URGENT!! Counter-limits

Dutch translation: tegencontrole

GLOSSARY ENTRY (DERIVED FROM QUESTION BELOW)
English term or phrase:URGENT!! Counter-limits
Dutch translation:tegencontrole
Entered by: Willemina Hagenauw

10:24 Feb 5, 2021
English to Dutch translations [PRO]
Law/Patents - Law (general) / eu law
English term or phrase: URGENT!! Counter-limits
This is a doctrine in eu law, but I cannot find the translation in Dutch.
I have not much context I'm afraid!
Willemina Hagenauw
Local time: 12:45
tegencontrole
Explanation:
Dit is de enige vertaling van de term 'counter-limits' die ik kan vinden (in Eur-Lex), bij gebrek aan context:


In its order for reference, the Corte costituzionale (Constitutional Court) not only submits those questions for a preliminary ruling to the Court, but also advises the Court on the answer that should be given in order to avoid initiating what is known as the ‘counter-limits’ procedure.

In zijn verwijzingsbeslissing snijdt de Corte costituzionale niet alleen deze drie prejudiciële vragen aan het Hof aan, maar adviseert hij het Hof eveneens aangaande het antwoord dat zou moeten worden geformuleerd teneinde het inleiden van de procedure van de zogenoemde „tegencontroles” te voorkomen.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 23 min (2021-02-05 10:48:21 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Het lijkt erop dat de link niet opent. Ik probeer het nog een keer: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN-NL/TXT/?from=EN&u...

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 26 min (2021-02-05 10:51:07 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

De vetgedrukte link in 'note added at 23 min' doet het wel. Het is art. 10, 'counter-limits' is geel gemarkeerd.
Selected response from:

Stieneke Hulshof
Spain
Local time: 13:45
Grading comment
Hartelijk dank voor ieders bijdrage!
4 KudoZ points were awarded for this answer



Summary of answers provided
3 +2tegencontrole
Stieneke Hulshof
4tegencontroles
Frank van 't Hoog
2contra-beperkingen
Willem Wunderink
Summary of reference entries provided
Barend van Zadelhoff

Discussion entries: 2





  

Answers


14 mins   confidence: Answerer confidence 2/5Answerer confidence 2/5
contra-beperkingen


Explanation:
Als er niemand met een juridische vakterm op de proppen komt zou ik het gewoon zo vertalen.

Voorbeeld:
The opening of the Italian Constitution towards external
sources of law, that is testified by the above provisions, however, is
not absolute and without exceptions. According to the jurisprudence
of the Italian Constitutional Court, the inclusion of both international
and European Union law in the Italian legal system is not allowed
where an international or European provision (or an act or a judicial
decision) is in conflict with the fundamental principles of the Italian
Constitutional system or with the inalienable rights of the individual
(the so called counter-limits).

Willem Wunderink
Netherlands
Local time: 13:45
Works in field
Native speaker of: Native in DutchDutch
PRO pts in category: 28
Notes to answerer
Asker: Hartelijk dank. Ja, deze had ik ook overwogen. Kreeg slechts een Google hit, maar heb ook geen alternatief.

Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)

22 mins   confidence: Answerer confidence 3/5Answerer confidence 3/5 peer agreement (net): +2
counter-limits
tegencontrole


Explanation:
Dit is de enige vertaling van de term 'counter-limits' die ik kan vinden (in Eur-Lex), bij gebrek aan context:


In its order for reference, the Corte costituzionale (Constitutional Court) not only submits those questions for a preliminary ruling to the Court, but also advises the Court on the answer that should be given in order to avoid initiating what is known as the ‘counter-limits’ procedure.

In zijn verwijzingsbeslissing snijdt de Corte costituzionale niet alleen deze drie prejudiciële vragen aan het Hof aan, maar adviseert hij het Hof eveneens aangaande het antwoord dat zou moeten worden geformuleerd teneinde het inleiden van de procedure van de zogenoemde „tegencontroles” te voorkomen.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 23 min (2021-02-05 10:48:21 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Het lijkt erop dat de link niet opent. Ik probeer het nog een keer: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN-NL/TXT/?from=EN&u...

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 26 min (2021-02-05 10:51:07 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

De vetgedrukte link in 'note added at 23 min' doet het wel. Het is art. 10, 'counter-limits' is geel gemarkeerd.

Example sentence(s):
  • EN-NL/TXT/?from=EN&uri=CELEX%3A62017CC0042&qid=1612521241182
Stieneke Hulshof
Spain
Local time: 13:45
Specializes in field
Native speaker of: Native in DutchDutch
PRO pts in category: 16
Grading comment
Hartelijk dank voor ieders bijdrage!
Notes to answerer
Asker: De context die jij beschrijft, past bij de mijne! Hartelijk dank!


Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
agree  Frank van 't Hoog: Stineke was me voor
9 mins
  -> Ja, ik heb dat ook regelmatig, dat je e.e.a. aan het uitzoeken bent en dan blijkt een collega je net voor te zijn met indienen :(

agree  Kitty Brussaard: De term is zo te zien niet erg bekend of gangbaar, dus eventueel ook (enkele) aanhalingstekens gebruiken, zoals in de aangehaalde publicatie.
29 mins
  -> Dank je Kitty!

neutral  sindy cremer: Eur-Lex-vertalingen slaan er vaak ook maar een slag naar. M.i. ontkom je hier niet aan een omschrijving.//Geldt zeer zeker voor termen die niet in de gangbare woordenboeken voorkomen. Niet alle Eur-lex-vertalers hebben een juridische achtergrond, helaas.
1 day 8 hrs
  -> Ik vind dit een verrassend en opmerkelijk commentaar. Ik ga hier even op door in het vak 'discussie'.
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)

31 mins   confidence: Answerer confidence 4/5Answerer confidence 4/5
urgent!! counter-limits
tegencontroles


Explanation:
10. In its order for reference, the Corte costituzionale (Constitutional Court) not only submits those
questions for a preliminary ruling to the Court, but also advises the Court on the answer that should 5
be given in order to avoid initiating what is known as the *‘counter-limits’* procedure.

10.
In zijn verwijzingsbeslissing snijdt de Corte costituzionale niet alleen deze drie prejudiciële vragen aan het Hof aan, maar adviseert hij het Hof eveneens aangaande het antwoord dat zou moeten worden geformuleerd teneinde het inleiden van de procedure van de zogenoemde *„tegencontroles”* te voorkomen. 5


    https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:62017CC0042&qid=1612522167811&from=EN
    https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/NL/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:62017CC0042&qid=1612522167811&from=EN
Frank van 't Hoog
France
Local time: 13:45
Works in field
Native speaker of: Native in DutchDutch
PRO pts in category: 22
Notes to answerer
Asker: Stieneke was je net voor, maar heel erg bedankt!


Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
neutral  sindy cremer: zie mijn commentaar bij Stienekes antwoord
1 day 8 hrs

neutral  Willem Wunderink: 'controle' staat voor de controle op 'limits' (beperkingen. Het heeft er wel mee te maken maar lijkt me niet juist
2 days 5 hrs
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)




Reference comments


17 hrs peer agreement (net): +1
Reference

Reference information:
Samenvatting
It is a settled rule of international law that a State may not rely on the provisions of its 'internal law' as justification for failing to comply with international obligations. However, the judiciaries of most countries, including those with a high record of compliance with international norms, have increasingly felt the need to preserve the area of fundamental principles, where the State's inclination to retain full sovereignty seems to act as an unbreakable 'counter-limit' to the limitations deriving from international law. This volume explores this trend by adopting a comparative perspective, addressing the question of how conflicts between international law and national fundamental principles are dealt with and resolved within a specific legal system. The contributing authors identify common tendencies and fundamental differences in the approaches and evaluate the implications of this practice for the future of the principle of supremacy of international law.

https://www.managementboek.nl/boek/9781108475266/duelling-fo...

In its case law, the Italian Constitutional Court has also upheld the view that EU law may take precedence over “normal” constitutional rules, but it cannot overrule fundamental principles or inalienable rights of persons.97 The German-Italian position has received following from other national highest courts within the EU, by allowing EU law to prevail over national legislation and even over national constitutional provisions as long as EU law does not contravene with fundamental provisions of that constitution. The 2004 rulings of the French and Spanish Constitutional Courts gave those countries the opportunity to join the German Italian “counter limit” position.98

file:///C:/Users/bevan/Downloads/Proefschrift-Erik-Ros%20(1).pdf


At the same time, this does not prevent Constitutional courts from defending their fundamental charters: to this end, they can make use of those techniques already used to manage the relation between international/supranational law and domestic law, such as, the counter-limits doctrine.

By counter-limits scholars mean those fundamental principles of the Italian Constitutional that may not be jeopardized by European integration. The identification of these barriers to European integration represents the essence of the counter-limits doctrine (dottrina dei controlimiti), devised in case 183/73, the so called Frontini judgment (but see also case 170/84, the so called Granital judgment) by the Italian Constitutional court.

Corte Costituzionale, sentenza 183/73, Frontini : [1974] 2 Common Market Law Review 372 and Corte Costituzionale, sentenza n. 180/1974. Granital : [1984] CMLRev 756

http://www.on-federalism.eu/attachments/143_download.pdf

Abstract
The aim of the thesis is to identify the circumstances under which disobedience by national courts may be seen as constructive dialogue and when it becomes nothing more than a violation of the ECHR. In attempt to find the answer, this thesis focuses on similarities and differences between approaches of different jurisdictions. It examines case-law of Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom and Russia. The case-law reveals that the highest courts of these states try to solve the issue of multipolar fundamental rights situation and apply counterlimits doctrine. The common issue emphasized by all national courts is that on the one hand, national courts, depending on the national legal system, have to ensure that they obey the rules of international law and on the other hand, they have to protect the overall balance of domestic legal system. However, each court does it in a different manner. The main difference is discussed between the UK Supreme Court and Russian Constitutional Court attitude towards the judgments of the ECtHR. The UK is considered to be an example of the judicial dialogue, which encourages the cooperation with the ECtHR and solves the contradictions between national law and the Convention. In contrast, Russian Constitutional
Court, although in some cases trying to show the willingness to engage into dialogue, lacks the main criteria that are necessary to engage into judicial dialogue that does not constitute mere violation of the ECHR.

Other scholars describe this as a strategy of ‘reasonable resistance’, which means that national courts increasingly tend to mitigate effects of a clash between constitutional and international legal norms by identifying some common and parameters, under which recourse to counter-limits would be more tolerable also from the standpoint of international law.

Through the examples of Germany and Italy it will be examined how states use the counter-limits doctrine, flag the idea that the ‘constitution is a limit’ and
recognize or do not accept the primacy of international law over fundamental national (constitutional) principles in relation to ECtHR judgments.

This chapter starts with a discussion of the legal status of the ECtHR judgments in Germany and Italy in section 2.2, as the highest courts in these states were the first to formulate counter-limits doctrines in regards to the ECHR.

However, that it not always the case and domestic courts sometimes have to disagree with and react to the jurisprudence of the ECtHR. This form of disagreement is often referred to as the counter-limits doctrine, where domestic courts refuse to follow decisions of ECtHR which are inconsistent with fundamental principles of national law or which would entail a violation of the Constitution.

Furthermore, in this case the Italian Constitutional Court introduced ‘enlarged counter limitation’ applicable to possible inconsistencies between Italian law and the ECtHR.45 Under this doctrine, the Constitutional Court reserved for itself
the power to verify whether the ECHR, as interpreted by the Strasbourg Court, was consistent with all other constitutional values.46 The difference from the traditional counter-limits doctrine was the necessity that the Convention had to be consistent with the whole Constitution and not just with the fundamental constitutional principles as it is in traditional ‘counter-limits’ doctrine.

In the cases discussed above, German and Italian Constitutional Courts were the first ones that relied on the counter-limits doctrine, which states that the Strasbourg Court is allowed to interpret the Convention and has the final word as a matter of international law, but that as a matter of domestic law the constitution forms a limit. These cases in all four different states illustrate that the Constitutional and Supreme Courts used the counter-limits doctrine in order to fence-off the Convention, if necessary. The courts discussed the possibility of disobeying the case-law of the ECtHR in order to protect the fundamental constitutional principles of domestic law.12

The examples of the case-law discussed illustrated that on the one hand, there is the counter-limits doctrine, which imposes limits on the ECHR’s primacy and on the other hand, there is a question as to the authority of the ECtHR and who has the final word on the interpretation of the Convention.
Although there is a treaty obligation under the ECHR that states are bound by the judgments of the ECtHR, the extent to which national courts have to follow is a matter that will on the whole be regulated by domestic law or judicial practice in each country.197 First of all, the way states apply counter-limits doctrines depends on the constitutional status of the Convention, the interpretation of international rules, the independence of the judiciary from executive power, and so on.
198 Secondly, from the case-law discussed above it could be held that the important criteria that distinguish ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ uses of counter-limits are: the identification of the fundamental principle that has to be protected, the ability of the court to justify deviation from the ECtHR case-law and the active engagement into judicial dialogue.

file:///C:/Users/bevan/Downloads/Egle_Rekasiute_Final_version_Master_thesis.pdf

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 17 hrs (2021-02-06 04:23:55 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Ten derde is er geen alomvattende, coherente theorie over de verhouding tussen het Nederlandse recht en het Unierecht ontwikkeld in de jurisprudentie. Men zoekt tevergeefs naar de Nederlandse equivalent van arresten zoals de Duitse Solange-uitspraken7 of het Italiaanse Frontini-arrest,8 waarin bepaalde ‘controlimiti’ ten aanzien van de doorwerking van het Unierecht in de nationale rechtsorde werden bepaald.

Rechterlijke constitutionele toetsing is in het Finse systeem echter duidelijk bedoeld als een laatste redmiddel in concrete gevallen en als een aanvulling op de parlementaire grondwettigheidscontrole tijdens het wetgevingsproces – niet als een vervanging daarvoor.

Hoewel de Nederlandse rechter, bijvoorbeeld waar het gaat om toetsing van wetgeving aan het EVRM, minder blijk geeft van eenzelfde extreme terughoudendheid als zijn Finse of Zweedse collega’s in geval van grondwettigheidscontrole, geeft de bestaande Nederlandse rechtspraktijk van toetsing geen duidelijke aanleiding om bij toetsing aan de Grondwet een bepaalde drempelvoorwaarde te stellen.

Hoewel het Unierecht de keuze voor een bepaalde modaliteit van
grondwettigheidscontrole beschouwt als behorend tot de constitutionele
autonomie van elke lidstaat, voorkomt de keuze voor gespreide toetsing de
moeilijkheden waarmee lidstaten met een grondwettelijk hof zich geconfronteerd zien ingevolge het arrest Simmenthal.

file:///C:/Users/bevan/Downloads/127De_Visser__Veranderingen_in_de_dialoog_tussen_Nederlandse_rechters_en_het_Hof_van_Justitie.pdf

"... waarin bepaalde ‘controlimiti’ ten aanzien van de doorwerking van het Unierecht in de nationale rechtsorde werden bepaald."

Die 'controlimiti' lijken, als ik het goed begrijp, 'nationale grondwettelijke beperkingen ten aanzien van de doorwerking van het Unierecht in de nationale rechtsorde werden bepaald.

Zou me niet verbazen als 'tegencontroles' als een twijfelachtige letterlijke vertaling / 'false friend' van 'counter limits' kan worden beschouwd.
Verhelderend is die vertaling in ieder geval niet.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 day 10 hrs (2021-02-06 20:24:38 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

controlimiti - 'beperkingen tegenover'


mogelijk? :

- beperkingen vanwege nationale grondwettelijke bepalingen tegenover [het recht van de Europese Unie]
- beperkingen vanwege de nationale grondwet tegenover [het recht van de Europese Unie]
- beperkingen vanwege fundamentele nationale rechtsprincipes tegenover [het recht van de Europese Unie]
- beperkingen vanwege fundamentele nationale grondwettelijke bepalingen tegenover [het recht van de Europese Unie]


--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 day 10 hrs (2021-02-06 20:27:46 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

- berperkingen vanwege de nationale grondwet tegenover [het recht van de Europese Unie]

Barend van Zadelhoff
Netherlands
Native speaker of: Native in DutchDutch
PRO pts in category: 44

Peer comments on this reference comment (and responses from the reference poster)
agree  sindy cremer: Goede refs en totaal eens met je afsluitende opmerking => twijfelachtige letterlijke vertaling / false friend. M.i. ontkom je hier niet aan een omschrijving. 'Tegencontrole' is in deze context in elk geval een totaal onbegrijpelijke term.
15 hrs
  -> Dank je, Sindy. 'tegencontrole' lijkt me onaanvaardbaar. Je kunt je niet met '1 G-gelukstreffer' baseren op een term die contextueel geen hout lijkt te snijden.
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)



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.

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