English term
France
À la pointe des mots
Native in: French (Variant: Standard-France) 
Works in: English to French, Spanish to French
actions and omissions which have caused the damages
Je travaille sur un jugement rendu quant à un litige opposant deux entreprises.
"SUBJECT:
Compensation for non-contractual damages, both monetary and non-monetary.
(...)
Jurisdiction must be assessed on the basis of the connecting criterion or the de facto connecting criterion, which in the case in question is that of the place in which the *actions and omissions which have caused the damages have occurred* (...)
Je m'interroge sur l'utilisation du terme "damages" dans l'expression ci-dessus. Je sais que "damages" désigne les "dommages-intérêts" mais je ne comprends pas son utilisation ici. Comment peuvent-ils être provoqués ? "Damages" serait-il ici un pluriel abusif de "damage" ?
Faut-il que je retourne le problème et que je parle "d'actes dommageables" ? Je pensais aussi à "préjudice" mais cela me semble trop éloigné.
Cette forme revient plusieurs fois dans le document tout comme "damages suffered" (comment garder ici la structure anglais ?!) ou "the causing of damages".
Pourriez-vous m'éclairer sur ce point s'il vous plaît ?
Non-PRO (1): Germaine
When entering new questions, KudoZ askers are given an opportunity* to classify the difficulty of their questions as 'easy' or 'pro'. If you feel a question marked 'easy' should actually be marked 'pro', and if you have earned more than 20 KudoZ points, you can click the "Vote PRO" button to recommend that change.
How to tell the difference between "easy" and "pro" questions:
An easy question is one that any bilingual person would be able to answer correctly. (Or in the case of monolingual questions, an easy question is one that any native speaker of the language would be able to answer correctly.)
A pro question is anything else... in other words, any question that requires knowledge or skills that are specialized (even slightly).
Another way to think of the difficulty levels is this: an easy question is one that deals with everyday conversation. A pro question is anything else.
When deciding between easy and pro, err on the side of pro. Most questions will be pro.
* Note: non-member askers are not given the option of entering 'pro' questions; the only way for their questions to be classified as 'pro' is for a ProZ.com member or members to re-classify it.
Proposed translations
actions et omissions ayant provoqué le préjudice
| neutral |
Tony M
: Possibly, but that doesn't address the plural idea that Asker was questioning; is there any reaon why 'les préjudices' wouldn't work here?
6 mins
|
| agree |
Chakib Roula
: I agree with Tony as the plural here is pretty relevant beause it refers to different type of damage.
7 mins
|
| agree |
mchd
: les préjudices, il est bien précisé "monetary and non-monetary" dans le texte source
1 hr
|
| agree |
writeaway
11 hrs
|
| agree |
Peter LEGUIE
: Peut-être "entraîné" à la place de "provoqué"?
2 days 20 hrs
|
actions et omissions qui ont causé le préjudice
United Kingdom
Sensible solutions
Native in: English (Variant: Wessexois) 
Works in: French to English, English, English to French
actes et omissions ayant provoqué le grief/le préjudice
[...] to environmental proceedings in order
to challenge acts and omissions by private persons which are in breach of environmental law.
eur-lex.europa.eu
[...] procédures en matière
d'environnement pour contester les actes ou omissions de personnes privées contrevenant au droit de l'environnement.
eur-lex.europa.eu
And it not only behoves an organised state not to be
stupid in its own acts and omissions; it must also protect its citizens from the consequences of their own stupidity.
europarl.europa.eu
[...] ses actions ou ses négligences mais aussi
protéger ses citoyens, et cela même contre les effets de sa propre inconscience.
europarl.europa.eu
Discussion
Objet : Indemnisation des préjudices non contractuels… (...) lieu où sont survenus les actes et omissions qui [sont à l’origine des] [ont causé les] préjudices.
Si vous vérifiez le sens de « préjudice » - http://www.cnrtl.fr/definition/préjudice – vous verrez que vous ne vous « éloignez » pas.
préjudices matériel et immatériel"
https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&es...
préjudices pécuniaire et non pécuniaire
https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&es...
If you ignore this distinction, you WILL tie yourself in a logical knot.
in this ST "damages" is "les dommages soufferts" NOT "les dommages-intérêts" (compensation for ...)
BTW, where exactly is the problem? This whole sentence:
"Jurisdiction must be assessed on the basis of the connecting criterion or the de facto connecting criterion, which in the case in question is that of the place in which the actions and omissions which have caused the damages have occurred"
is just a repetition of basic principles regarding the territorial competence of a court.
In the asker's text I think this should should read "damage"
The plural usage to indicate "more than one individual loss" would have to be something along the lines of "types/heads/incidences of damage"