nonaga (asker) Mar 26, 2015:

yay great thank you gilmar!! and thanks again mario

Gilmar Fernandes Mar 26, 2015:

Nonaga, your rephrasing sounds good to me! .

nonaga (asker) Mar 26, 2015:

hi Gilmar and Mario, thank you so much for your help! I think I understand it now
Based on what you are saying, I looked up some Brazilian law, and I think the issue is, search and seizure warrants are preparatory or ancillary measures usually supposed to be attached to the filing of a main case; like you can't ask to go search someone's house, unless you think there is a good case against them that you are planning to file. A brazilian judge normally can ask to see information about the filing of the main case, before granting a preparatory measure -- I guess this paragraph is saying that this requirement is waived in this case -- the judge can't demand that the main case be filed.
So I kind of combined the phrasings you had and put something like, "without requirement for the filing of the principal action"

hope that sounds okay, thank you so much for your help!

Mario Freitas Mar 26, 2015:

I agree with Gilmar, The last stretch only states there is no need for a main lawsuit, considering that the court order is sufficient. But they stuck so much additional information in between that it actually became weird and hard to understand (typical legalese).
I would only say "whereby the main lawsuit is not applicable" to make it shorter.

nonaga (asker) Mar 26, 2015:

thank you so much gilmar, you are awesome! that is really very helpful
i think the basic problem is that the paragraph is really written badly

i think the phrase could be read both ways -- making the main lawsuit not required, or, the phrase is a precondition for the whole rest of the pargraph to take place
something like "in the event that the main action is not viable" (or not executable, or something like that). I totally agree with you "unenforceable" is very weird
Thank you so much!!

Gilmar Fernandes Mar 26, 2015:

@nonaga http://ec.europa.eu/competition/publications/blc/boletin_31_...

I'm sorry I can't explain any better....but you may find a solution to your puzzle here in the above PDF .....take a look at page 148 (the PT source) and then the EN translation on page 188:
d) request to the Judiciary, by means of the Attorney-General’s Office associated to
Cade, search and seizure warrant of objects, papers of any kind, as well as business books,computers and magnetic files of a company or natural person, in the interest of administrative investigation or administrative proceeding to impose administrative sanctions for violations to the economic order, applying, where applicable, the provisions of Article 839 and following ones of Law No. 5869 of January 11th, 1973 - Code of Civil Procedure, being unenforceable the bringing of the main action;

I didn't like the use of "unenforceable" for "inexigível" here. How can filing a lawsuit be unenforceable....so I thought they meant "not required" here. Bom trabalho, colega!

nonaga (asker) Mar 26, 2015:

In case it's useful here is my translation for the rest of the paragraph:

158. Order 512/2013 issued by the CADE Superintendent General is based on article 13, section VI, line "d" of Law 12.529/2011, according to which, in the statement of interest of the investigation in the administrative inquiry, the SG is compelled to: "ask the Judiciary, through the Federal Prosecutor of CADE, for a warrant for search and seizure of objects, papers of any nature...in the interest of the administrative inquiry or administrative proceeding for the imposition of administrative sanctions for violations of the economic order, applying as applicable, the provisions of Article 839 et seq. of Law No. 5.869 of January 11, 1973 - Code of Civil Procedure, ??

nonaga (asker) Mar 26, 2015:

Thank you so much Gilmar! So... your phrasing seems correct and structured cleanly, but it still doesn't make sense to me in the context of that paragraph
The paragraph is probably just weird

But I just wanted to make sure that the phrase can't also mean something like, "when the main lawsuit is not possible"?
That might make a little more sense to me based on context, though it would still be a little weird...

what do you think?