Maria Constant (X) Feb 2, 2017:

To Ian My pleasure Ian. Glad to be of help.

IAN TAIT (asker) Feb 2, 2017:

And a special thanks to Maria and the link to the Swiss site.

IAN TAIT (asker) Feb 2, 2017:

Thank you all for your help. I decided to use EMERGENCY INTERIM MEASURES.

Maria Constant (X) Feb 2, 2017:

Another little reference:
Les mesures superprovisionnelles sont rendues en cas d'urgence particulière; elles se distinguent des mesures provisionnelles (ordinaires) uniquement par le fait qu'elles sont rendues sans que la partie adverse soit entendue préalablement (art. 265 al. 1 CPC). Si le jugeBGE 139 III 86 (87) BGE 139 III 86 (88)rend de telles mesures, il doit ensuite rapidement entendre la partie adverse et statuer sans délai sur la requête de mesures provisionnelles proprement dites (art. 265 al. 2 CPC).

Nikki Scott-Despaigne Feb 2, 2017:

art. 265 The provisional measures described in the relevant article are always urgent, but not always ex-parte. The absence of one of the parties is cited as one of the prinicipal situations in which the emergency may arise, but not exclusively. To use "ex-parte" here limits the urgency to ex-parte only, which would be inaccurate. To use "emergency" (or other suitable synonym) leaves the ex-parte situation as a possibility and does not exclude any others, which the former solution would do. In any event, the true reference in the matter involves referring to the relevant article.

B D Finch Feb 1, 2017:

@Maria Thanks for the link, which shows the heading and the other two paragraphs, which were all missing in the source I found. It does also link to an English version, where it is translated as "ex parte interim measures". I think that translation (unfortunately) has to be treated as the official one for the purposes of the Swiss court, but not for other contexts. They do head the webpage with the disclaimer:
"English is not an official language of the Swiss Confederation. This translation is provided for information purposes only and has no legal force."

I would still say that being "ex parte" is not given in the CPC as a "definition", but does seem to be a major distinguishing feature, another being the speed with which these measures are taken.

Maria Constant (X) Feb 1, 2017:

To asker I often translate orders from the Tribunal de première instance of Geneva. My work is certified by Swiss translators with the court and they insist on the use of the terms used on their official website. I don't know if this is relevant for you here but just thought I'd let you know.
Enjoy your evening.
Maria

Maria Constant (X) Feb 1, 2017:

To B D Finch Please refer to my post to AllegroTrans at 14:25 and in particular the part which says "elles se distinguent des mesures provisionnelles (ordinaires) uniquement par le fait qu'elles sont rendues sans que la partie adverse soit entendue préalablement (art. 265 al. 1 CPC)."
Article 265 of the Swiss CPC is entitled "mesures superprovisionnelles". This address is a direct link to the Swiss site:
https://www.admin.ch/opc/fr/classified-compilation/20061121/...
(if it works) and of course from there you'll see the direct link to the EN version.
Basically the difference between superprovisionnelle and provisionnelle is that they are ordered, at the Court's discretion (hence the word peut) in the case of an emergency without hearing the other party. Thereafter, the Court summons both parties to a hearing after which it decides to order interim measures.
I've often translated this term in divorce proceedings.

B D Finch Feb 1, 2017:

@Maria I think that AllegroTrans is right. "En cas d’urgence particulière, il est possible de solliciter des mesures superprovisionnelles prévues part l’article 265 alinéa 1 du Code de procédure civile (CPC)." is found in https://goo.gl/OqRnzI of http://permanencejuridique.ch. However alinéa 1 du Code de procédure civile (CPC) doesn't appear to mention, far less define, the word "superprovisionnelle". Perhaps you could show where it does?

Maria Constant (X) Feb 1, 2017:

For AllegroTrans In reply to your remark about "peut". I think this refers to the fact that the court may order such measures if it so chooses but naturally is not obliged to.

Maria Constant (X) Feb 1, 2017:

For AllegroTrans I think this will help with the distinction to be made between "mesures provisionnelles" and "mesures superprovisionnelles" :
Les mesures superprovisionnelles sont rendues en cas d'urgence particulière; elles se distinguent des mesures provisionnelles (ordinaires) uniquement par le fait qu'elles sont rendues sans que la partie adverse soit entendue préalablement (art. 265 al. 1 CPC).

Maria Constant (X) Feb 1, 2017:

For AllegroTrans With "sans entendre la partie adverse" being particularly relevant here.

AllegroTrans Feb 1, 2017:

Thank you Maria That is very helpful. However, I see the word "peut" which effectively means that these measures CAN be granted ex-parte, but not necessarily. For that very reason I would leave out "ex parte" from a translation.

Maria Constant (X) Feb 1, 2017:

For AllegroTrans.
Article 265 of the Swiss CPC defines "mesures superprovisionnelles" as:
1 En cas d’urgence particulière, notamment s’il y a risque d’entrave à leur exécution, le tribunal peut ordonner des mesures provisionnelles immédiatement, sans entendre la partie adverse.

AllegroTrans Feb 1, 2017:

Asker I cannot agree with "County Court" as your "translation" for Tribunal de première instance. County Courts exist in England & Wales and not in Switzerland. Personally I NEVER translate names of Courts, as this is misleading. In this case I suggest leaving the FR name and putting "Court of First Instance" in square brackets.

IAN TAIT (asker) Feb 1, 2017:

It is a court order from the Tribunal de première instance of the REPUBLIC AND CANTON OF GENEVA (Civil Tribunal)

B D Finch Feb 1, 2017:

Your supplementary question You aren't supposed to include supplementary questions, but re your translation of "Tribunal de première instance": absolutely not!

Chakib Roula Feb 1, 2017:

More context please.