Traduction de «tribunal siégeant en amirauté » (Français → Anglais) :

(6) If the judge to whom the application is made under subrule (4), after reviewing the grounds upon which the appellant in the notice of appeal requests an extension of time, the report of the trial judge under rule 13 and any submissions filed by the Attorney General or the appellant under subrule (5), is of the opinion that an extension of time should be refused, the judge shall prepare reasons for the refusal, and the file shall then be referred to two members of the criminal panel.

In September 2016, first instance jurisdiction in European Union civil service cases and the seven posts of the Judges sitting at the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (‘Civil Service Tribunal’) should be transferred to the General Court, on the basis of the legislative request already announced by the Court of Justice.

To cover the more than 70 fields of technology, seven such technical experts (assistant rapporteurs) are foreseen for the first instance Community Patent Court in the following sub-divisions (1) inorganic chemistry and materials science, (2) organic and polymer chemistry, (3) biochemistry and biotechnology, (4) general physics, (5) mechanical engineering, (6) information and communication technology and (7) electrical engineering.

Paragraph 2 of Article 61a of the Statute as amended proposes that the judges sitting in the patent appeal chamber of the Court of First Instance should be judges having a high level of legal expertise in patent law.

Unlike the judges of the Court of Justice and the Court First Instance who are appointed by common accord of the governments of the Member States, the judges of a judicial panel are appointed by a unanimous decision of the Council.

In that regard, the Civil Service Tribunal took the view that while the examiners marking the written tests, in contrast to the members of the selection board sitting in the oral phase, may admittedly not be known to the persons concerned, and are thereby protected from interference and pressures to which the judgment in Parliament v Innamorati, paragraph 16 above, refers, that circumstance does not objectively justify the existence of significant differences between the requirements concerning the statement of reasons in the case of failure in the written phase, as those requirements are formulated in the case-law cited in paragraph 39 ...[+++]of the judgment under appeal, and those advocated by the Commission in the case of failure in the oral test, which, in particular in the instant case, would consist in giving the applicant only his eliminatory individual mark.