Criterio de cómputo privilegiado o de no-cómputo
English translation: criterion of privileged counting or non-counting of mandates
| GLOSSARY ENTRY (DERIVED FROM QUESTION BELOW) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 07:56 Jul 12, 2019 |
| Spanish to English translations [PRO] Bus/Financial - Finance (general) / SUITABILITY ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE (CREDIT INSTITUTIONS) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
|  Selected response from: Charles Davis Spain Local time: 12:18 | ||||||
Grading comment
| |||||||
| Summary of answers provided | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | criterion of privileged counting or non-counting of mandates |
| ||
| 3 | Exempted (head)counting or discounting test |
|
| Discussion entries: 4 | |
|---|---|
Answers
13 hrs confidence: 
Exempted (head)counting or discounting test Explanation: Pls refer to the discussion entries for further enlightenment. Notes: 1. privilegio is likely to mean an exemption here (cf. Butterworths SPA/ENG law dictionary). 2. the opposite IMO is 'weighted votes' or 'weighted voting' - see the 1970 ENG company law case of Bushell vs. Faith - some individual company members can double or treble their votes on certtain resolutions. 3. most times, the translation of reckoning for cómputo works in a legal, banking or finance context and non-reckoning or discounting for the negative form of no-cómputo 4. I can't see a connection with acreedores (*super)-privilegiados – (*pre)- preferred or (*pre)-preferential creditors in a ‘suspension of payments' (more often than not in Spain a staff dismissal scam or con trick that need not be canvassed here), insolvency or liquidation, but the terminology is important anyway as many translators or interpreters are often challenged by the 'super.' prefix. Example sentence(s):
Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushell_v_Faith |
| ||
Notes to answerer
| |||
| Login to enter a peer comment (or grade) | |||
17 hrs confidence:
criterion of privileged counting or non-counting of mandates Explanation: This is the European Banking Authority's terminology, which is relevant, in that the Banco de España's rules are explicitly based on those of the ECB and cite the relevant EU Directive and Regulations. The context concerns eligibility criteria for appointments to credit institutions in respect of the number of posts already held by a prospective candidate and how that number is calculated. Rule 34, part of which I've quoted in the discussion area, explains that in certain circumstances multiple posts count as just one. This issue, by the way, is addressed in the Central Bank of Ireland's rules: "7.8 The number of directorships held by directors of credit institutions shall be limited. The Central Bank requires that the number of financial directorships (i.e. directorships of credit institutions and insurance undertakings) held by a director of a credit institution shall not exceed five [...]" Corporate Governance Requirements for Credit Institutions 2015 https://www.centralbank.ie/docs/default-source/Regulation/in... Here's the relevant EBA Q&A: "Subject matter: Calculation of the number of directorships held (privileged counting of mandates). Question: How should the mandates be counted in a situation where one person is an active board member in several connected (through IPS, group or qualified holdings) credit institutions and the privileged counting of mandates shows different results depending on the perspective from which the mandates are counted? Especially how the mandates should be counted where there is more than one notifying institution, in particular where the institutions are connected through qualified holdings? How should such a situation be resolved in cases where different competent authorities (in more than one Member State and / or the ECB) are involved?" Background on the question: Article 91(3) of Directive 2013/36/EU (CRD) stipulates that one person may hold one executive directorship with two non-executive directorships or four non-executive directorships. Article 91(4) of Directive 2013/36/EU (CRD) sets out that certain positions, held at the same time, in specific constellations may be counted as one mandate. The following mandates should count as one mandate: a) Executive or non-executive directorships held within the same group b) Executive or non-executive directorships held within: i) institutions which are members of the same Institutional Protection Scheme (IPS) provided that the conditions set out in Article 113(7) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 re fulfilled; or ii) undertakings (including no[n]-financial entities) in which the institution holds a qualifying holding." https://eba.europa.eu/single-rule-book-qa/-/qna/view/publicI... I think that if you compare this with Rule 34 in the Banco de España Circular you'll see that it's talking about exactly the same issues. For Directive 2013/36/EU, Article 91(3) and 91(4), on which both the above Q&A and the Banco de España Rule are directly based, see here: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN-ES/TXT/?uri=CELEX... -------------------------------------------------- Note added at 1 day 1 hr (2019-07-13 09:20:31 GMT) -------------------------------------------------- The English expression chosen (presumably by translators in the EU Commission's translation unit) to express this in the EBA's answer may or may not be well chosen, but I think it is in any case advisable to follow it since the precise issue at stake here is inherently an EU matter. |
| |
Grading comment
| ||
| Login to enter a peer comment (or grade) | ||
Login or register (free and only takes a few minutes) to participate in this question.
You will also have access to many other tools and opportunities designed for those who have language-related jobs (or are passionate about them). Participation is free and the site has a strict confidentiality policy.
KudoZ™ translation help
The KudoZ network provides a framework for translators and others to assist each other with translations or explanations of terms and short phrases.
See also:
Search millions of term translations