новая папка 1 / 603984

(ii)any decision not to implement any of those proposals (in whole or in part) taken during the year and the reasons for the decision.

(2)The Lord Chancellor must lay the report before Parliament.

(3)The first reporting year is the year starting with the day on which section 1 of the Law Commission Act 2009 comes into force; and the second reporting year is the year after that and so on.

(4)If a decision not to implement a Law Commission proposal (in whole or in part) is taken in a reporting year, subsection (1)(b) does not require a report for a later reporting year to deal with the proposal so far as it is covered by that decision.

(5)If a decision not to implement a Law Commission proposal (in whole or in part) has been taken before the first reporting year, subsection (1)(b) does not require any report to deal with the proposal so far as it is covered by that decision.

(6)“Law Commission proposal” means –

(a)a proposal formulated by the Law Commission as mentioned in section 3(1)(c);

(b)a proposal for consolidation or statute law revision for which a draft Bill has been prepared by the Law Commission as mentioned in section 3(1)(d).”

2 Protocol about the Law Commission's work

Before section 4 of the Law Commissions Act 1965 (c. 22) insert –

“3B Protocol about the Law Commission's work

(1)The Lord Chancellor and the Law Commission may agree for the purposes of this section a statement (a “protocol”) about the Law Commission's work.

(2)The protocol may include (among other things) provision about –

(a)principles and methods to be applied in deciding the work to be carried out by the Law Commission and in the carrying out of that work;

(b)the assistance and information that Ministers of the Crown and the Law Commission are to give each other;

(c)the way in which Ministers of the Crown are to deal with the Law Commission's proposals for reform, consolidation or statute law revision.

(3)The Lord Chancellor and the Law Commission must from time to time review the protocol and may agree to revise it.

(4)The Lord Chancellor must lay the protocol (and any revision of it) before Parliament.

21

(5)Ministers of the Crown and the Law Commission must have regard to the protocol.”

3 Commencement and short title

(1)This Act comes into force at the end of the period of 2 months beginning with the day on which it is passed.

(2)This Act may be cited as the Law Commission Act 2009.

TEXT 3

GOING GANGBUSTERS

Three years ago, California prosecutors came up with a new tack to fight youth violence: Obtain injunctions barring gang activities.

One civil injunction was issued against 138 alleged members of two San Jose street gangs. It prohibited conduct generally associated with gang activity such as drinking, vandalism, possessing weapons, using drugs, using gang hand signs, appearing with known gang members, applying graffiti and using beepers in public.

Los Angeles County deputy district attorneys obtained civil injunctions against gang members in six other cities, including Los Angeles. The orders often imposed a curfew and, in an effort to stop drug sales near apartment buildings, forbade trespassing on private property. A Pasadena injunction went further, prohibiting gang members from carrying pagers, cellular telephones or walkietalkies.

Constitutional Questions

While prosecutors say their tactics are a good way to fight gangs, some courts and critics have voiced concerns about the constitutionality of such measures.

The California Supreme Court will soon add its voice to the debate, as it considers the San Jose injunction in People v. Acuna, No. HO11802.

In a decision last year, a California appellate court struck down part of the injunction, upholding only the bar on criminal acts. The remaining prohibitions were held to be overbroad, vague and an infringement on free speech.

San Jose City Attorney Joan R. Gallo says her office is awaiting the latest ruling before applying for more gang injunctions. Currently, the city has two that are outstanding, including the one being considered by the state supreme court.

Chicago's legal department also has reviewed the civil injunction tool but is waiting until the Illinois Supreme Court hears an appeal of a decision striking down the city's gang loitering ordinance, City of Chicago v. Youkhana, 660 N.E.2d 34 (1995).

An Illinois appeals court held the measure infringed on freedoms of association, assembly and expression; criminalized the status of being a gang member; and permitted police officers to avoid probable cause requirements.

22

Some prosecutors have been unsuccessful at the trial level as well. In a Los Angeles County case, a judge issued a temporary restraining order aimed at gangs in Westminster, but refused to grant a preliminary injunction.

The setbacks have not dampened the enthusiasm of prosecutors for the injunctions, which are enforced with the contempt remedy.

TEXT 4

ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION (extract)

The power to alter, amend or repeal the bylaws or to adopt new bylaws shall be vested in the Board of Directors; provided, however, that any bylaw or amendment thereto as adopted by the Board of Directors may be altered, amended or repealed by a vote of the shareholders entitled to vote for the election of directors, or a new bylaw in lieu thereof may be adopted by vote of such shareholders. No bylaw which has been altered, amended or adopted by such a vote of the shareholders may be altered, amended or repealed by vote of the directors until two years shall have expired since such action by vote of such shareholders. [...]

The Corporation shall keep as permanent records minutes of all meetings of its shareholders and directors, a record of all action taken by the shareholders or the directors without a meeting, and a record of all actions taken by a committee of the directors in place of the Board of Directors on behalf of the Corporation. The Corporation shall also maintain appropriate accounting records. The Corporation, or its agent, shall maintain a record of its shareholders in a form that permits preparation of a list of the names and addresses of all shareholders, in alphabetical order, by class of shares, showing the number and class of shares held by each.

23

ЛИТЕРАТУРА

Андрианов С. Н. Англо-русский юридический словарь / С. Н. Андрианов, А. С. Берсон, А. С. Никифоров. – М. : Руссо, 2003. – 512 с.

Just English. Английский для юристов. Базовый курс : учеб. пособие для юрид. вузов / [под ред. Т. Н. Шишкиной] – М. : Зерцало, 2000. – 256 с.

Жданов А. А. Деловые письма и контракты / А. А. Жданов, И. Ф. Жданова. – М. : Филоматис, 2002. – 288 с.

Уолкнер Р. Английская судебная система / Р. Уолкнер. – М. : Юридическая литература, 1980. – 632 с.

Усачева А. Н. Translation : Письменный перевод (английский язык) : учеб. пособие / А. Н. Усачева, С. Р. Хайрова, Т. В. Серопегина. – Волгоград : Изд-во Волгоград. гос. ун-та, 2005. – 214 с.

Филиппов С. В. Судебная система США / С. В. Филиппов. – М. :

Наука, 1980. – 176 с.

Richard Powell. Law Today / Richard Powell. – London : Longman, 1993. – 126 p.

Gillian D. Brown Professional English in Use. Law / Gillian D. Brown, Sally Rice. – Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 2009. – 128 p.

Amy Krois-Lindner. International Legal English / Amy Krois-Lindner. – Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 2006. – 320 p.

24

Учебное издание

Борисова Лидия Александровна

ПЕРЕВОД В СФЕРЕ ПРАВА

Учебное пособие для вузов

Редактор И. Г. Валынкина Компьютерная верстка О. В. Нагаевой

Подписано в печать 18.03.2016. Формат 60×84/16. Уч.-изд. л. 1,9. Усл. п. л. 1,5. Тираж 30 экз. Заказ 88

Издательский дом ВГУ 394000 Воронеж, пл. Ленина, 10

Отпечатано в типографии Издательского дома ВГУ 394000 Воронеж, ул. Пушкинская, 3

25