Les actes rattachables à l'office du Conseil constitutionnel
In: Revue française de droit constitutionnel, Band 126, Heft 2, S. e1-e19
5 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: Revue française de droit constitutionnel, Band 126, Heft 2, S. e1-e19
In: Revue du droit public de la science politique en France et à l'étranger, Band 136, Heft 6, S. 1551-1569
ISSN: 0035-2578
World Affairs Online
In France, general norms litigation is nowadays divided into two main groups, the actions for abuse of power directed against the normative acts and the control of constitutionality of the laws. Sharing a certain number of similarities, they are analyzed not only as "objective litigation", but also as "cancellation litigation". Thus, in order to fulfill their role, French constitutional and administrative judges must both, first, establish a norm-to-norm report and, if necessary, cancel the general legal act contrary to a superior legal norm. These similarities contrast with the different conditions in which the two judges of the Palais-Royal are called to judge. This permanent tension between the similarities they share and the different conditions in which they are called to judge makes the relationships between the role of the Constitutional Council and that of the abuse of power's judge oscillate between unity and duality. Precisely, the present comparative study, named "Abuse of legislative power and abuse of administrative power" after the study of Dean Vedel in the first numbers of Constitutional Council Review, aims to demonstrate that, as the stages of litigation progress, the approach of the Constitutional Council and that of the administrative judge get closer to the point of identifying. The inscription of this comparison in the framework of a theory of legal constraints allows us to show that if, in the search for abuse of power, the role of French constitutional and administrative judges is dominated by duality, it is, in the sanction of abuse of power, marked by a deep unity. ; En France, le contentieux des normes générales se décline aujourd'hui en deux ensembles principaux, le recours pour excès de pouvoir dirigé contre les actes réglementaires et le contrôle de constitutionnalité des lois. Partageant un certain nombre de propriétés, ces derniers s'analysent non seulement comme des « contentieux objectifs », mais également comme des « contentieux d'annulation ». C'est ainsi qu'afin d'accomplir ...
BASE
In France, general norms litigation is nowadays divided into two main groups, the actions for abuse of power directed against the normative acts and the control of constitutionality of the laws. Sharing a certain number of similarities, they are analyzed not only as "objective litigation", but also as "cancellation litigation". Thus, in order to fulfill their role, French constitutional and administrative judges must both, first, establish a norm-to-norm report and, if necessary, cancel the general legal act contrary to a superior legal norm. These similarities contrast with the different conditions in which the two judges of the Palais-Royal are called to judge. This permanent tension between the similarities they share and the different conditions in which they are called to judge makes the relationships between the role of the Constitutional Council and that of the abuse of power's judge oscillate between unity and duality. Precisely, the present comparative study, named "Abuse of legislative power and abuse of administrative power" after the study of Dean Vedel in the first numbers of Constitutional Council Review, aims to demonstrate that, as the stages of litigation progress, the approach of the Constitutional Council and that of the administrative judge get closer to the point of identifying. The inscription of this comparison in the framework of a theory of legal constraints allows us to show that if, in the search for abuse of power, the role of French constitutional and administrative judges is dominated by duality, it is, in the sanction of abuse of power, marked by a deep unity. ; En France, le contentieux des normes générales se décline aujourd'hui en deux ensembles principaux, le recours pour excès de pouvoir dirigé contre les actes réglementaires et le contrôle de constitutionnalité des lois. Partageant un certain nombre de propriétés, ces derniers s'analysent non seulement comme des « contentieux objectifs », mais également comme des « contentieux d'annulation ». C'est ainsi qu'afin d'accomplir ...
BASE
In: Revue française de droit constitutionnel, Band 106, Heft 2, S. 309-322