Council of State Ruling on Impartiality

Extract

[...] France, no. 5242/04) - CE, Ass December 2002, Trognon: any person called upon to sit on a jurisdiction must rule with full independence and without receiving any instruction from any authority whatsoever. - CE April 1996, Syndicat des avocats de France: the presence of state officials among the members of a jurisdiction having to deal with disputes in which the state may be a party cannot, by itself, give rise to an objectively justified doubt as to its impartiality. The certain recognition of the violation of the principle of impartiality - In this case, certain members had already ruled on the request in an administrative capacity (CE March 1973) - This situation is of a nature to impair the serenity of the contradictory debate - The Council of State censures with reason this procedure not conforming to the right to an impartial judge - This judgment founds the respect of the guarantees of the fair trial before administrative judges Part II: The Necessary Separation of Administrative and Jurisdictional Functions within the Departmental Commissions for the Labor Disputes of Handicapped Workers The risk of confusion of functions within the departmental commissions - "When it thus takes judicial decisions, this commission is required, even in the absence of text, to observe all general rules of procedure" (CE March 1973, Demoiselle Arbousset). [...]

[...] In fact, in this ruling, it was a matter ofa disabled worker who had filed an appeal with the departmental commission for the contentious affairs of disabled workers in Nîmes on 11 February 1971, seeking the annulment of the decision of 4 November 1970 by which the permanent sub-commission of the departmental commission for the orientation of the disabled had rejected his application for a reserved job. By a decision of 11 February 1971, the departmental commission had rejected his appeal. [...]

[...] In this ruling, the Council of State annulled the decision of 11 February 1971 of the departmental commission for the contentious affairs of disabled workers in Nîmes, which had rejected the appeal filed by the disabled worker. The Council of State considered that the composition of the departmental commission was irregular because two of its members had previously taken part in the initial decision of 4 November 1970 as members of the permanent sub-commission. By this ruling, the Council of State therefore annulled the challenged decision and sent the case back to the same commission sitting regularly. [...]

[...] The obligation of separation of authorities to ensure the rights of litigants - Council of State April 1996 Syndicate of Lawyers of France - Document 10: CE, Ass December 2002, Trognon: Any person called to sit in a - The principle of separation of administrative and judicial authorities stems from the fundamental requirement of impartiality. - It implies that members deciding on an appeal should not have previously participated in the disputed decision in any other capacity, lest there be a violation of the rights of the defense. [...]

[...] It thus ensured the respect of the rights of the defense of the applicant and the principle of impartiality before administrative jurisdictions. If the fundamental principle of impartiality fully applies to the departmental commissions for the contentious affairs of disabled workers when they rule as administrative jurisdictions It is necessary to recall the separation of administrative and jurisdictional functions within these commissions in order to ensure the rights of the litigants (II). Part The Affirmed Application of the Principle of Impartiality to the Departmental Commissions for the Contentious Affairs of Disabled Workers The necessary reminder of the principle of impartiality applicable to administrative jurisdictions - The principle of impartiality is a constitutional requirement (Cons. [...]