Distinguishing Judicial Police from Administrative Police

Extract

[...] It acts in principle by unilateral administrative act. Within this framework, administrative police and/or judicial police may intervene. The distinguishing criterion between the two police forces is not always clear. However, it has consequences in terms of litigation (judicial police operations fall under the jurisdiction of the judicial judge, while administrative police operations fall under the administrative judge), in terms of judicial review (legality litigation and liability litigation), in terms of personnel with different powers, and finally, in terms of liability attribution. [...]

[...] On the one hand, when there are two operations, it is necessary to determine the moment of the damage: administrative police are competent if it is a simple surveillance, judicial police are competent in case of interception or arrest. This emerges from a judgment Demoiselle MOTSCH rendered by the Conflict Tribunal on December On the other hand, when several events follow one another, the judges consider that it is appropriate to take into account the decisive/original police operation in the realization of the damage. This emerges from a judgment Soc Le Profil rendered by the Conflict Tribunal on June 12, 1978. [...]

[...] II- A preference displayed for the finalist criterion in the context of the distinction between judicial police and administrative police Although the finalist criterion is affirmed in constant jurisprudence in a recurring manner it proposes a distinction that is not, according to the author, absolute The finalist criterion, affirmed in constant jurisprudence It is notably from the BAUD judgment rendered by the Council of State sitting in section on 11 May 1951 and the Dame NOUALEK judgment rendered by the Council of State on 7 June 1951 that the finalist criterion emerges. It follows that the operation falls within the scope of judicial police if it has a specific object that can give rise to criminal or correctional proceedings or if its purpose is the search for a specific infringement. Its character is repressive. The administrative police operation prevents a disorder. It takes in advance the measures to prevent attacks on public order. [...]

[...] He did so in an article titled "Separation of authorities" published in the Administrative Litigation Repertory in September 2005. He then highlighted the complexity and fluctuation of the use of these distinction criteria." The question that arises in this case is the following: What about the different criteria for distinguishing between judicial police and administrative police? In order to answer this question, it is necessary to first examine the rejection of some of them before studying, in a second time, the preference shown for the finalist criterion (II). [...]

[...] This list includes, for example, rural policemen in the category of judicial police officers (JPO) and judicial police agents (JPA). However, the latter do not actually intervene in the implementation of the police. This simple criterion is therefore too general. It would, however, translate the cherished principle of separation of administrative and judicial authorities and fits into the more general principle of the separation of powers of LOCKE and MONTESQUIEU. After eliminating the organic criterion, Jacques MOREAU also rejects the material criterion. [...]