Project 3: Legal Traslation

Title: Gaceta Oficial 29922

Source: Gaceta Oficial (Edición Digital)

Spanish Article: https://www.gacetaoficial.gob.pa/pdfTemp/29922/GacetaNo_29922_20231202.pdf

Tools used: DeepL Transaltor & Matecat

Note: Differences are highlighted in GREEN

Source Text

QUE DECLARA QUE ES INCONSTITUCIONAL LA LEY N°406 DE 20 DE OCTUBRE DE 2023, “QUE APRUEBA EL CONTRATO DE CONCESIÓN MINERA ENTRE EL ESTADO Y LA SOCIEDAD MINERA PANAMÁ, S.A.”.

DeepL

WHICH DECLARES UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW NO. 406 OF OCTOBER 20, 2023, "WHICH APPROVES THE MINING CONCESSION CONTRACT BETWEEN THE STATE AND MINING CONCESSION CONTRACT BETWEEN THE STATE AND SOCIEDAD MINERA PANAMÁ, S.A.".

Matecat

DECLARING THAT LAW NO.406 OF 20 OCTOBER 2023 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, "APPROVING THE MINING CONCESSION CONTRACT BETWEEN THE STATE AND THE COMPANY MINERA PANAMÁ, S.A.".

Vistos

Conoce el Pleno de la Corte Suprema de Justicia de la Demanda de Inconstitucionalidad promovida por el Licenciado Juan Ramón Sevillano Callejas, actuando en su propio nombre, contra el Artículo 1 de la Ley No. 406 de 20 de octubre de 2023, "Que aprueba el Contrato de Concesión Minera entre EL ESTADO y la sociedad MINERA PANAMÁ; S.A."

Viewed

The Plenary of the Supreme Court of Justice hears the Unconstitutionality Complaint filed by Juan Ramón Sevillano Callejas, acting on his own behalf, against Article 1 of Law No. 406 of October 20, 2023, "Which approves the Mining Concession Contract between THE STATE and the company MINERA PANAMÁ; S.A."

Whereas

He knows the Plenary of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Claim of Unconstitutionality promoted by Mr. Juan Ramón Sevillano Callejas, acting on his own behalf, against Article 1 of Law No. 406 of October 20, 2023, "Approving the Mining Concession Contract between the STATE and the MINING COMPANY PANAMA; S.A."

Acto Demandado

Lo es en artículo 1 de la Ley No.406 de 20 de octubre de 2023, "Que aprueba el Contrato de Concesión Minera entre EL ESTADO y la sociedad MINERA PANAMÁ; S.A.", y que fuera publicada en la Gaceta Oficial No. 29894A de veinte (20) de octubre de dos mil veintitrés (2023) cuyo texto íntegro, para referencia, se transcribe a continuación:

Act sued against

Article 1 of Law No. 406 of October 20, 2023, "Which approves the Mining Concession Contract between THE STATE and the company MINERA PANAMA; S.A.", published in Official Gazette No. 29894A of October twenty (20) of two thousand and twenty-three (2023), the full text of which, for reference, is transcribed below:

Defendant Act

It is in article 1 of Law No. 406 of October 20, 2023, "Approving the Mining Concession Contract between the STATE and the MINING COMPANY PANAMA; S.A.", and that was published in the Official Gazette No. 29894A of October twenty (20), two thousand twenty-three (2023) whose full text, for reference, is transcribed below:

Artículo 1. Se aprueba, en todas sus partes, el Contrato de Concesión Minera celebrado entre EL ESTADO y la sociedad MINERA PANAMÁ; S.A., de conformidad con la función legislativa de aprobar o improbar los contratos en los cuáles sea parte o tenga interés el ESTADO, cuando su celebración no estuviera reglamentada previamente y en atención a que algunas de las estipulaciones contractuales no se ajustan a la respectiva Ley de autorizaciones según se establece en el numeral 15 del artículo 159 de la Constitución Política de la República

The Mining Concession Contract entered into between THE STATE and MINERA PANAMÁ; S.A. is hereby approved in all its parts, pursuant to the legislative function of approving or disapproving contracts in which THE STATE is a part or has an interest, when their execution was not previously regulated and in view of the fact that some of the contractual stipulations do not adjust to the respective Authorization Law as established in numeral 15 of Article 159 of the Political Constitution of the Republic.

Article 1. The Mining Concession Contract entered into between the STATE and the MINING COMPANY PANAMA; S.A. is approved in all its parts, in accordance with the legislative function of approving or disapproving the contracts in which the STATE is a party or has an interest, when their execution is not previously regulated and in view of the fact that some of the contractual stipulations do not comply with the respective Authorizations Law as established in numeral 15 of article 159 of the Political Constitution of the Republic.

No se puede soslayar que el experto en esta actividad minera lo es el concesionario y no el ESTADO receptor, cuya institucionalidad no está en capacidad de supervisar y fiscalizar este tipo de inversión, sobre todo en materia de salva guardar el medio ambiente.

It cannot be overlooked that the expert in this mining activity is the concessionaire and not the receiving STATE, whose institutions are not capable of supervising and controlling this type of investment, especially in terms of environmental protection.

It cannot be ignored that the expert in this mining activity is the concessionaire and not the receiving STATE, whose institutions are not in a position to supervise and oversee this type of investment, especially in terms of saving the environment.

Otro aspecto que llama la atención es la insistencia de la empresa minera en anuncia que promovería demandas arbitrales multimillonarias contra el ESTADO panameño, luego de la declaratoria de inconstitucionalidad, si no se renegociaba directamente, bajo la noción que existían “derechos adquiridos”; incluso durante la etapa de negociación se sostuvieron dichas advertencias y/o amenazas. También durante el proceso de decisión del presente proceso constitucional, no solo se ha expresado como alegatos, sino como información oficial comunicada por el Ministerio de Comercio e Industrias que da cuenta que ya han recibido las intenciones declaradas por FIRST QUANTUM MINERALS LTD. de acudir a un Arbitraje.

Another aspect that calls our attention is the insistence of the mining company in announcing that it would file multi-million dollar arbitration lawsuits against the Panamanian STATE, after the declaration of unconstitutionality, if it did not renegotiate directly, under the notion that there were "acquired rights"; even during the negotiation stage, such warnings and/or threats were maintained. Also during the decision process of the present constitutional process, not only has it been expressed as allegations, but also as official information communicated by the Ministry of Commerce and Industries, which states that they have already received the declared intentions of FIRST QUANTUM MINERALS LTD. to go to Arbitration.

Another aspect that draws attention is the insistence of the mining company in announcing that it would promote multimillion-dollar arbitration claims against the Panamanian STATE, after the declaration of unconstitutionality, if it was not renegotiated directly, under the notion that there were "acquired rights"; even during the negotiation stage these warnings and/or threats were sustained. Also during the decision process of this constitutional process, it has not only been expressed as pleadings, but as official information communicated by the Ministry of Commerce and Industries that reports that they have already received the intentions declared by FIRST QUANTUM MINERALS LTD. to go to Arbitration.

Final version as reviewed by human translator

DECLARATION OF THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF LAW NO. 406 OF OCTOBER 20, 2023, "APPROVING THE MINING CONCESSION CONTRACT BETWEEN THE STATE AND SOCIEDAD MINERA PANAMÁ, S.A."

Whereas

The Plenary of the Supreme Court of Justice hears the Unconstitutionality Complaint filed by Attorney Juan Ramón Sevillano Callejas, acting on his own behalf, against Article 1 of Law No. 406 of October 20, 2023, "Approving the Mining Concession Contract between THE STATE and the company MINERA PANAMÁ; S.A."

Act sued against

It is Article 1 of Law No. 406 of October 20, 2023, "Approving the Mining Concession Contract between THE STATE and the company MINERA PANAMÁ; S.A.," published in Official Gazette No. 29894A on the twentieth (20th) of October, two thousand and twenty-three (2023). The full text of which, for reference, is transcribed below:

Article 1. The Mining Concession Contract entered into between THE STATE and the company MINERA PANAMÁ; S.A. is hereby approved in all its parts, in accordance with the legislative function of approving or disapproving contracts in which THE STATE is a party or has an interest when its execution is not previously regulated. This approval is based on the fact that some of the contractual stipulations do not conform to the respective Authorization Law, as established in numeral 15 of Article 159 of the Political Constitution of the Republic.

Another aspect drawing attention is the mining company's insistence on announcing that it would initiate multi-million-dollar arbitration claims against the Panamanian STATE after the declaration of unconstitutionality if direct renegotiation did not occur, under the notion that there were "acquired rights." These warnings/threats were maintained even during the negotiation stage. Also, during the decision-making process of the present constitutional proceeding, it has been expressed not only as allegations but also as official information communicated by the Ministry of Commerce and Industries, which reports that they have already received the declared intentions of FIRST QUANTUM MINERALS LTD. to resort to Arbitration.

Both translations manage to convey the essential information, but there are some notable grammatical and technical differences between them.

1.Using "Viewed" vs. "Whereas": Viewed" Viewed" is a more direct and concise way to begin a sentence, while "Whereas" is commonly used in legal contexts to introduce recitals or preambles. In this case Matecat is better.

2. DeepL translated "conoce" as "Hears" and Matecat as "Knows". Both options are correct, but "Hears" may be more specific in the legal context.

3. "Which" vs "Approving": in DeepL, "Which approves" is used to introduce the description of article 1 of the law. In Matecat translation, "Approving" is used. Both options are valid, but choosing "Approving" is more direct and concise.

4. "Act sued against" vs "Defendant Act": DeepL uses "Act sued against," which refers to the legal act against which a lawsuit has been filed, but Matecat uses "Defendant Act," which could be interpreted as the act that becomes the defendant in a legal action. Both expressions are understandable, but "Act sued against" is more specific in legal terms.

5. DeepL uses "MINERA PANAMA; S.A.," while Matecat uses "MINING COMPANY PANAMA; S.A." DeepL maintains the Spanish term "MINERA," which is the name of the company in Spanish, so it should not be translated to other language.

6. "is hereby approved" vs "is approved": DeepL uses "is hereby approved," which is a more formal and legal expression. Matecat uses "is approved," which is also correct but is less formal.

7. "overlooked" vs "ignored": DeeplL uses "It cannot be overlooked," while Matecat chooses "It cannot be ignored." Both options are valid, but "overlooked" can have a connotation of not giving enough attention or importance, while "ignored" suggests not paying attention more directly.

8. "Capable of" vs "In a position to": DeepL uses "whose institutions are not capable of supervising," while Matecat chooses "whose institutions are not in a position to supervise." Both expressions are correct, but "capable of" can convey the idea of ability or capacity, while "in a position to" highlights capacity more in terms of position or institutional capacity.

9. Calls our attention" vs "Draws attention": DeepL uses "calls our attention," while Matecat chooses "draws attention." Both options are correct, but "draws attention" can be considered a stronger and more direct term. Additionally, the document states that it captures the attention in general and not just a group of people.

10. "pleadings" vs "allegations":

DeepL uses "allegations," while Matecat chooses "pleadings." Both terms are correct, but "pleadings" is used more in the legal context.

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse