00:00The effect of the species. In the case at hand, reference was made to a government decree
00:04which had been adopted on December 10, 2009, and which provided for a merger between two higher teacher training colleges
00:09for the creation of a single school, in accordance with the provisions contained in article
00:14Article L711-1 of the Education Code.
00:17However, to achieve this, other provisions also stipulate that additional conditions must be met. These
00:23-they will not be beforehand, before the end of the procedure, but rather after the latter.
00:28Consequently, the applicants challenged the legality of the said decree. They therefore brought their case directly before the
00:34'Office of the Council of State, competent in this matter at both first and last instance, the act of which it
00:39the grievance was of national scope.
00:41The applicants therefore asked the judge of the abuse of power to annul the decree which they considered to be
00:46contentious and flawed.
00:47The question, which had been put to the supreme administrative judge, was the following.
00:52What are the legal conditions for highlighting the flaws contained within a unilateral administrative act?
00:58and which would necessarily entail the annulment of the said act?
01:01The harshness of the supreme administrative judge. In our particular case, the judges of the royal palace recalled that the
01:06'Unilateral administrative act must be taken in compliance with formal requirements, but also with procedural requirements.
01:12They thus concluded, and we must quote the ruling here, that when a defect were to affect the proceedings
01:17of a prior procedure, whether mandatory or "optional", the defect in question does not
01:23will render the act in question illegal only when it was likely to have influenced the meaning of the
01:28decision taken or that he deprived the interested parties of a guarantee.
01:31Here, an annulment necessarily entails far-reaching legal consequences insofar as, following it, the parties will be
01:37restored to the precise situation in which it was before the act was taken.
01:42However, even if a cancellation is decided, nothing prevents the administration from reviewing the substance of the act.
01:47and consequently, the previously pronounced annulment would be greatly limited.
01:52The restraint of the supreme administrative judge in recognizing a new principle.
01:56Consequently, the judges of the Palais-Royal decided to uphold the procedure, which is reserved for cases deemed
02:02serious issues concerning the annulment of the act, even more so in cases where the defect has influenced the
02:06meaning of the administrative act itself, or that it contributed to an infringement of a legal guarantee
02:11citizens.
02:12This legal guarantee for citizens is, moreover, highlighted in this particular case, in that
02:17the judges held that the argument based on the lack of prior consultation with the committees of
02:21'special experts, that this lack of mandatory consultation, takes on precisely this character.
02:27The application of a precedent set by case law, the principle applied in our specific case, actually refers to a principle
02:32already applied in the decision of the Council of State of May 11, 2004, N. 255-1886.
02:38The administrative judge has softened the principle of the annulment of an act, an annulment which presupposes that the annulled act
02:44be deemed as if he had never intervened and that the parties find themselves at the end of
02:47to pronounce, in the situation that was the hour before the act took place.
02:51This is partly explained by the fact that the annulment of an act can lead to legal situations
02:56the consequences of which can be complicated.
02:58In the case of the 2011 instance, the annulment of the act would have resulted in the destruction of the
03:03Stade de France.
03:04Consequently, the supreme administrative judges had demonstrated particular skill in modulating the temporal effects
03:11which result from the annulment of the act,
03:12as soon as manifestly excessive consequences are observed, according to the formula used, and which may harm the
03:18'general interest, in particular, or another interest.
03:21The judge's role is therefore to balance respect for the principle of equality and the
03:26respect for the interest affected by the pronouncement of the annulment, the effects of which are retroactive.
03:30In the specific case judged and reported here, this modulation over time of the effects of the annulment has
03:35has been decided.
03:36These were then postponed to a later date.
03:39Therefore, the Council of State took into account the consequences of this annulment and thus its retroactivity.
03:44He therefore considered that such effects would necessarily produce excessive consequences, in accordance with the rules highlighted.
03:51by him, in his previous decision.
03:53Thank you for watching this video!
03:56Thank you for watching this video!
Commentaires