Evolution of Administrative Justice: From Held-in-Abeyance to Delegated Justice in France
Download
Read an extract
Themes
Administrative justice, rule of law, delegated justice, held-in-abeyance justice, jurisdictional legitimacy, Council of State, Cadot judgment, administrative judge, sovereignty, jurisdictional organization, France, judicial power, executive, administrative law, jurisdictional autonomy, law of May 24 1872, jurisdictional emancipation, administrative disputes, abuse of power, administrative jurisdiction, French legal system, minister-judges, jurisdictional evolution, administrative jurisprudence, public authority, legal framework, State, independence of judges, jurisdictional independence, administrative courts, judicial courts, jurisdictional separation, jurisdictional foundation, legitimacy of administrative justice, administrative judge independence
Reader
Abstract
Extract
of 5
Abstract
Unlock the evolution of French administrative justice and discover how the transition from held-in-abeyance justice to delegated justice established its autonomy and legitimacy. Explore the pivotal Cadot judgment of 1889, which marked a significant shift towards a sovereign administrative judge and the Council of State's role as the common law judge in administrative matters. Understand how delegated justice, founded on the independence of judges and separation from political power, has become the cornerstone of the French legal system, ensuring harmony between public authorities and citizens. Learn about the historical development and key milestones that have shaped administrative justice, from the abandonment of minister-judges to the emancipation of the Council of State as a full-fledged jurisdiction. Dive into the intricacies of administrative law and its significance in modern governance.
Extract
[...] However, it is not enough to ensure the full legitimacy of administrative justice in the eyes of the citizens and the actors of the State. II. From fragility to recognition: the foundation of the jurisdictional legitimacy of a delegated justice This recognition passes first through the abandonment of minister-judges giving birth to a sovereign administrative judge until a jurisdictional legitimacy and fully integrated into the rule of law A. The birth of a sovereign administrative judge The true decisive moment concerning the creation of the legitimacy of administrative justice occurs when the Cadot judgment of 1889 marks the suppression of the system of minister-judges. [...]
[...] Later, the Constitution of the Year VIII created the Council of State, illustrating this progressive evolution in 1799. At first, the Council of State advises the government above all. It does not definitively settle disputes. The executive tutelage remains present, as shown by the validation of decisions by the head of state. Nevertheless, this stage represents a fundamental break, it establishes the foundations of an independent administrative justice, separated from the judicial courts, and puts forward the idea of an expert institution in administrative disputes that will evolve gradually. [...]
[...] It personifies in reality the preeminence of the administrative magistrate who is no longer really subject to the executive power. It can thus render definitive decisions, and its authority also affects the administration itself. The judge is no longer considered as an agent of the executive, but rather as an impartial and competent arbitrator. He can ensure the rights of citizens and watch over the legality of administrative actions. This step thus marks the creation of a legitimate and independent administrative judge, firmly establishing a modern judicial device. [...]
[...] Thus, from the dogma that all justice emanates from law, held-in-abeyance justice can be qualified as the possibility for the king to intervene in the normal course of ordinary justice. Held-in-abeyance justice is therefore a system in which neither judges nor magistrates were totally independent, the king remained the supreme judge. The difference is that delegated justice is a mode of organization in which the sovereign, then the State, entrusts specialized jurisdictions with the power to administer justice in its name. [...]
[...] A gradual breaking away from executive tutelage During the Ancien Régime, justice was indeed a prerogative of the sovereign. In fact, the supreme power to judge was retained by the king or his representatives, and the judges were not independent. This very concentration of powers also implied a close association between the executive and justice. In reality, the administration could therefore influence the judgments. The magistrates and courts could not freely settle disputes where the State or its agents were involved, which then limited the protection of the administered. [...]
