This site uses cookies.
Some of these cookies are essential to the operation of the site,
while others help to improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.
For more information, please see the ProZ.com privacy policy.
French to English translations [PRO] Law/Patents - Real Estate / property sale (France) of mixed-use building
French term or phrase:parties communes de l’assiette de la propriété
The text is proceded by a statement that the seller made a property division so that two different parts of the building come under two different tax regimes - one part for commercial use and the other for residential use.
Par suite le VENDEUR déclare qu’à chacun des lots ci-dessus ne sont pas affectées de parties communes de l’assiette de la propriété et qu’il ne s’agit donc pas d’un état descriptif de division au sens de l’article 7 de la loi du 04 Janvier 1955 sur la réforme de la publicité foncière.
just on its own "affecté de" could be interpreted the way you are suggesting.
But it wouldn't work for the whole of:
"à chacun des lots ci-dessus ne sont pas affectées de (des?) parties communes de l’assiette de la propriété"
which in effect says that there no links of the type "one part allocated to another part" exist regarding these two newly created lot.
It doesn't say at all whether is or not any "parties communes de l’assiette de la propriété" that could have been "allocated" to any of these two news lots - only that no links of that kind exist.
Another point of method: there is in this ST a mention of taxation (different taxation of residential and of commercial properties) B_U_T the concept of "l’assiette de la propriété" has ONLY to do with the physical description of the whole lot (plot of land) IOW "l'assiette = l'assiette de l'impôt" is a completely wrong association for this ST
No, that's the whole point: that would be the wrong preposition in FR: it is 'affecter à...', and as you can see, the 'à' does in fact appear at the head of the sentence, which is why you need to analyse it by re-parsing as I've suggested below. What makes it curious is the use of the passive voice with what (in FR) is basically an intransitive verb, whence the awkward construction.
Boof, I think for selling purposes they are not designated as "common space" but I'm sure they have "common space/installations" allotted/attached to them for reasons I've already given.
..... as they don't belong to you > Compare 'copropriété' tenure (state of possession) and a marketable commonhold 'share of the freehold' = of the common parts in the UK.
Les parties communes sont les parties des bâtiments et des terrains affectées à l'usage ou à l'utilité de tous les copropriétaires ou de plusieurs d'entre eux, *qui les possèdent donc en indivision.* https://droit-finances.commentcamarche.com/contents/1070-les...
Ah, I think you are missing out a small but vital detail there: the phrase starts with 'à', so needs to be read as: "de parties communes ... ne sont pas affectées ...à chacun des lots ci-dessus" — i.e. the 'lots' do not have 'parties communes' attached to them.
I think you have got it the wrong way round. The question was about "chacun des lots ci-dessus NE sont PAS affectées de parties communes de l’assiette de la propriété
I don't see the problem. You cannot normally sell "parties communes" as they don't belong to you
So the "floorspace" or "surface areas" that he is selling -les lots - are not designated (ne sont pas affectés de...) "parties communes de l’assiette de la propriété"
= The spaces for sale are not designated as "common floorspace/surface area"
HERE it's about "parties communes de l’assiette de la propriété" i.e. ONLY "les parties communes" that show on "l’assiette de la propriété" - on the two-dimensional map of the whole lot.
That would exclude "les "parties communes" that have above or underneath them any "private" or "commercial" space, i.e. "les "parties communes" inside the building.
Roofs are "parties communes" as when they leak, everyone under them pays to fix them, not just the flat(s) immediately underneath? But I take your point that this is more about floor space As for the layout, technically it could be possible to not share space or equipment but that would even mean that there would have to be separate driveways, ventilation systems and drains. We had to intervene last week here on a drain (puisard) and the whole "entrée" (our residence is divided into entrances) had to pay for this. This is why I think the answer should be "designated as"
Ah, but that's not what 'parties communes' means! Obviosuly it doesn't have anything to do with a shared roof over the building etc. It specifically means 'floor area', and includes things like a shared entrance hall or staircase: but if the property has been divided in a certain way, it is perfectly possible for both parts to have separate entrances, separate staircases, etc. and hence not NEED to have any 'shared space'. Obviously, if there were shared space, then it would create an issue if being taxed at 2 different rates...
Er... no! That's not what is says: what it actually means is that neither of the 'lots' has any 'communal areas' allocated to it (as would normally be the case in say a block of flats) — I haven't looked up the text of that Law to get any more explanation
I'm not entirely sure that this is right.
i think it is more that "neither of the lots is designated as common parts" or in other words, the lots do indeed belong to the owner to sell.
My hunch is partly based on the French itself but also partly on common sense and my own experience as a "membre sydnicale" where I live.
I can't imagine a private lot that has no communal parts "allocated to it". That would mean no common staircase, no common garden, no common water or electrical systems, no common roof on the top floor, no common foundations etc.
So that's my take on it but I'm open to alternative views.
There might well be some "parties communes de l’assiette de la propriété" (not just any "parties communes", only those showing on the map of "l’assiette de la propriété"), but they are simply kept separate from these two new lots - not allocated to any of them.
Er... no! That's not what is says: what it actually means is that neither of the 'lots' has any 'communal areas' allocated to it (as would normally be the case in say a block of flats) — I haven't looked up the text of that Law to get any more explanation
I think you've largely answered your own question. There are two different parts with two tax regimes, and no overlap ("parties communes") between them.
Automatic update in 00:
Answers
12 hrs confidence: peer agreement (net): -2
any common parts of the property's tax base
Explanation: assiette = tax base
Francois Boye United States Local time: 13:22 Native speaker of: French PRO pts in category: 34
18 hrs confidence:
common floorspace
Explanation: Based on Daryo's reference about assiette, I'd translate this as "floorspace". Otherwise, I've explained in the discussion why you cannot say anything like "has no common space allocated to it". All units in a shared building tend to have some common space (and equipment) allocated to it. See my sample sentence for further clarification
Example sentence(s):
none of the floorspace is designated as common property
SafeTex France Local time: 18:22 Works in field Native speaker of: English PRO pts in category: 34
2 days 6 hrs confidence: peer agreement (net): +2
common parts within the perimeter of the property
Explanation: This is not just floor areas, but also outdoor areas that constitute common parts.