"Understanding the Blanco Judgment: Foundation of French Administrative Law and Jurisdictional Competence"
Download
Read an extract
Themes
Council of State, Blanco judgment, administrative law, public service, separation of powers, French law, Leon Duguit, Public Service School, administrative jurisdiction, State responsibility
Reader
Abstract
Extract
of 11
Abstract
Unlock the foundations of French administrative law with the landmark Blanco judgment of 8 February 1873. This pivotal ruling established the autonomy of administrative law, distinguishing it from civil law and setting a crucial precedent for State liability in damages caused by public service agents. Discover how the Council of State's decision shaped the balance between State power and citizen protection, introducing the concept of public service as a cornerstone of administrative competence. Explore the evolution of this criterion and its implications for the separation of powers, as well as the ongoing dialectics between State rights and private rights. Dive into the historical context and legal thought behind this seminal case, influencing administrative law to this day.
Extract
[...] Independence of the administrative jurisdiction This link has a major institutional consequence: it justifies the existence of a distinct order of jurisdiction. If administrative law were only an exception to civil law, specialized chambers within judicial courts would have been sufficient. But because administrative law is of a nature different, autonomous in its sources and principles, it requires a distinct judge, trained in public affairs and concerned with the general interest. Blanco thus legitimizing the existence of the Council of State ruling in contentious matters as the supreme court of administrative order. [...]
[...] If the administrative judge is competent, which law will he apply, in the absence, at the time, of a code of administrative law? The stake is the submission of public power to common law or its emancipation towards an autonomous law. Announcement of the Plan The judgment of 8 February 1873 settles in favor of administrative competence, but its motives go far beyond. It establishes an indissoluble correlation between judicial competence and the substance of the law. To analyze this "excellent" decision in its structure and academic scope, we will adopt a three-part plan:" I. [...]
[...] The scope of Blanco reconfigured The judgment Bac d'Eloka marks the end of the "absolute reign" of" Blanco. The public service no longer automatically entails administrative competence. - For the SPA (Administrative Public Services) : The jurisprudence Blanco applies in full (Police, Defence, Education). - For SPICs: The Blanco jurisprudence is set aside in favor of private law, except for regulatory acts or public powers prerogatives. The Blanco ruling ceases to be the universal key to become the principle rule of the royal and administrative activities of the State. [...]
[...] The Public Service: Founding Criterion and Cornerstone of Competence. We will analyze how the concept of public service becomes the criterion for the distribution of competences, profoundly influencing the doctrine (Bordeaux School) and the construction of public law. III. The Legacy and Metamorphosis of Blanco Jurisprudence. Finally, we will study how years later, the principles laid down by Blanco have resisted the evolutions (SPIC, European law) and have been constitutionalized, while adapting to the modern requirements of the rule of law. [...]
[...] The administrative judge was only a counselor of the prince. With the law of 1872, the Council of State became a true judge, rendering decisions "in the name of the French people", sovereign and independent of the active executive power. This judicial emancipation necessarily called for a clear definition of the competence domain of this new sovereign judge." Secondly, and this is the key point of the case Blanco, the law of 1872 recreated the Tribunal of Conflicts. This paritarian jurisdiction, responsible for settling disputes over jurisdiction between the judicial order and the administrative order, had a chaotic existence (created in 1848, abolished in 1852). [...]
