Competence of the Administrative Judge in the Case of Fait Accompli and Irregular Seizure

Extract

[...] The owner has the trees pruned, but the mayor wants the trees completely removed. After a formal notice is sent to the couple, the mayor proceeds to remove the trees without waiting for a response. The couple therefore wishes to sue the municipality Considering the circumstances, it is useful to study whether the mayor of the city is within his rights or exceeds his powers. In other words, it is important to know if the removal of the trees by the town hall without waiting for a response to the formal notice is comparable to a fait accompli? [...]

[...] However, Taylor S., does not leave a sufficient deadline for the couple to respond to the formal notice. This is a document written against a person, it is a final warning for the person concerned before the forced execution of the obligation. However, the couple does not have time to cut down the trees, the formal notice is then useless. To act against the commune, Kim thinks it is a fait accompli, however, it is essential to distinguish between the fait accompli and the irregular seizure, a crucial distinction for the settlement of the dispute. [...]

[...] Following this, the conflict court had attested that the competence of the judicial judge was now reduced in the context of the fait accompli. As for the administrative judge, he is competent in the case of irregular seizure since the ruling of December The latter is an infringement committed by a public person, on a real right. According to Wikipedia, 'this infringement is the dispossession of the owner of one of his rights, in which case the administration would have control over a private property'. [...]

[...] In general, it is the administrative jurisdiction that is competent for disputes with the administration. According to a ruling of October a similar case to that of the couple, the Court of Cassation holds that the administrative judge is competent to hear the dispute between the administration and the beneficiary. To a lesser extent, the Blanco ruling of 1873 specifies that the administrative judge is competent when a conflict between the beneficiary and a representative of the State is ongoing. [...]

[...] In addition, according to the 2019 ruling, the judicial judge could have been competent if the administrative act had infringed a fundamental freedom, for example if the mayor had directly infringed the couple's dwelling. Therefore, the mayor is not in her right, she abuses her police power, and the act can be assimilated to an irregular seizure. The administrative judge will then be competent to resolve the dispute, the couple will be able to claim damages and interest as well as the forced realization of the restoration by the commune. [...]