Extract
[...] Belgacem, an Algerian national, has no family ties with the country from which he possessesisof nationality. In addition, he has resided in France since his birth in 1958 remains his family with whom he has, with his brotherit isre eldest, assumingit is a part of the load following the decit iss of his pit isIn 1976. Although he was found guilty of several thefts in 1980 and 1982, it follows from his behavior, subsequent to the convictions entered in respect of these facts, that the expulsion measure taken against him, you regarding the gravity of the attack on his family life, exceeded what was necessary to the ddefense of public order, and that it is therefore contrary to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. [...]
[...] Therefore, in the case at hand, the Council of State considers that the provisions of the charter do not have direct effect since they only regulate relations between signatory States. This solution was subsequently reaffirmed, in particular in the judgment of 27 November 2015 'Commune d'Aix-en-Provence'. The argument based on the inconventionality of the legislative procedure will therefore be inoperative before the administrative judge. IV. Council of State April 1991, 'Belgacem' Hook : By a judgment of 19 April 1991 'Belgacem', the Council of State reversed its position regarding the control of police measures for foreigners. [...]
[...] This court also rejected his request by a judgment rendered on 20 June 2003, which is why he brought the matter before the Administrative Court of Appeal, seeking the annulment of the decision of the Treasurer, the decision of the Minister of Economy, Finance and Industry, and the judgment of the Paris Administrative Court. The Administrative Court of Appeal also having rejected his request for annulment in a judgment of 18 October 2006, he appealed to the Council of State. He argued, in particular, that the Franco-Russian agreement resulted in discrimination based on nationality, incompatible with Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Problem : Can the administrative judge control the validity of an international agreement in relation to another? Solution : The Council of State responds negatively and proceeds in two stages. [...]
[...] Facts: In this case, by a decree of 30 July 2015, the government called on voters for the regional elections. The present decree implementing the law of 16 January 2015 which redrew the map of the regions. Procedure : Several people have filed a complaint for abuse of power with the Council of State in order to have the decree of 30 July 2015, which serves as the basis for the law of 16 January 2015, annulled, and therefore organize elections according to the existing modalities prior to the law. [...]
[...] The principle is therefore proclaimed, the administrative judge is incompetent to rule on the validity of a treaty in relation to other international commitments. The Council of State renews the formula already extracted in the SARL du parc d'activités de Blotzheim judgment of 1998, which had already been almost word for word copied from the decision of the Constitutional Council of 17 July 1980. The Council of State also provides guidelines to follow when it is responsible for examining the compatibility of the provisions of a treaty or agreement with the decision taken with that of another international commitment of France. [...]
