Background
Mme [Y] [R] had been registered on a probationary basis since January 1, 2023, on the Lyon Court of Appeal’s list of judicial experts in adult psychiatry. Anticipating a move to the Toulouse Court of Appeal’s jurisdiction, she applied in January 2025 to transfer her registration under Article 16 of Decree No. 2004-1463 of December 23, 2004.
On November 21, 2025, the general assembly of judges of the Toulouse Court of Appeal rejected her request for registration on its 2026 list because her Lyon registration was probationary. Mme [R] challenged that decision, arguing that Article 16 did not bar a transfer requested near the end of a probationary period. She also stated that Lyon had removed her from its list effective December 31, 2025, while she still had numerous assignments pending.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Cassation held that Toulouse misapplied Article 16. That provision permits an expert to seek five-year registration with another court of appeal without undergoing a new probationary registration, subject—outside the translation category—to transferring the expert’s principal professional activity, or residence if no longer professionally active, into the receiving court’s jurisdiction.
Although Mme [R] was still registered on a probationary basis when Toulouse considered her application, the requested registration was to take effect in 2026, after her probationary period had ended. Toulouse therefore could not reject the application on the ground that her registration was probationary.
The Court partially annulled the November 21, 2025 decision only insofar as it refused Mme [R]’s registration. It did not itself order her placement on the Toulouse list.
Key Takeaways
- An expert’s probationary status when applying does not by itself bar an Article 16 transfer when the requested registration would begin after the probationary period ends.
- The relevant timing is the effective date of the requested registration, not merely the applicant’s status when the application is considered.
- Annulment of the refusal does not amount to an order registering the expert or guarantee approval of the application.
Why It Matters
The judgment clarifies how French appellate courts must assess the timing of transfer applications by probationary judicial experts. A court may not treat probationary status as automatically disqualifying when that status will have ended before the proposed registration takes effect.
The decision remains procedurally limited: it removes the stated legal basis for Toulouse’s refusal and annuls that refusal as to Mme [R], but leaves any further consideration of her registration to the appropriate authorities.