Extract
[...] However, the principle of non-discrimination is not an absolute principle: administrative law admits justified distinctions based on the general interest A. Certain distinctions of treatment are legitimately admitted in the service of a real equality The principle of non-discrimination does not impose absolute uniformity in treatment. A distinction is possible as long as it is based on an objective difference in situation, or as long as it is justified by a general interest motive and proportionate to the pursued goal. [...]
[...] Thus, in a seemingly paradoxical way, the principle of non-discrimination admits certain distinctions in order to better achieve its own objective: sometimes, it is by treating differently that one treats more justly. B. This principle must, however, be reconciled with other administrative requirements, the judge arbitrating between non-discrimination and general interest The administrative judge does not eliminate all distinctions, he arbitrates them. When another value is strong enough and the distinction is proportionate, it is accepted despite its apparent discriminatory appearance. [...]
[...] The principle of non-discrimination effectively protects citizens against arbitrary distinctions by the administration A. The administration cannot treat people differently in a comparable situation without objective and legitimate justification The administration is subject to a fundamental obligation: it cannot treat people differently who are in a comparable situation without being able to justify this distinction by an objective and legitimate reason. In concrete terms, it cannot refuse access to a public service, modulate its services or take a decision based on the origin, sex, religion, opinions, disability, age or sexual orientation of the person concerned. [...]
[...] It can cancel any discriminatory administrative act through the means of an appeal for abuse of power, but also engage the responsibility of the administration and condemn it to repair the harm suffered by the victim of discrimination, particularly in career disputes of public agents. Also, since 2010, the QPC allows any litigant to challenge before the Constitutional Council a discriminatory legislative provision. Finally, the Defender of Rights, created in 2011, can be seized by any citizen who feels victim of a discrimination and intervene, including in disputes with the administration. II. [...]
[...] Physical fitness conditions in certain corps such as the police or the army, or nationality conditions for access to jobs involving the exercise of public authority prerogatives are admitted distinctions because they are directly linked to the objective requirements of the position. Thus, the principle of non-discrimination has gradually imposed itself as an essential guarantee for citizens against administrative action. Far from requiring absolute uniformity of treatment, it above all requires that any distinction be justified, proportionate, and oriented towards a legitimate goal. It is up to the administrative judge to ensure this balance. [...]
