Background
Mme [G], a judicial expert registered with the Toulouse Court of Appeal, sought to transfer her registration to the Pau Court of Appeal for English- and Romanian-language interpreting and translation. On December 3, 2025, the general assembly of the Pau court’s sitting judges rejected her application because it had not been sent before March 1, 2025.
Mme [G] sought annulment of that decision. She argued that she did not know by March 1 that she would move, that she applied as soon as she could document her new residence, and that Article 16 of Decree No. 2004-1463 imposed no specific deadline for transfers. She maintained that Article 10’s March 1 deadline applied only to ordinary five-year renewal applications and that the refusal unexpectedly disrupted her existing registration, which was valid through 2029.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Cassation rejected the challenge. Reading Articles 10 and 16 of Decree No. 2004-1463 together, it held that an expert’s request to transfer registration from one court of appeal’s list to another is a request for five-year re-registration. The request therefore must be sent to the second court of appeal before March 1 for inclusion on that court’s list established for the following year.
The Court explained that, during the interval, the first president of the original court of appeal may maintain the expert on the original list upon proof that the expert applied to another court. The Pau assembly therefore correctly concluded that Mme [G] should have sent her application for the 2026 list before March 1, 2025. The Court also held that a decision not to re-register an expert is neither a sanction nor a refusal or restriction of an advantage constituting a right, does not determine a dispute over pre-existing civil rights or obligations, and consequently falls outside Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Key Takeaways
- A transfer between courts of appeal under Article 16 is treated as a five-year re-registration request.
- The expert must send the transfer application before March 1 for registration on the receiving court’s list established for the following year.
- Refusal to re-register a judicial expert does not, by itself, engage Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Why It Matters
The ruling clarifies that the annual March 1 deadline applies not only to ordinary five-year renewals but also to transfers prompted by a change in an expert’s principal professional activity or residence. A later-arising move does not displace that deadline.
The decision also emphasizes the statutory mechanism for continuity: while the receiving court considers a properly filed application, the first president of the original court may maintain the expert’s existing registration.