Background
M. [P] applied to be included on the Bordeaux Court of Appeal’s list of judicial experts in the specialties of Bengali interpreting and Bengali translation. On November 14, 2025, the general assembly of that court’s sitting judges rejected his application, finding that he had not demonstrated sufficient qualifications in the requested specialties or training in judicial expert work.
M. [P] sought annulment of that decision before the Court of Cassation. He argued that he was already registered through December 31, 2025, on the Colmar Court of Appeal’s list of judicial experts for Bengali interpreting and translation. His Bordeaux application form disclosed that he had been registered in Colmar since 2023.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Cassation held that the Bordeaux judges improperly examined M. [P]’s application as an initial application subject to the probationary-registration framework. Under Article 16 of Decree No. 2004-1463 of December 23, 2004, an expert already registered with one court of appeal may apply for five-year re-registration with another court of appeal without undergoing that initial probationary process.
The Court emphasized that Bordeaux should have classified and assessed M. [P]’s request as an application for re-registration. Article 16 conditions re-registration in categories other than translation on the transfer of the applicant’s principal professional activity—or, if the applicant is no longer professionally active, the applicant’s residence—to the jurisdiction of the new court of appeal. Without addressing M. [P]’s remaining grounds, the Court annulled the November 14, 2025 decision insofar as it refused his re-registration in Bengali interpreting and translation. It did not itself order that he be registered.
Key Takeaways
- A judicial expert already listed by one court of appeal must have a qualifying application to another court assessed as a re-registration request, rather than automatically as an initial probationary application.
- The five-year re-registration route is subject, outside the translation category, to Article 16’s requirement concerning transfer of the expert’s principal professional activity or, for a person no longer professionally active, residence to the new court’s jurisdiction.
- The ruling annulled the refusal because Bordeaux applied the wrong procedural framework; it did not decide that M. [P] was entitled to registration on the merits.
Why It Matters
The decision clarifies that a court of appeal must account for an applicant’s existing status as a judicial expert when determining which registration framework applies. A disclosed listing with another court cannot be disregarded in favor of treating the request as a first-time application.
The ruling also preserves the limits of Article 16: exemption from the initial probationary process does not eliminate the statutory conditions governing re-registration, including the territorial condition applicable to specialties other than translation.