Traduction de «Track judge » (Anglais → Français) :

track judge | course judge

interim injunction judge | judge hearing applications for interim relief | judge hearing applications for provisional relief | judge hearing interim injunction proceedings | judge hearing the application for interim relief | judge in interlocutory proceedings | summary trial judge

judge for track events

challenge [ challenge to a judge | challenge to a juror | challenge to a lay magistrate | challenge to an arbitrator | challenge to a referee | challenge to a witness | challenge to evidence | challenge to jurors | challenge to testimony | jury challenge | recusal of a judge | recusation of a judge ]

Judge acting as Rapporteur | Judge who acts as Rapporteur | Judge-Rapporteur

judge's decision | judge's order | judge's ruling

finish judge | finishing judge | judge at the finish | finish line judge

judge | ground judge | floor judge

In the first step, the Commission judges that three fast track services are likely to satisfy these criteria and proceed into a pilot operational phase.

Judge MacKenzie, to his benefit, said that the most important thing VIA Rail has to do to make sure they have a railway is to make sure they have a rightage of track, that they can get on the track and run their trains.

(Return tabled) Question No. 170 Hon. Irwin Cotler: With regard to the victims' surcharge: (a) for each of the last ten years, broken down by province and year; how much was collected; (b) broken down by program and service, how was the money in (a) spent; (c) broken down by province and year, in what percent of cases was a surcharge imposed; (d) since the enactment of the Increasing Offenders’ Accountability for Victims Act (IOAVA), how much, broken down by province and territory, has been collected; (e) for the ten years prior to the enactment of the IOAVA, how much money has the government given to victims' programs and services, broken down by program or service; (f) for the ten years prior to the enactment of the IOAVA, how much ...[+++]money has the government transferred to provinces for victims' programs and services, broken down by program or service; (g) for the ten years prior to the enactment of the IOAVA, broken down by year and province, in how many cases did a judge provide more than 20 years for surcharge repayment; (h) for the ten years prior to the enactment of the IOAVA, broken down by year and province, what were the mean, median, mode, and value of surcharges collected; (i) since the enactment of the IOAVA, broken down by year and province, what were the mean, median, and mode, and value of surcharges collected; (j) since the enactment of the IOAVA, how much money has the government given to victims' programs and services, broken down by program or service; (k) since the enactment of the IOAVA, in what specific cases, broken down by province, has a surcharge not been imposed; (l) since the enactment of the IOAVA, in what specific cases, broken down by province, has the collection of a surcharge been delayed more than 20 years; (m) prior to the enactment of the IOAVA, in which specific cases was the constitutionality of the surcharge challenged; (n) prior to the enactment of the IOAVA, in which specific cases did the Crown appeal on a matte ...

12. Welcomes the adoption of the Strategy and the Action Plan on the reform of the judiciary 2013-2018, built around the key principles of independence, impartiality, competence, quality of the judiciary and freedom from political interference; urges the authorities to intensify this reform in line with the recommendations of the Venice Commission, especially with regard to the role of the parliament in judicial appointments and the independence of the prosecution, and with a view to the screening process of Chapter 23, which commenced on 25 September 2013; stresses the importance of strengthening the independence of High Judicial and State Prosecutorial Councils and reducing the backlog of cases, as a necessary condition for the successf ...[+++]ul sequencing of the entire reform process; calls on the authorities to provide all the necessary resources for the Judicial Academy, which should be instrumental in guaranteeing merit-based recruitments; emphasises the need for continuous training of judges and prosecutors to deal with complex financial cases and economic crimes; urges the authorities responsible to ensure a transparent and merit-based process of appointment of judges and prosecutors as well as a solid track-record of disciplinary proceedings against the judicial personnel; insists further on the need to ensure timely justice together with the unification of jurisprudence, the publication of, and easy access to, all judicial decisions immediately after adoption and the random allocation of cases in all courts; is concerned about the legal uncertainty arising from the number of judges carrying out their duties in acting capacity; reiterates the fact that a strong and independent judiciary is key to Serbia’s capacity to meet EU membership criteria;