Council of State Rulings on Administrative Appeals and Time Limits for Contentious Proceedings

Extract

[...] Facts : In this case, at issue is a decision of the Prime Minister of 29 August 2014 which had the effect of not implementing in other conurbations the rent control provided for by the law of 24 March 2014, but of implementing it simply on an experimental basis in Paris. Procedure : An association then brings a request for annulment, for abuse of power, of the decision of the Prime Minister of 29 August 2014 to the Council of State. Question : Is the decision of the Prime Minister not to implement legislative provisions in all agglomerations, but only in Paris and Lille on an experimental basis a decision that causes harm? Solution : The Council of State responds positively. It annuls the decision of the Prime Minister. [...]

[...] Procedure : The Council of State was seized of an appeal for exciss of power of the Bouygues telecom Company and of the Free mobile Company directed against these guidelines and the accompanying press release. Question : Can guidelines taken by a regulatory authority be subject to an appeal for abuse of power? Solution : The Conseil d'État answers in the affirmative and recalls that, in order to be subject to an appeal for abuse of power, the guidelines must be capable of producing significant effects, particularly of an economic nature, or be intended to significantly influence the behavior of the persons to whom they are addressed. [...]

[...] Solution : The Council of State responds negatively. It first considers that, certainly, due to the lack of mention in the contested decision of the competent jurisdiction to rule on a potential dispute, the contentious appeal deadline becomes inapplicable and therefore the deadline for a contentious appeal is not applicable.èis in fact not opposable to the applicant, pursuant to Article R of the Code of Administrative Courts and Administrative Courts of Appeal, as reiterated by Article R. 421-5 of the Code of Administrative Justice. [...]

[...] In the first, it was a demotion of a job issued by the director of a prison against a detainee auxiliary cook and, in the second, it was a security rotation in order to prevent escape attempts. The Council of State therefore follows the position it had adopted in the Marie jurisprudence of 17 February 1995, where it had considered that a cell punishment was a decision causing prejudice in view of the nature and gravity of this measure. Again, in a judgment of 28 February 1996, the Council of State had considered that the placement of a detainee in isolation against his will no longer analyzed as an internal order measure. [...]

[...] Council of State December 2017, SA Bouygues télécom and others Headline : The Council of State in its decision of 13 December 2017, 'SA Bouygues télécom and others' looks at the guidelines of the regulatory authorities. Facts : In this case, it was a decision of 25 May 2016 taken by the Authority de rregulation of electronic communications and postal services (ARCEP) in accordance with the 'guidelines' » that it has given itself to, in particular, assess the roaming agreements concluded between mobile telephone operators. [...]