Fundamental rights, freedoms, judicial protection, QPC, administrative judge, conventionality control, constitutionality control, human rights, European Convention on Human Rights
Reader
Abstract
Extract
of 165
Abstract
This document discusses the implementation of effective judicial protection of fundamental rights and freedoms, including prior control, the QPC, and the role of the administrative judge.
Extract
[...] In this case, there is a lack of balance between the prevention of infringements on public order and the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms. Document n°11 - ConsC April 2014, n° 2014-393 QPC The question is whether it is up to the executive power to specify the conditions of detention, or whether it is the exclusive domain of the legislator. In this sense, there could have been a negative incompetence of the legislator. The Constitutional Council concludes that the legislator has overlooked the scope of his competence by referring the determination of the conditions of detention to the executive power. [...]
[...] But under the 4th Republic, the Council of State settled this question. In CE, ass Eky the Council of State accepts to control the legality of an administrative act in relation to the DDHC of 1789. The judge will take the habit of referring to this text to control the constitutionality of administrative acts. But it is not competent to control the constitutionality of laws. It must wait ConsC Taxation d'office that the constitutional judge refers directly to the DDHC. [...]
[...] Content - The convention itself, i.e. around fifty articles such as the right to life (art. the right to respect for private and family life (art. freedom of religion (art. freedom of expression (art. of association (art. the right to a fair trial under article 6 and its additional protocols which allow for the establishment of new rights. Among these protocols, we can cite the first additional protocol to the ECHR which concerns the right to property. However, the protocols, unlike the Convention, only bind the states that ratify them. [...]
[...] - The Great Opinions of the CE - CE Nov n° 130394, Kherouaa : Lebon, p ; RFDA 1993, p conclusions D. Kessler : "in schools, the wearing by students of signs by which they intend to manifest their affiliation to a religion is not in itself incompatible with the principle of secularism, insofar as it constitutes the exercise of the freedom of expression and manifestation of religious beliefs, but that this freedom cannot allow students to wear signs of religious affiliation which, by their nature, by the conditions in which they would be worn individually or collectively, or by their ostentatious or assertive character, would constitute an act of pressure, provocation, proselytism or propaganda, would harm the dignity or freedom of the student or other members of the educational community, would compromise their health or safety, would disrupt the conduct of teaching activities and the educational role of teachers, and finally would disturb the order in the establishment or the normal functioning of the public service; " ( . [...]
[...] The person must formulate an express request to a practicing doctor. The latter must not have a family relationship with the patient. He must provide the interested party with a certain number of information on their state of health, on the available treatments, on a proposal for palliative care and on assisted dying. Then, the doctor is in a situation of related competence. That is to say, he must above all verify that the conditions surrounding access to the device are met. [...]
