se rendre responsable

13:12 Dec 29, 2021 

Works for me... but I can't choose it unless someone answers thus.

16:52 Dec 26, 2021 

Re your comment on my comment on your proposed translation, yes, antitrust violations (the US equivalent) can carry criminal and/or civil penalties. Broadly speaking you can tell which sort it is by who's on the other side from the defendant: federal prosecutors? Criminal. Another company in the industry? Civil.

But the question here is whether violating the French statute at issue (art. L.420-1 of the Commerce Code) carries criminal, civil, or both sorts of penalties. If this FR statute can't carry criminal penalties, then you can't properly use the word "guilty" in your EN translation.

Here, the complainant is another company in the industry, so we're almost certainly looking at a civil issue rather than a criminal one ("almost" because I don't have time to look up whether criminal penalties can be part of this sort of civil case in France).

If we don't know or don't have time to research the penalties, then "culpable" could work because it means at fault or blameworthy--it leans criminal ("culpable homicide" etc.) but is not exclusively criminal: https://thelawdictionary.org/culpable/

12:46 Dec 24, 2021 

I won't post it as a suggestion as I have already had two shots.
How about "is culpable of"?

15:36 Dec 23, 2021 

Some form of words is required in English to link the two parts here. This is one suggestion among a number of ways of dealing with it.

12:29 Dec 23, 2021 

Absolutely!

I often find myself toning down the imperiousness of the language in such cases, and am surprised by it. I'm also surprised by the sometimes incredible amount of, yes, repetition, but also for example, underlining, italicising and bolding: any judge reading these things must be thinking "what, do you take me for a 7-year-old with the attention span of a gnat?". And yet that seems to be the convention.

21:18 Dec 22, 2021 

You are, as I often do, thinking in UK terms. However, I have seen, and translated, French civil pleadings with such wording as "the Court is bound to adjudge...etc." and "the Court can not but find the defendant liable..,etc." No UK civil lawyer would dare to make such a submission, albeit such is frequently the talk of prosecution Counsel addressing juries.

20:23 Dec 22, 2021 

That's an interesting observation. On reflection my thoughts when I was dubious about the word "guilty" are I think not so much about whether it's a civil or criminal context, but rather that, yes, mightn't the judge(s) be offended if a mere counsel presumes to say who is "guilty": that's the job of the judge!
As it is I think Phil has come up with the solution: it's a French étoffement and the meaning is actually very simple.

18:25 Dec 22, 2021 

My experience is that French civil pleadings use much balder/bolder, outright statements than UK ones. Not only that, they often repeat the same statement in very slightly different wording (which would be against the general rule in E&W and certain to be slapped down by the judge)

14:20 Dec 22, 2021 

yes, AAA is the company which initiated the agreement. The agreement is a selective distribution network agreement which, according to this document, is legal in France, but only if certain conditions are met. The complainant distributor here is saying that all (in fact) of these conditions were unmet, making this an illegal agreement, under French (and EU) competition law.

11:41 Dec 22, 2021 

I'd be tempted to say simply 'is part of' or 'is involved in' unless it is actually the party that initiated the agreement, which we don't know from the info given.

11:17 Dec 22, 2021 

or turn a blind eye to responsibility.