《第七届华政杯全国法律翻译大赛初赛试题》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《第七届华政杯全国法律翻译大赛初赛试题（3页珍藏版）》请在金锄头文库上搜索。
1、第七届“华政杯”全国法律翻译大赛初赛试题试题1（586 words）The 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 t
2、o obey the order may lead the court to find 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 t
3、hey 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.Mo
4、st civil lawsuits are settled before going to trial and most settlements are private agreements between the parties. Typically, the plaintiff will file 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,
5、 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 la
6、ws, 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 a
7、ddition, the terms of the settlement are public.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 reaso
8、nable before approving it. Under the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, the court must review proposed consent 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. Su
9、preme 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 dec
10、ree 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 judici
11、al order.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 amou
12、nts 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 the future to improve prison conditions through the use of consent decrees. In addition, it gave government agencies the
13、right to seek the termination of consent decrees, many of which had lasted for decades.试题2（380 words）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 compe
14、nsation 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. 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 viol
15、ations 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 penalt
16、ies. 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 also seek to deter future violations by basing the penalty on its economic impact. This Acts authorization of punishment to further retribution and deterrence clearly evidences that this subsection reflects more than a concern to provide equitable relief. In the present case,
