Council of State, impartiality, Article 6-1 ECHR, administrative law, Financial Markets Council, Financial Markets Authority, independent administrative authorities, European Convention on Human Rights
Reader
Abstract
Extract
of 5
Abstract
Summaries of key Council of State decisions regarding impartiality and the applicability of Article 6-1 of the European Convention on Human Rights to independent administrative authorities.
Extract
[...] Procedure: Mr De Bayo requests the Council of State to annul this decision. Problem: The decision of the Veterinary Council can it be considered as a decision rendered by a court? Solution: The Council of State responds in the negative and considers that the decisions taken in the matter of registration on the roll of the veterinary order under articles 13 and 18 of the law of 23 August 1947, have not taken into account the nature of this matter and whatever forms they may take, the character of decisions rendered by a court. [...]
[...] Solution: The Council of State responds positively and rejects Mr. Didier's request. In fact, while admitting that Article 6-1 could be invoked usefully, it a considerwas considered that the rapporteur, taking into account his role, had been able to participate in the debates and vote 'without any lack of awareness of the principle of'impartialityis recalled to article 6-1». Scope: M. Didier having exhausted all internal avenues of appeal, subsequently lodged a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights for a violation of Article 6-1 both by the Council of State and by the Financial Markets Council. [...]
[...] Didier is responsible for the activities of 'arbitrage» in a stock exchange company. In this context, he was the subject of a decision by the Financial Markets Council ruling on matters that were being reproached to him,isimposed a disciplinary penalty on him, withdrawing his professional card for a period of six months and imposing a fine of five million francs. Procedure : He therefore attacked this decision before the Council of State, competent in the first and last instance, by a contentious appeal. [...]
[...] For a long time, on this third criterion, the Council of State has hesitated between a formal criterion and a material criterion, and has finally chosen the second in this case. The first would have corresponded to considering the organization as a jurisdiction if its composition and procedural rules are similar to those exercised by a court. If it is a body that can impose a disciplinary sanction, it may be considered a court. In this case, it is not a judgment because it is not a matter of sanctioning a professional. [...]
[...] Council of State July 2019 Catchline: The Council of State by its decision rendered on 24 July 2019 revisits the question of its partiality. Facts: In this case, a decree of 15 June 2018 lowered the maximum authorized speed on the roads previously limited to 90km/h to 80 km/h. Procedure: Several people, including associations for the defense of drivers and the Auvergne-Rhône Alpes region, then asked the Council of State to annul the decree of 15 June 2018 relating to maximum authorized speeds. [...]
