Traduction de «Constituer un jury » (Français → Anglais) :

empanel a jury [ impanel a jury ]

bailiff | trial consultant | court jury coordinator | jury consultant

Definition: Persistent eating of non-nutritive substances (such as soil, paint chippings, etc.). It may occur as one of many symptoms that are part of a more widespread psychiatric disorder (such as autism), or as a relatively isolated psychopathological behaviour; only the latter is classified here. The phenomenon is most common in mentally retarded children and, if mental retardation is also present, F70-F79 should be selected as the main diagnosis.

The Jury Act, 1998 [ An Act respecting Jurors and Juries | The Jury Act, 1981 | The Jury Act ]

be tried without a jury [ be tried by a judge without a jury ]

speak with jurors | speak with jury | communicate with jury | interact with jury

manage juror activities | supervise jury activities | direct juror activities | guide jury activities

642 (1) If a full jury and any alternate jurors considered advisable cannot be provided notwithstanding that the relevant provisions of this Part have been complied with, the court may, at the request of the prosecutor, order the sheriff or other proper officer to summon without delay as many persons, whether qualified jurors or not, as the court directs for the purpose of providing a full jury and alternate jurors.

9. The judge designated under subsection 745.61(5) of the Criminal Code shall make all necessary arrangements with the applicant and the Attorney General for the conduct of the hearing, including the fixing of the date and place for the empanelling of a jury and the hearing of the application.

Having regard to the secrecy which must surround the proceedings of a selection board, communication of the marks obtained in the various tests constitutes an adequate statement of the reasons on which the board’s decisions are based, since the board is not required to identify the candidates’ answers which were considered unsatisfactory or to explain why they were considered unsatisfactory (Parliament v Innamorati, paragraphs 23 to 31.Martínez Páramo and Others v Commission, paragraphs 43 to 52; judgment of 30 April 2008 in Case F-16/07 Dragoman v Commission, paragraph 63).

In the present case, it should be noted, first, that, as the ground for the refusal to send the applicant her marked written tests (b) and (c), the e-mail of 14 September 2009 refers to Article 6 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations, which provides that the proceedings of the selection board are to be secret; secondly, that, as is apparent from the case-law cited in the preceding paragraph, since the communication of marks obtained in the tests constitutes an adequate statement of the reasons, the board is not required to identify which of the candidates’ answers were considered unsatisfactory; lastly, Section III. 3 of the Guide for ...[+++] Applicants, a document which was available to the applicant, makes no provision for candidates to be sent their marked written tests.