Here’s a translation I saw recently:
Weitere Ansprüche bestehen unbeschadet Ziffer 4 nicht.
Notwithstanding Section 4, no further claims shall be allowed.
(§ 4 permits some claims)
I probably would have written:
Subject to number 4 below, there shall be no other claims.
I always write ‘below’ or ‘above’ when citing from the same document – it’s normal English-language legal practice. I am not sure about ‘section’ for a contract, but suppose it’s OK. I think ‘allowed’ is a bit free for ‘bestehen’.
Unbeschadet is given in Dietl as follows:
without prejudice to; notwithstanding
Note the semi-colon: these really are two different meanings. To me, notwithstanding would mean ‘No matter what rubbish number 4 says, just ignore it: there are no other claims’, whereas subject to means ‘There are no other claims, but this statement doesn’t affect number 4: the claims in number 4 do exist’.
Romain has: notwithstanding, irrespective of, without affecting, without prejudice to, not in derogation of, saving
von Beseler/Jacobs-Wüstefeld has: without prejudice/detriment to; without affecting; [einer Forderung, etc.] apart from; irrespective of; regardless of; notwithstanding, [Lat] non obstante; saving; [einer Bestimmung] subject to
Lister/Veth has: without prejudice to; regardless of; notwithstanding
This came up in ProZ once. I think the asker was right to choose ‘without prejudice to any claim for damages’.
Or am I splitting hairs?