiglio di Gestione.
Il Consiglio di Gestione ha competenza esclusiva a deliberare in merito alla proposta deliberativa da sottoporre al Consiglio di Sorveglianza in relazione a una Operazione Strategica, essendogli quindi preclusa la facoltà di conferire delega a un proprio membro.

16:13 Dec 6, 2010 

what's wrong with "shall have exlcusive powers.... and shall therefore be precluded the right to ..."?

16:06 Dec 6, 2010 

The term posted is the title of the article in the regulations, the text of which is given.