Please note that this is not meant to be a reference. Mpoma had written “In fact the term here, prescription, is legal shorthand for durée de conservation des données, "data retention period" in the discussion box. I think that this is wrong but there is not enough room there to fully explain why.


I wish Mpoma had shown some evidence supporting this statement, but he didn’t.

I checked the GDPR and found this:
1) durée de conservation is translated as “storage period”;
2) prescription is used only once and is translated as “requirement”. I’ll come back to that.

So what does it say about Mpoma's statement?

Just because a word is used in a legal text (Lara’s) doesn’t necessary mean that only the legal meaning of that word must be considered when translating it.

Regarding prescription, checking TLFi this time,

A. DR…
B. 1. Commandement, précepte, règle à suivre.
2. Ordre formel, catégorique. I’ll come back to those.

In his comment to AllegroTrans’s answer, Mpoma wrote “I think these are clearly time periods, i.e. something similar to "limitation periods" (but in fact "retention periods")”

“Clearly”?

I can’t see that the text explicitly mentions anywhere délai de prescription, which is what I think he must have meant, a phrase one would expect in this context if he were right. Apart from this inaccuracy in terminology, my issue here is that legally, délais de prescription apply, not to the period of time during which documents must be retained (Mpoma’s argument), but to the time beyond which parties may no longer bring an action (délai de prescription d’une action or “time limitation” in English if I’m not mistaken).
Cf. Le lien entre durée légale de conservation et prescription (https://bpifrance-creation.fr/encyclopedie/gerer-piloter-len...

Besides, from a grammatical point of view, I note that prescriptions is in the plural in the text. This, to me, indicates “clearly” that this is about rules. If Mpoma were right, we’d have délais de prescription.

In fact, I read prescriptions as règles à suivre , i.e. what the law (here) says (see TLFi above), “provisions”, so not far from what Emmanuella suggested in her comment to Mpoma’s answer and which he dismissed de manière un peu cavalière if I may say so.

All this makes me think that Conor’s answer is right, or at least as close as possible to what the text says : augmentée des prescriptions légales > extended as set out in law.

On the other hand, Mpoma, I’m afraid, is overtranslating here: there is nothing explicit about any retention period in Lara's sentence (which is not to say, of course, that this is not what the text is about). I can't help feeling Mpoma is wrong, but I won't write it. This would be rude.


--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 day 8 mins (2022-08-31 21:06:51 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Oops - these tags!