KudoZ home » Romanian to English » Law (general)

încheiere

English translation: hearing report

Advertisement

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.
GLOSSARY ENTRY (DERIVED FROM QUESTION BELOW)
Romanian term or phrase:încheiere
English translation:hearing report
Entered by: Bogdan Honciuc
Options:
- Contribute to this entry
- Include in personal glossary

08:34 May 16, 2005
Romanian to English translations [PRO]
Law/Patents - Law (general)
Romanian term or phrase: încheiere
Prin Încheierea din data X, pronunţată în dosarul nr. XYZ, Judecătoria Sectorului 5 Bucureşti a sesizat Curtea Constituţională cu excepţia de neconstituţionalitate a dispoziţiilor art. X din Ordonanţa Guvernului Y.

A mai fost termenul la glosar, dar era alt context...
Multumesc ptr sugestii.
Bogdan Honciuc
Romania
Local time: 01:04
hearing report
Explanation:
"PUBLIC HEARING REPORT
for
The Apalachicola River Wildlife and Environmental Area (ARWEA) CONCEPTUAL MANAGEMENT PLAN (CMP)HELD BY THE
Apalachicola River WEA Management Advisory Group (MAG)
(Franklin County Court House, December 13, 2001)
Mr. Mark Curenton, representing the ARWEA Management Advisory Group (MAG), opened the public hearing at 7:00 p.m. at the County Court House Chambers in Apalachicola. He welcomed those in attendance, and indicated that this night’s public hearing was designed to present the draft goals and objectives proposed by the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) for the lands comprising the ARWEA. He also stated that the public hearing was being held by the MAG, and that FWC staff had developed the draft plan components using input developed by the MAG. Following the introductory remarks, Mr. Curenton introduced Mr. Hugh Boyter of the FWC Bureau of Wildlife Management’s Planning Section, the Biological Scientist who supervises the members of the Planning Section. Mr. Boyter introduced Mr. Keith Singleton, the principal planner for the ARWEA plan, and Biological Scientists comprising the local (regional) FWC Division of Wildlife, Bureau of Wildlife Management staff, Mr. Phil Manor and Mr. Norberto Fernandez. He then briefly reviewed the agenda for the hearing, and provided a brief presentation of the process by which the FWC develops conceptual management plans, including how plans are reviewed and approved by a number of entities in accordance with statutory procedures for state-owned lands."

wildflorida.org/planning/CMP/Apalachicola%20River%20WEA/ Apalachicola%20WEA%20Public%20Hearing%20Report.pdf


"In the Final Hearing Report, the panel made the following conclusions and recommendations.

"CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
"1. Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 202 details the 'grounds for discipline,' in pertinent part, as follows:

'A certificate of a conviction of an attorney for any crime or of a civil judgment based on clear and convincing evidence shall be conclusive evidence of the commission of that crime or civil wrong in any disciplinary proceeding instituted against said attorney based upon the conviction or judgment. A diversion agreement, for the purposes of any disciplinary proceeding, shall be deemed a conviction of the crimes originally charged. All other civil judgments shall be prima facie evidence of the findings made therein and shall raise a presumption as to their validity. The burden shall be on the respondent to disprove the findings made in the civil judgment.'

"2. KRPC 8.4(b) provides that '[i]t is professional misconduct for a lawyer to . . . commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects.' Id. The Hearing Panel concludes that the Respondent violated KRPC 8.4(b) by committing the criminal act of domestic battery."

The panel then formulated its recommendation for discipline as follows: "

http://www.kscourts.org/kscases/supct/2004/20041203/92072.ht...


"A unanimous panel report shall be deemed a final hearing report and shall be filed, served, and acted upon as hereinafter provided.
If the panel cannot agree unanimously on either the findings of fact, or the recommended discipline to be imposed, or both, the majority shall prepare and file a majority report. The minority member shall file a minority report. Thereupon the majority and minority reports shall be considered final reports, and both such reports, if either recommends discipline by the Supreme Court, shall be submitted to the Supreme Court for consideration and disposition pursuant to Rule 212."

http://www.kscourts.org/ctruls/atrul215.htm


Selected response from:

elenus
Local time: 01:04
Grading comment
Mulţumesc, asta era :)
4 KudoZ points were awarded for this answer

Advertisement


Summary of answers provided
5 +3hearing report
elenus
5 +2ruling
*TRANSCRIPT
3decision
Lydia Molea


Discussion entries: 2





  

Answers


18 mins   confidence: Answerer confidence 3/5Answerer confidence 3/5
decision


Explanation:
or (court)order is what i would say

Lydia Molea
Germany
Local time: 00:04
Specializes in field
Native speaker of: German
PRO pts in category: 4
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)

2 mins   confidence: Answerer confidence 5/5 peer agreement (net): +2
ruling


Explanation:
ruling

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 hr 51 mins (2005-05-16 10:25:29 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Desigur, incheierea de sedinta nu e nici sentinta si nici decizie judecatoreasca (adica hotarari care pot fi atacate ulterior sau care devin definitive). De aceea nu am folosit nici judgement si nici decision, pentru a evita confuziile.
Pe de alta parte, incheierea de sedinta este in practica mai mult decat un \"proces-verbal\". Instanta poate dispune citarea, aducerea martorilor, reunirea cauzelor, constata nulitatea expertizelor, etc.
Ar trebui precizata aici si diferenta intre un ordin al curtii (ordin de aducere a martorilor, de ex.) si incheierea propriu-zisa.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 hr 59 mins (2005-05-16 10:33:56 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Desigur, incheierea de sedinta nu e nici sentinta si nici decizie judecatoreasca (adica hotarari care pot fi atacate ulterior sau care devin definitive). De aceea nu am folosit nici judgement si nici decision, pentru a evita confuziile.
Pe de alta parte, incheierea de sedinta este in practica mai mult decat un \"proces-verbal\". Instanta poate dispune citarea, aducerea martorilor, reunirea cauzelor, constata nulitatea expertizelor, etc.
Ar trebui precizata aici si diferenta intre un ordin al curtii (ordin de aducere a martorilor, de ex.) si incheierea propriu-zisa.

*TRANSCRIPT
Local time: 01:04
Specializes in field
Native speaker of: Native in RomanianRomanian, Native in EnglishEnglish
PRO pts in category: 28

Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
agree  Andrei Albu
16 mins
  -> multumesc

agree  Maria Tulbure
18 mins
  -> multumesc

neutral  Bogdan Burghelea: incheierile nu devin, neaparat, definitive, dar pot fi atacate (cel putin o parte dintre ele) prin cai de atac
1 day34 mins
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)

2 hrs   confidence: Answerer confidence 5/5 peer agreement (net): +3
hearing report


Explanation:
"PUBLIC HEARING REPORT
for
The Apalachicola River Wildlife and Environmental Area (ARWEA) CONCEPTUAL MANAGEMENT PLAN (CMP)HELD BY THE
Apalachicola River WEA Management Advisory Group (MAG)
(Franklin County Court House, December 13, 2001)
Mr. Mark Curenton, representing the ARWEA Management Advisory Group (MAG), opened the public hearing at 7:00 p.m. at the County Court House Chambers in Apalachicola. He welcomed those in attendance, and indicated that this night’s public hearing was designed to present the draft goals and objectives proposed by the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) for the lands comprising the ARWEA. He also stated that the public hearing was being held by the MAG, and that FWC staff had developed the draft plan components using input developed by the MAG. Following the introductory remarks, Mr. Curenton introduced Mr. Hugh Boyter of the FWC Bureau of Wildlife Management’s Planning Section, the Biological Scientist who supervises the members of the Planning Section. Mr. Boyter introduced Mr. Keith Singleton, the principal planner for the ARWEA plan, and Biological Scientists comprising the local (regional) FWC Division of Wildlife, Bureau of Wildlife Management staff, Mr. Phil Manor and Mr. Norberto Fernandez. He then briefly reviewed the agenda for the hearing, and provided a brief presentation of the process by which the FWC develops conceptual management plans, including how plans are reviewed and approved by a number of entities in accordance with statutory procedures for state-owned lands."

wildflorida.org/planning/CMP/Apalachicola%20River%20WEA/ Apalachicola%20WEA%20Public%20Hearing%20Report.pdf


"In the Final Hearing Report, the panel made the following conclusions and recommendations.

"CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
"1. Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 202 details the 'grounds for discipline,' in pertinent part, as follows:

'A certificate of a conviction of an attorney for any crime or of a civil judgment based on clear and convincing evidence shall be conclusive evidence of the commission of that crime or civil wrong in any disciplinary proceeding instituted against said attorney based upon the conviction or judgment. A diversion agreement, for the purposes of any disciplinary proceeding, shall be deemed a conviction of the crimes originally charged. All other civil judgments shall be prima facie evidence of the findings made therein and shall raise a presumption as to their validity. The burden shall be on the respondent to disprove the findings made in the civil judgment.'

"2. KRPC 8.4(b) provides that '[i]t is professional misconduct for a lawyer to . . . commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects.' Id. The Hearing Panel concludes that the Respondent violated KRPC 8.4(b) by committing the criminal act of domestic battery."

The panel then formulated its recommendation for discipline as follows: "

http://www.kscourts.org/kscases/supct/2004/20041203/92072.ht...


"A unanimous panel report shall be deemed a final hearing report and shall be filed, served, and acted upon as hereinafter provided.
If the panel cannot agree unanimously on either the findings of fact, or the recommended discipline to be imposed, or both, the majority shall prepare and file a majority report. The minority member shall file a minority report. Thereupon the majority and minority reports shall be considered final reports, and both such reports, if either recommends discipline by the Supreme Court, shall be submitted to the Supreme Court for consideration and disposition pursuant to Rule 212."

http://www.kscourts.org/ctruls/atrul215.htm




elenus
Local time: 01:04
Specializes in field
Native speaker of: Native in RomanianRomanian
PRO pts in category: 147
Grading comment
Mulţumesc, asta era :)

Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
agree  Maria Diaconu
7 mins
  -> Multumesc

agree  Andreea Vintila
1 hr
  -> Multumesc

agree  Marcella Magda
1 hr
  -> Multumesc
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:



Term search
  • All of ProZ.com
  • Term search
  • Jobs
  • Forums
  • Multiple search