Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2pzkn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-15T10:30:28.968Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Strength and Weakness of French Administrative Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2009

Prosper Weil
Get access

Extract

It is often said that the French system of judicial control of the Administration is one of the best existing today. The French have no difficulty in believing this, and although Common Law jurists have long been influenced by Dicey, who wrote at a time when Administrative Law was different from that which we know today, they, also, are becoming aware of the merits of the work of the French Conseil d'Etat: Professor Hamson is in no small way responsible for this change of attitude. Moreover, the adoption of the French Administrative Law techniques by the European Communities and their introduction, albeit hesitantly, into the Law of International Organisations have also contributed towards increasing its reputation. Yet, at the very moment when it seems to have become an excellent product for export, the merits and the efficacy of French Administrative Law are causing considerable doubts among the French themselves. It has become fashionable to criticise what was unreservedly praised, and one wonders if adulation will give way to systematic denigration. The answer, not surprisingly, is to be found between the two extremes. The French system comprises elements both of strength and of weakness. This lecture is an attempt to evaluate these elements.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Cambridge Law Journal , Volume 23 , Issue 2 , November 1965 , pp. 242 - 259
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge Law Journal and Contributors 1965

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

2 The Law of Nations, 6th ed., 1963, p. 48.Google Scholar

3 C. E. December 13, 1957, Trottier, Rec. 681. Cf. Trib. confl., February 8, 1873, Blanco, Rec. 61; G.A. (Les Grands Arrêts de la Jurisprudence Administrative, by Long, Weil and Braibant, 4th ed., 1965Google Scholar, No. 1). See de Laubadère, , Traité élémentaire de droit administratif, 3rd ed., Vol. I, 1963Google Scholar, Nos. 1162 and 1163; Vedel, Droit administratif, 3rd ed., 1964, p. 238 et seq.; Rivero, Droit administratif, 3rd ed., 1965, No. 272 et seq.

4 De Laubadère, op. cit., Vol. II, Nos. 403 and 413, and the cases there cited.

5 C.E. December 18, 1959, Société Les Films LutetiaGoogle Scholar, Rec. 693; G.A., No. 108.

6 C.E. December 5, 1956, ThibaultGoogle Scholar, Rec. 463.

7 C.E. February 24, 1961, IsnardonGoogle Scholar, Rec. 150; October 26, 1962, Le MoultGoogle Scholar, Rec. 580.

8 C.E. May 19, 1933, BenjaminGoogle Scholar, Rec. 541; G.A., No. 56.

9 C.E. May 28, 1954, BarelGoogle Scholar, Rec. 308; G.A., No. 98.

10 C.E. November 20, 1964, Ville de NanterreGoogle Scholar, Rec. 563. Cf. C.E. May 30, 1930, Chambre syndicate du commerce en détail de NeversGoogle Scholar, Rec. 583; G.A., No. 52. See Waline, Droit administratif, 9th ed., 1963, No. 540 et seq.; de Laubadère, , op. cit., Vol. IGoogle Scholar, Nos. 1016–1017.

11 Rivero, op. cit., No. 73 et seq.; Waline, op. cit., No. 762 et seq.; Vedel, op. cit., p. 199 et seq.; de Laubadère, , op. cit., Vol. IGoogle Scholar, No. 379.

12 C.E. March 9, 1951, Société des concerts du ConservatoireGoogle Scholar, Rec. 151; G.A., No. 87.

13 C.E. June 22, 1951, DaudignacGoogle Scholar, Rec. 362; G.A., No. 88.

14 C.E. May 5, 1944, Dame Veuve Trompier-GravierGoogle Scholar, Rec. 133; G.A., No. 71.

15 C.E. February 17, 1950, Dame LamotteGoogle Scholar, Rec. 110; G.A., No. 84.

16 C.E. December 12, 1953, de BayoGoogle Scholar, Rec. 544.

17 C.E. July 31, 1942, MompeurtGoogle Scholar, Rec. 239; G.A., No. 68; January 13, 1961, MagnierGoogle Scholar, Rec. 33. See Weil, Le droit administratif, 1964, p. 36 et seq.

18 C.E. January 27, 1961, VannierGoogle Scholar, Rec. 60; February 15, 1961, WerquinGoogle Scholar, Rec. 118.

19 C.E. March 2, 1962, Rubin de ServensGoogle Scholar, Rec. 143.

20 C.E. November 24, 1961, Fédération nationale des syndicats de policeGoogle Scholar, Rec. 658. Cf. C.E. December 6, 1907, Compagnie des chemins de fer de l'Est, Rec. 913; G.A., No. 20.Google Scholar

21 Vedel, op. cit., p. 35 et seq.

22 C.E. June 26, 1959, Syndicat général des ingénieurs-conseilsGoogle Scholar, Rec. 394; G.A., No. 107.

23 C.E. October 19, 1962, CanalGoogle Scholar, Rec. 552.

24 Décrets du 30 juillet 1963. Cf. Drago, La réforme du Conseil d'Etat, Actualité juridique 1963, p. 524 et seq.

25 Waline, op. cit., No. 357 et seq.; Vedel, op. cit., p. 220 et seq.; Rivero, op. cit., No. 155 et seq.; de Laubadère, op. cit., No. 412 et seq.; Auby and Drago, Traité de contentieux administratif, 1963, Vol. IGoogle Scholar, No. 61 et seq.

26 Vedel, loc. cit.

27 C.E. February 19, 1875, Prince Napoléon, Rec. 155; G.A., No. 3.

28 See Rivero, Le systéme français de protection des citoyens contre l'arbitraire à l'épreuve des faits, Dabin, Mélanges (1963), Vol. II, p. 813Google Scholaret seq.

29 Cf. Rivero, Le Huron au Palais-Royal, ou: réflexions naïves sur le recours pour excès de pouvoir, Dalloz 1962, Chroniques, p. 37.

30 See note 28.

31 C.E. October 23, 1964, D'OrianoGoogle Scholar, Rec. 486.

32 See Auby, and Drago, , op. cit., Vol. IIGoogle Scholar, No. 1086.

33 See note 9.

34 Article cited note 28.