Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Contemporary French Administrative Law 1St Edition John Bell Full Chapter PDF
Contemporary French Administrative Law 1St Edition John Bell Full Chapter PDF
https://ebookmass.com/product/eu-administrative-law-3rd-edition-
paul-craig/
https://ebookmass.com/product/understanding-administrative-law-
in-the-common-law-world-paul-daly/
https://ebookmass.com/product/examples-explanations-for-
administrative-law-examples-explanations-series-ebook-pdf/
https://ebookmass.com/product/administrative-law-and-politics-
cases-and-comments-5th-edition-ebook-pdf-version/
Principles of Administrative Law 3rd Edition Peter Cane
Leighton Mcdonald Kristen Rundle
https://ebookmass.com/product/principles-of-administrative-
law-3rd-edition-peter-cane-leighton-mcdonald-kristen-rundle/
https://ebookmass.com/product/blondie-sailboat-boat-plans-john-
bell/
https://ebookmass.com/product/etextbook-pdf-for-contemporary-
business-law-8th-edition/
https://ebookmass.com/product/contemporary-french-security-
policy-in-africa-on-ideas-and-wars-1st-ed-2020-edition-benedikt-
erforth/
https://ebookmass.com/product/cypher-lord-of-the-fallen-john-
french/
Title
CONTEMPORARY
Author
Subtitle
FRENCH
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
Title
Back copy
Illustration credit
Despite the growing scholarly interest in comparative public law, there remain
relatively few works on the subject. Contemporary French Administrative Law aims
to redress that imbalance, offering English-language readers an authoritative
introduction to the key features of French administrative law and its institutions.
The French legal system is among the most well-developed and influential in the
world, and, as procedures continually adapt to European and international
influences, it has never been more worthy of research, study and interrogation.
This book employs a wide range of recent, illustrative cases to demonstrate how
French administrative law works both in theory and in practice. Using a systematic
approach and covering everything from judicial review to public contracts, this is a
highly valuable text for any student or researcher with an interest in French law.
The book is also available as Open Access.
FRANÇOIS LICHÈRE
Université Jean Moulin Lyon 3
University Printing House, Cambridge cb2 8bs, United Kingdom
One Liberty Plaza, 20th Floor, New York, ny 10006, USA
477 Williamstown Road, Port Melbourne, vic 3207, Australia
314–321, 3rd Floor, Plot 3, Splendor Forum, Jasola District Centre,
New Delhi – 110025, India
103 Penang Road, #05–06/07, Visioncrest Commercial, Singapore 238467
www.cambridge.org
Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9781316511169
doi: 10.1017/9781009057127
© John Bell and François Lichère 2022
This work is in copyright. It is subject to statutory exceptions and to the provisions of
relevant licensing agreements; with the exception of the Creative Commons version the
link for which is provided below, no reproduction of any part of this work may take
place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press.
An online version of this work is published at doi.org/10.1017/9781009057127 under a
Creative Commons Open Access license CC-BY-NC 4.0 which permits re-use,
distribution and reproduction in any medium for non-commercial purposes providing
appropriate credit to the original work is given and any changes made are indicated. To
view a copy of this license visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0
All versions of this work may contain content reproduced under license from third
parties.
Permission to reproduce this third-party content must be obtained from these third-
parties directly.
When citing this work, please include a reference to the DOI 10.1017/9781009057127
First published 2022
A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library.
isbn 978-1-316-51116-9 Hardback
isbn 978-1-009-05666-3 Paperback
Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of
URLs for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this publication
and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain,
accurate or appropriate.
Contents
1 Introduction 1
1.1 French Administrative Law in British Scholarship 1
1.2 What Is ‘Droit administratif’? 4
1.3 The Shaping of Droit administratif 5
1.4 The Influence of French Constitutional Law 7
1.5 The Influence of EU Law: French Administrative Law
and the Supremacy of EU Law 10
1.6 The Influence of the European Convention on Human
Rights 14
1.7 Reform of the Administration 21
1.8 A Note about Case Citation 24
2 The Institutional and Legal Context of Administrative Law 26
2.1 The Central Organs of the State 26
2.1.1 The Executive 27
2.1.2 The Legislature 28
2.2 The Local Organs of the State 30
2.2.1 Regional Administration 30
2.2.2 Département 32
2.2.3 The Commune 32
2.2.4 The Big Cities: Paris, Lyon, Marseille (PLM) 33
v
vi Contents
Index 307
Preface
xiii
xiv Preface
and academics met with British judges and academics, often supplemented by
members of the European courts and some national jurisdictions. These
meetings enabled us to test out the extent of differences between the different
legal traditions and to understand contemporary points of convergence and
divergence. We are grateful in particular to the former president of the Section
du Contentieux, Bernard Stirn, who made possible these meetings.
Particularly important in organising those meetings and in shaping our ideas
were Mattias Guyomar (now of the European Court of Human Rights) and
Duncan Fairgrieve. Among the active participants was Lord Reed, whose
insights into British and European laws was particularly helpful.
John Bell owes a particular debt of gratitude to Neville Brown, who gave a
young academic opportunities to work on French law, and who was a cheerful
and supportive collaborator. We shared membership of Pembroke College
Cambridge. Roger Errera gave an opportunity to be a stagiaire in the Conseil
d’Etat for six months in 1986, which provided the chance to understand how
French administrative law operates in practice. Tony Bradley gave the first
chance to write on comparative administrative law, bringing contacts with
French lawyers and judges.
François Lichère owes debt to the members of the Conseil d’Etat just
quoted, who embody French administrative law and helped him to better
understand the rationale of French administrative law. He is also indebted to
John Bell and Duncan Fairgrieve for introducing him to English administra-
tive law, which in turn helped him to better understand French administra-
tive law.
We have tried to make the text accurate up to 1 May 2021. The production
process in the period of the Covid-19 pandemic has inevitably been longer
than usual, but we hope this has not affected the currency of what we have
written.
Abbreviations
xv
xvi List of Abbreviations
xvii
xviii Table of Cases by Date
(continued)
(continued)
(continued)
(continued)
(continued)
(continued)
(continued)
(continued)
(continued)
(continued)
(continued)
(continued)
(continued)
(continued)
(continued)
(continued)
(continued)
(continued)
xxxviii
Table of Cases by Name xxxix
(continued)
(continued)
(continued)
(continued)
(continued)
ON A JURY.
Year after year, and term after term, the great case of Table Mountain
Tunnel vs. New York Tunnel, used to be called in the Court held at Sonora,
Tuolumne County. The opposing claims were on opposite sides of the great
mountain wall, which here described a semicircle. When these two claims
were taken up, it was supposed the pay streak followed the Mountain’s
course; but it had here taken a freak to shoot straight across a flat formed by
the curve. Into this ground, at first deemed worthless, both parties were
tunnelling. The farther they tunnelled, the richer grew the pay streak. Every
foot was worth a fortune. Both claimed it. The law was called upon to settle
the difficulty. The law was glad, for it had then many children in the county
who needed fees. Our lawyers ran their tunnels into both of these rich
claims, nor did they stop boring until they had exhausted the cream of that
pay streak. Year after year, Table Mountain vs. New York Tunnel Company
was tried, judgment rendered first for one side and then for the other, then
appealed to the Supreme Court, sent back, and tried over, until, at last, it
had become so encumbered with legal barnacles, parasites, and cobwebs,
that none other than the lawyers knew or pretended to know aught of the
rights of the matter. Meantime, the two rival companies kept hard at work,
day and night. Every ounce over the necessary expense of working their
claims and feeding and clothing their bodies, went to maintain lawyers. The
case became one of the institutions of the county. It outlived several judges
and attorneys. It grew plethoric with affidavits and other documentary
evidence. Men died, and with their last breath left some word still further to
confuse the great Table Mountain vs. New York Tunnel case. The county
town throve during this yearly trial. Each side brought a small army of
witnesses, who could swear and fill up any and every gap in their respective
chains of evidence. It involved the history, also, of all the mining laws made
since “ ’49.” Eventually, jurors competent to try this case became very
scarce. Nearly every one had “sat on it,” or had read or heard or formed an
opinion concerning it, or said they had. The Sheriff and his deputies
ransacked the hills and gulches of Tuolumne for new Table Mountain vs.
New York Tunnel jurors. At last, buried in an out-of-the-way gulch, they
found me. I was presented with a paper commanding my appearance at the
county town, with various pains and penalties affixed, in case of refusal. I
obeyed. I had never before formed the twelfth of a jury. In my own
estimation, I rated only as the twenty-fourth. We were sworn in: sworn to
try the case to the best of our ability; it was ridiculous that I should swear to
this, for internally I owned I had no ability at all as a juror. We were put in
twelve arm-chairs. The great case was called. The lawyers, as usual, on
either side, opened by declaring their intentions to prove themselves all
right and their opponents all wrong. I did not know which was the plaintiff,
which the defendant. Twenty-four witnesses on one side swore to
something, to anything, to everything; thirty-six on the other swore it all
down again. They thus swore against each other for two days and a half.
The Court was noted for being an eternal sitter. He sat fourteen hours per
day. The trial lasted five days. Opposing counsel, rival claimants, even
witnesses, all had maps, long, brilliant, parti-colored maps of their claims,
which they unrolled and held before us and swung defiantly at each other.
The sixty witnesses testified from 1849 up to 1864. After days of such
testimony, as to ancient boundary lines and ancient mining laws, the
lawyers on either side, still more to mystify the case, caucused the matter
over and concluded to throw out about half of such testimony as being
irrelevant. But they could not throw it out of our memories. The “summing
up” lasted two days more. By this time, I was a mere idiot in the matter. I
had, at the start, endeavored to keep some track of the evidence, but they
managed to snatch every clue away as fast as one got hold of it. We were
“charged” by the judge and sent to the jury room. I felt like both a fool and
a criminal. I knew I had not the shadow of an opinion or a conclusion in the
matter. However, I found myself not alone. We were out all night. There
was a stormy time between the three or four jurymen who knew or
pretended to know something of the matter. The rest of us watched the
controversy, and, of course, sided with the majority. And, at last, a verdict
was agreed upon. It has made so little impression on my mind that I forget
now whom it favored. It did not matter. Both claims were then paying well,
and this was a sure indication that the case would go to the Supreme Court.
It did. This was in 1860. I think it made these yearly trips up to 1867. Then
some of the more obstinate and combative members of either claim died,
and the remainder concluded to keep some of the gold they were digging
instead of paying it out to fee lawyers. The Table Mountain vs. New York
Tunnel case stopped. All the lawyers, save two or three, emigrated to San
Francisco or went to Congress. I gained but one thing from my experience
in the matter—an opinion. It may or may not be right. It is that juries in
most cases are humbugs.
CHAPTER XXII.
PROSPECTING.