Translation of "Reporting Clerk an Administrative Court Appeal " (English → French) :

ATTEND IN PERSON AT THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL AND REPORT TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT OF APPEAL, ROOM 330, LAW COURTS BUILDING, WINNIPEG, NO LATER THAN TEN MINUTES BEFORE THE SCHEDULED HEARING OF THE APPEAL

63. The clerk or other proper officer of the court appealed from shall, on payment to that clerk or officer of the proper fees and expenses of transmission, transmit the case, as soon as may be after service on the clerk or officer of the notice of appeal, to the Registrar, and further proceedings shall thereupon be had according to the practice of the Supreme Court.

63. The clerk or other proper officer of the court appealed from shall, on payment to that clerk or officer of the proper fees and expenses of transmission, transmit the case, as soon as may be after service on the clerk or officer of the notice of appeal, to the Registrar, and further proceedings shall thereupon be had according to the practice of the Supreme Court.

49. Notes with great concern the Commission’s interim report on the progress made by Bulgaria under the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism; is concerned at the continuing parlous state of the Bulgarian legal system; notes that 27 criminal proceedings are under way against 28 judges; asks for clarification regarding a series of cases of alleged fraud in connection with Union funds in Bulgaria, causing a suspension of payments in 2008 in which the public prosecutor’s office suspended the investigations, even though the investigations into similar cases based on the same facts continued in another Member State; is astonished that, in all cases of fraud involving Union funds which were brought before the ...[+++]courts, criminal prosecution was replaced by administrative fines, and that an important case of fraud involving Union funds has been delayed in appeal in court for over 18 months; deplores, furthermore, the disregard of the Commission’s recommendation in not authorising the National Commission for the Identification and Forfeiture of Criminal Assets (CEPACA) to undertake pro-active asset verification of senior officials and politicians; is concerned that the unified, prompt, systematic publication of substantiated judgments is not the norm in Bulgaria; calls on the Commission to put pressure on the judicial authorities to increase their efforts to reform and to implement the Commission’s recommendations as soon as possible; calls on the Commission in this context to disclose how much funding has been allocated to supporting Bulgaria’s efforts to reform and to assess the extent to which the payments have achieved the promised results; expects to see serious improvements over the coming year, with further considerations and a series of measures drawn up by the Commission in cooperation with the Bulgarian government for re-establishing the integrity of Bulgaria’s legal system;

18. Takes the view that scrutiny of the legality of the agency's legal acts must be dealt with clearly and comprehensibly in the instrument establishing that agency, which, depending on the nature of the agency's tasks, provides that the Court of Justice is responsible for ruling on appeals made against acts of the agency under ...[+++]the conditions laid down in Article 230 of the EC Treaty, that administrative complaints against the agency's acts may be brought before the Commission and that an appeal for annulment might then be brought against the Commission's decision before the Court of Justice. Alternatively, the instrument establishing the agency may stipulate that the agency's acts are, firstly, subject to an internal appeal before independent boards of appeal and that their decisions may then be submitted to the Court's consideration;

Similar circumstances were found in case Vallee v France. The court considered that Article 6(1) of the Convention had been violated on the grounds of the excessive duration of compensation hearings before the administrative authorities (four years, and they had not yet ended when the plaintiff appealed to the ECHR, since the time limit for appealing to the higher court did not expire until 4 May 1994).