FRANCE Law and Practice Contributed by: Thierry Laloum, Jordan Pontal, Julie Sarny and Gabin Dupont-Guianvarch, Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP
• the interim suspension procedure ( référé sus- pension ), which allows the claimant to obtain the suspension of an administrative act; • the interim fundamental freedoms procedure (référé liberté), which allows the claimant to implement all measures necessary to pro - tect a fundamental freedom that has been violated by a public entity or by any other entity entrusted with a public service mission (eg, suspension of a refusal of authorisation to enter French territory, injunction issued to the authorities to re-examine the request, prescription of measures to ensure that the interested party may remain on French terri - tory until a decision has been issued on their application for admission, etc); and • the interim useful measures procedure ( référé mesures utiles ) allowing the claimant to implement any useful measures (eg, request the issue of administrative documents useful for lodging an appeal, injunction on a mayor to issue an infringement notice ( procès-verbal d’infraction ) and a works suspension order ( arrêté interruptif de travaux ), etc) before the authorities have made a decision. 13. Remedies 13.1 Damages Claimants are entitled to lodge a claim before the administrative judge to seek damages. The claimant’s legal action takes the form of a claim for compensation and its success depends on the fulfilment of three general conditions: • the harmful event must be attributable to the administrative authority; • the claimant must have suffered damage; and • there must be a causal link between the harmful event and the damage.
First, as a general rule, the harmful event can result from a fault committed by the adminis - trative authority. In this regard, any illegality of an administrative act constitutes a fault that can lead to the liability of the administrative author- ity, provided that direct and certain damage has occurred. Second, in certain cases, the harmful event may arise from an act or behaviour of the adminis - trative authority that is not attributable to fault. This is known as “no-fault” liability. It allows for compensation of the victim’s loss without requir - ing proof of fault. Liability for fait du prince, or act of state, is an example of no-fault liability. It enables a con - tracting party to claim full compensation for their losses – both actual damages and lost profits – when their situation is aggravated by a lawful measure taken by the administrative contracting authority acting in a capacity other than that of a party to the agreement. 13.2 Invalidating Legislation In principle, the administrative judge has the authority to annul an administrative act that he deems illegal when a contentious appeal has been filed against it. However, as an exception and in certain circum - stances, the administrative judge may not annul an administrative act or a law that he has found to be in violation of a higher legal text. First, claimants may challenge an administra - tive act on the grounds that it originates from a higher administrative act that is itself illegal (this is the argument of exception of illegality). Should the judge find that the higher administrative act is illegal, the judge will annul the lower admin - istrative act due to its lack of valid legal basis.
119 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook