Execution of Administrative Justice Decisions

Extract

[...] He can both pronounce provisional penalties (that is to say, whose amount he can modify during liquidation, for example by reducing it if the administration has been proactive) or definitive ones. If the definitive penalty is in theory an effective means of pressure, it is however rarely used in practice, the judge wanting to leave himself as much flexibility as possible.4. In practice, it is rare that the penalty is definitively liquidated. In penalties were pronounced by the administrative courts by the administrative courts of appeal and 3 by the State Council. Only 31 penalties were liquidated. [...]

[...] In environmental litigation Commune de Grande-Synthe, des quantified objectives had been set both by the legislator and specified by the regulatory power. This desire to 'not to encroach on the field of administration, but only to check that the law is respected by the already defined public policy, which, incidentally, joins the spirit of the traditional limits that the judge imposes on himself8. [...]

[...] The execution of administrative justice decisions has today substantially gained in efficiency but must remain framed Thanks to the reforms of the 1980s and 1990s, still reinforced recently, the office of the administrative judge has substantially gained in efficiency It must also know its limits in that, by the injunctions it pronounces, a manifest substitution of administrative action must not be made A. A full use of the powers at his disposal to enforce his decisions Today codified in the code of administrative justice, the provisions relating to the injunction and the fine (L. [...]

[...] « The execution mission thus constitutes one of the elements that underpin the trust of litigants in administrative justice. It is fundamental in this respect.2 The administrative jurisdiction did not truly begin to put in place procedures related to the execution of justice until the 1960s with the decree of July and the creation, at the Council of State, of a reporting commission, ancestor of the current section of reporting and studies one of whose roles is to ensure the execution of the decisions of administrative justice, the latter encompassing not only the Council of State but also the courts of first instance (administrative courts and administrative courts of appeal) as well as specialized administrative courts. [...]

[...] First, the law of July allowed judges to pronounce a penalty against the administration in case of non-execution of its decisions. This innovative measure at the time therefore had a relatively dissuasive effect that could facilitate the execution of court decisions. The very possibility of pronouncing a penalty, without it actually being so, is in itself dissuasive. The law of February goes further since it breaks the reserve in which the administrative judge maintained himself in his refusal to pronounce execution orders against the administration. [...]