00:001. Fact. Mr. Talagrand, a Frenchman repatriated from Algeria, had suffered harm following the appropriation of his
00:06private school run by the Algerian state.
00:08A law of December 26, 1961, provided for certain measures in favor of repatriated French citizens and notably envisaged intervention
00:15subsequent law concerning compensation for certain damages.
00:19The government, however, did not table the expected bill. Mr. Talagrand therefore challenged this inaction.
00:24government and demanded reparations.
00:262. Procedure. The Marseille Administrative Court had rejected his application. Mr. Talagrand then appealed to the Council of State.
00:33in order to obtain the annulment of the judgment and the condemnation of the State.
00:373. Applicant's claim. Mr. Talagrand argues, in essence, that the government should have taken the measures announced by the
00:43law and in particular to introduce the bill allowing for the compensation of repatriated persons.
00:47He therefore asks the administrative judge to review this abstention.
00:504. Legal issue. Can the administrative judge review the government's refusal or inaction to file a
00:56bill when a previous law envisaged legislative intervention?
01:005. Solution. No. The Council of State rejects the request. It considers that the government's refusal to file a
01:06The bill relates to the relationship between the executive branch and Parliament.
01:10This is therefore an act of government that escapes the control of the administrative judge.
01:156. Scope. The ruling is important for the theory of acts of government. Above all, it shows that a legislative provision
01:22The fact that a future law is being considered does not allow the administrative judge to replace the legislator.
01:27Key takeaway: the law (right arrow) necessitates further legislative intervention (right arrow). The administrative judge
01:34cannot create the legislative rule itself.
01:36Subtitling by Radio-Canada
