第七届“华政杯”全国法律翻译大赛初赛试题参考译文1

第七届“华政杯”全国法律翻译大赛初赛试题参考译文1

试题1（586words）

T he court orders injunctive relief against the defendant and agrees to maintain jurisdiction over the case to ensure that the settlement is followed. Injunctive relief is a remedy imposed by a court in which a party is instructed to do or not do something. Failure to obey the order may lead the court to fi nd the party in Contempt and to impose other penalties. Plaintiffs in lawsuits generally prefer consent decrees because they have the power of the court behind the agreements; defendants who wish to avoid publicity also tend to prefer such agreements because they limit the exposure of damaging details. Critics of consent decrees argue that federal district courts assert too much power over the defendant. They also contend that federal courts have imposed conditions on state and local governments in Civil Rights Cases that usurp the power of the states.

法院（向原告）提供针对被告的禁令救济，并同意维持对案件的管辖，以确保和解协议得到履行。禁令救济是法院给予的一种救济形式，要求一方当事人为或不为某事。当事人不遵守法院的命令，可构成藐视法庭，并被法院施加其他处罚。

一般而言，诉讼中的原告更加青睐同意令，因为法院在为和解协议进行“背书”；不愿意引起公众关注的被告也倾向于使用同意令，因为这将限制对其不利的细节的曝光程度。同意令的批评者则认为，联邦地区法院对被告行使了过多的权力。批评者还认为，在民权案件中，联邦法院对州政府及地方政府强加了太多的（限制）条件，僭越了各州的权力。

Most civil lawsuits are settled before going to trial and most settlements are private agreements between the parties. Typically, the plaintiff will fi le a motion to dismiss the case once the settlement agreement has been signed. The court then issues a dismissal order and the case is closed. However, if the defendant does not live up to the terms of the settlement agreement the plaintiff cannot reactivate the old lawsuit.

In more complex civil lawsuits that involve the conduct of business or industry, and in actions by the government against businesses that have allegedly violated regulatory laws, consent decrees are regularly part of the settlement agreement. A court will maintain jurisdiction and oversight to make sure the terms of the agreement are executed. The threat of a contempt order may keep defendants from dragging their feet or seeking to evade the intent of the agreement. In addition, the terms of the settlement are public.

大多数民事诉讼案件在庭审之前就已达成和解，并且大多数和解是通过当事人私下协议所达成的。一般而言，一旦签订和解协议，原告将向法院提交撤销案件的动议申请。随后，法院将发出撤销令，案件终结。然而，如果被告不遵守和解协议的条款，原告将不能重新提起上述已被撤销的案件。

在涉及企业或行业行为的更加复杂的民事诉讼中，以及在政府对被指控违反了监管法律的企业所提起的诉讼中，同意令通常是和解协议的一部分。法院将保持对案件的管辖权，并对其进行监督，以确保和解协议的条款能够得到执行。藐视法庭的判令可避免被告怠于履行协议，或试图逃避执行和解协议。此外，和解协议的条款是公开的。

特定类型的诉讼要求法院必须发布同意令。对于集体诉讼的和解协议而言，《联邦程序规则》（Federal Rules of Procedure）第23条要求联邦地区法院必须在批准和解协议提议之前，确定其公平性、充分性和合理性。根据《反托拉斯程序和处罚法》（Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act）的规定：在反托拉斯诉讼中，法院必须对司法部提交的同意令提议进行审查。该法要求法院对特定的条款进行审查；审查的内容包括该法院令是否促进了公共利益。

Certain types of lawsuits require a court to issue a consent decree. In Class Action settlements, Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Procedure mandates that a federal district court must determine whether a proposed settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable before approving it. Under the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, the court must review proposedconsent decrees in antitrust suits filed by the Justice Department. The statute directs the court to review certain items, including whether the decree advances the public interest.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a case that consent decrees “have attributes both of contracts and of judicial decrees.” The division between contracts and judicial decrees suggests that consent decrees are contracts that resolve some issues through the consent of the parties. However, for some issues, the decree contains judicial acts rendered by the judge, not the parties. Commentators have noted that these dual attributes require a court to determine when it is appropriate to“rubber-stamp” a proposed settlement and when it is more appropriate for the court to treat the proposal as it would any judicial order.

美国联邦最高法院在某案中判决，同意令“兼具契约和司法命令的属性”。契约和司法命令的分野则意味着：“和解协议的法院令”是通过当事人的合意来解决某些争议的契约。然而，对于一些争议性问题而言，该命令是法官做出的司法行为，而非当事人的（行为）。有评论者已经注意到，同意令的上述双重特征就要求法院确定在何种情况下适宜“不经审查便批准”当事方提出的和解协议，何种情况下更适宜将（批准）和解提议视为司法命令。

有人批评联邦法院使用同意令去改革监狱系统、学校系统，以及其他政府机构。一些法院多年来对这些机构进行监管，并且对州政府和地方政府施加一些耗资巨大的条件。国会通过了《1995年监狱诉讼改革法》（Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995），试图干预此类诉讼。该法对联邦法院通过使用同意令去改善监狱条件的行为进行了严格限制。此外，该法还给予政府机构终止某些同意令的权利；其中一些同意令已经持续了数十年。

The federal courts have been criticized for using consent decrees to reform prison systems, school systems, and other government agencies. Some courts have maintained oversight of agencies for many years and have imposed conditions that have cost state and local governments substantial amounts of money. Congress intervened in one litigation area when it passed the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The law imposed strict limits on what federal courts could do in thefuture to improve prison conditions through the use of consent decrees. In addition, it gave government agencies the right to seek the termination of consent decrees, many of which had lasted for decades.

试题2（380words）

A civil penalty was a type of remedy at common law that could only be enforced in courts of law. Remedies intended to punish culpable individuals, as opposed to those intended simply to extract compensation or restore the status quo, were issued by courts of law, not courts of equity. The action authorized by this Act is of this character.

民事罚款是一种只能在普通法法院得到执行的普通法救济方式。与那些仅仅旨在获取赔偿或恢复原状的救济手段不同，意在惩罚当罚之人的救济由普通法法院而非衡平法法院做出。本法所授权的诉讼就具有这种特征。

本法并没有要求计算（法院所）施加的“民事罚款”时，单纯考量衡平因素，比如违法所得利润；而是仅规定了违法处罚上限——每日处罚额不得超过10,000美元。本法的立法史表明，美国联邦国会要求，联邦地区法院在施加民事罚款时，应当考虑在恢复原状之外进行惩罚和阻却的必要性。法院可以基于如下因素对不当行为进行惩罚，即：违法的严重性、之前的违法次数，以及在遵守相关的（行政）要求方面缺乏付诸努力的诚意。法院可以基于罚款可能产生的经济影响，寻求达到阻却未来违法行为发生的目的。本法授权处罚以进一步惩罚或阻却（不当行为）的规定清楚地表明，本款所反映的不仅仅是对提供衡平救济的关注。

This Act does not direct that the“civil penalty” imposed be calculated solely on the basis of equitable determinations, such as the profits gained from violations of the statutes, but simply imposes a maximum penalty of $10,000 per day of violation. The legislative history of the Act reveals that United States Congress wanted the district court to consider the need for retribution and deterrence, in addition to restitution, when it imposed civil penalties. A court can require retribution for wrongful conduct based on the seriousness of the violations, the number of prior violations, and the lack of good-faith efforts to comply with the relevant requirements. It may alsoseek to deter future violations by basing the penalty on its economic impact. This Act’s authorization of punishment to further retribution and deterrence clearly evidences that this subsection re fl ects more than a concern to provide equitable relief.

In the present case, for instance, the district court acknowledged that petitioner received no profits, but still imposed a $35,000 fine. Thus, the district court intended not simply to disgorge profits but also to impose punishment. Because the nature of the relief authorized by this Act was traditionally available only in a court of law, petitioner in this present action is entitled to a jury trial on demand.

例如，在本案中，美国联邦地区法院承认，申请人并没有获得利益，但仍对其处以35,000美元的罚款。因此，联邦地区法院不仅希望追缴利润，还要对其施加惩罚。由于本法授权的救济类型历来只能在普通法法院获得，本案中的申请人有权要求进行陪审团审理。

The punitive nature of the relief sought in this present case is made apparent by a comparison with the relief sought in an action to abate a public nuisance. A public nuisance action was a classic example of the kind of suit that relied on the injunctive relief provided by courts in equity. Injunctive relief for enjoining a public nuisance at the request of the Government is traditionally given by equity upon a showing of peril to health and safety. The Government, in fact, concedes that public nuisance cases brought in equity sought injunctive relief, not monetary penalties. Indeed, courts in equity refused to enforce such penalties.

通过与消除公共妨害诉讼所寻求的救济方式比较，本案所寻求救济的惩罚性质一目了然。公共妨害诉讼是依赖衡平法法院提供禁令救济的一种典型诉讼类型。通常，衡平法法院应政府请求签发禁止公共妨害之令，需表明存在潜在的健康和安全危险。政府实际上也承认，在衡平法法院提起的公共妨害之诉，寻求的是禁令救济，而非金钱处罚。的确，衡平法法院拒绝强制执行此类处罚。

试题3（393words）

Although the idea of “degrees of negligence” has not been without its advocates, it has been condemned by most writers, and, except in bailment cases, rejected at common law by most courts, as a distinction “vague and impracticable in its nature, so unfounded in principle,” that it adds only difficulty and confusion to the already nebulous and uncertain standards which must be given to the jury. The prevailing rule in most situations is that there are no “degrees”of care or negligence, as a matter of law; there are only different amounts of care, as a matter of fact. The dif fi culty of classification, because of the very real difficulty of drawing satisfactory lines of demarcation, together with the unhappy history, justifies the rejection of the distinctions in most situations.

The skepticism of Prosser and Keeton about the ability of judges, juries, and commentators to intelligibly apply different degrees of negligence was preceded a century and a half ago by the United States Supreme Court. In the 1853 admiralty personal injury case (arising from an exploding boiler on a vessel), the Court complained about the distinctions claimed for classifying negligence into categories:

“过失程度”之观点虽不乏拥趸，但已被大多数作者所诟病。并且，除了委托保管案件之外，大多数法院已拒绝承认它属于普通法（的范畴），其原因在于：这种区分，“在性质上是模糊且不可行的，在原则上是如此地缺乏根据”；在必须给予陪审团的、业已模糊且不确定的标准之上平添困难和疑惑。大多数情况下适用的主要规则是，在法律上，并不存在注意（义务）或过失的“程度”之分；事实上，仅有不同量的注意（义务）。因为确实很难做出令人满意的划分，加之其不如意的适用历史，使得这样的分类非常困难，这也是绝大多数案件中将之摒弃的原因。

普洛赛教授和基顿教授对法官、陪审团和评论法学者明辨不同过失程度的能力的质疑，早在一个半世纪之前，就出现在美国联邦最高法院。1853年，在一起因船舶锅炉爆炸所导致的人身伤害海事案件中，美国联邦最高法院就对要求区分过失类型的主张表示不满：

这一从部分罗马法评论法学家处引入普通法的理论认为存在三种不同程度的过失，分别用术语“轻微过失”“一般过失”“重大过失”来界定。上述术语能否在实践中得到有效地适用，值得怀疑。它们的含义并不明确，或是无法明确。因此，所谓的某一程度的过失，不仅可能与其他程度的过失相混淆，在实践中也难以被准确地区分。在不同的环境下，它们的含义也必然发生变化；法院也被迫受制于这些变化的影响，以至于现实中存在着如此之多的例外情形，导致这些规则很难有一种通行操作方式。

The theory that there are three degrees of negligence, described bythe terms slight, ordinary, and gross, has been introduced into the common law from some of the commentators on the Roman law. It may be doubted if these terms can be usefully applied in practice. Their meaning is not fi xed, or capable of being so. One degree, thus described, not only may be confounded with another, but it is quite impracticable exactly to distinguish them. Their signi fi cation necessarily varies according to circumstances, to whose in fl uence the courts have been forced to yield, until there are so many real exceptions that the rules themselves can scarcely be said to have a general operation.

The Court commented that if the law furnished no practically applicable de fi nition of the terms “gross negligence”or “ordinary negligence,” but left it to the jury to determine in each case what the duty was, and what omissions amount to a breach of it, “it would seem that imperfect and confessedly unsuccessful attempts to define that duty, had better be abandoned.” Whatever test might be used, the Court said there was gross negligence in the failure to use proper skill in the management of the boilers on the vessel.

美国联邦最高法院的评论如下：如果法律不能提供在实践中可以适用的“重大过失”或“一般过失”的定义，而是将其留给陪审团在个案中决定何谓义务，何种不作为构成违反义务，“那么，这种界定义务的尝试是存在缺陷的，显然不能成功，最好予以废弃”。联邦最高法院称，不论使用何种检验标准，对于没有使用合理的技能去管理船舶锅炉这一情形，均构成重大过失。

1执笔人：李明倩博士，1984年生，河北唐山人，法学博士。研究方向：法律翻译、法律史。参与译文定稿的包括：华东政法大学外语学院院长屈文生教授、余素青教授、伍巧芳教授、马莉教授、张朱平副教授、朱丽芳副教授、甘翠平博士、宋丽珏博士，山东大学法学院院长沈伟教授，上海政法学院国际交流学院院长欧阳美和教授。特别致谢上海交通大学郑戈教授对译文的审阅与指导。