Suchergebnisse

International audience ; Since January 2015, French politics are regularly shaped by the scourge of terrorist operations carried out on its territory. State of emergency was declared in November 2015 and had several time been renewed since that time. Its legal regime has been modified and strengthened in both November 2015 and July 2016. The aim of this article is twofold. First, it underscores the tremendous extent of the executive power under state of emergency. Second, it aims at showing how state of emergency leads to paradigm shifts that affect the functioning of the French political powers. This change is not limited to security prevailing over liberty, but it is also apparent in many other fields. For instance, politicians tend to view state of emergency as the means needed to fight against a recurring terrorist danger. State of emergency that has been conceived as a legal answer to a temporary threat tends in France to become permanent. Its very nature is thus modified. Another paradigm shift can be seen in the fate of the balance of power doctrine. The classical doctrine according to which Parliament is expected to defend liberty and to impose limits on executive power tends to be forgotten. Not only every steps have been taken in order to avoid primary judicial review of the 20 November 2015 law. But Parliamentary debates also illustrate how much members of Parliament, under the pressure of a traumatised public opinion, are ready to give the executive power even more prerogatives than what is asked for. State of emergency thus appears as a perilous status: not only for everyday liberties but also because of a hidden danger: it may alter in the long run the normal functioning of public institutions.

International audience ; Since January 2015, French politics are regularly shaped by the scourge of terrorist operations carried out on its territory. State of emergency was declared in November 2015 and had several time been renewed since that time. Its legal regime has been modified and strengthened in both November 2015 and July 2016. The aim of this article is twofold. First, it underscores the tremendous extent of the executive power under state of emergency. Second, it aims at showing how state of emergency leads to paradigm shifts that affect the functioning of the French political powers. This change is not limited to security prevailing over liberty, but it is also apparent in many other fields. For instance, politicians tend to view state of emergency as the means needed to fight against a recurring terrorist danger. State of emergency that has been conceived as a legal answer to a temporary threat tends in France to become permanent. Its very nature is thus modified. Another paradigm shift can be seen in the fate of the balance of power doctrine. The classical doctrine according to which Parliament is expected to defend liberty and to impose limits on executive power tends to be forgotten. Not only every steps have been taken in order to avoid primary judicial review of the 20 November 2015 law. But Parliamentary debates also illustrate how much members of Parliament, under the pressure of a traumatised public opinion, are ready to give the executive power even more prerogatives than what is asked for. State of emergency thus appears as a perilous status: not only for everyday liberties but also because of a hidden danger: it may alter in the long run the normal functioning of public institutions.

International audience ; Since January 2015, French politics are regularly shaped by the scourge of terrorist operations carried out on its territory. State of emergency was declared in November 2015 and had several time been renewed since that time. Its legal regime has been modified and strengthened in both November 2015 and July 2016. The aim of this article is twofold. First, it underscores the tremendous extent of the executive power under state of emergency. Second, it aims at showing how state of emergency leads to paradigm shifts that affect the functioning of the French political powers. This change is not limited to security prevailing over liberty, but it is also apparent in many other fields. For instance, politicians tend to view state of emergency as the means needed to fight against a recurring terrorist danger. State of emergency that has been conceived as a legal answer to a temporary threat tends in France to become permanent. Its very nature is thus modified. Another paradigm shift can be seen in the fate of the balance of power doctrine. The classical doctrine according to which Parliament is expected to defend liberty and to impose limits on executive power tends to be forgotten. Not only every steps have been taken in order to avoid primary judicial review of the 20 November 2015 law. But Parliamentary debates also illustrate how much members of Parliament, under the pressure of a traumatised public opinion, are ready to give the executive power even more prerogatives than what is asked for. State of emergency thus appears as a perilous status: not only for everyday liberties but also because of a hidden danger: it may alter in the long run the normal functioning of public institutions.

Issu du colloque du CECP sur "La notion de constitution dans la doctrine de la IIIe République" ; National audience ; In order to pressurise the pope in Rome into granting Henry VIII's divorce from Catherine of Aragon, the King summoned what would be latter known as the Reformation Parliament. Sitting from 1529 to 1536, it fundamentally changed the nature of Parliament and of English government, Henry VIII becoming conscious that he could best effect his will through the assent of Parliament in statute. Under the direction and impetus of the King, it passed laws which transferred religious authority from the Pope to the English Crown, affecting not only religious practice and doctrine – in a more schismatic than protestant way – but also many aspects of national life. Framed by the monarch's will, the Reformation Parliament can thus be considered as an ambiguous but early step toward the doctrine of sovereignty of King-in-Parliament. ; Comment expliquer que l'Angleterre du XVIe siècle, profondément marquée dans ses structures politiques, économiques et sociales par le catholicisme romain s'en soit soudain défaite au profit de l'établissement d'une Église nationale ? Plus schismatique qu'hérétique, provoquée par les amours contrariés d'un roi de la Renaissance et facilitée par les écarts et les excès du clergé traditionnel, la Réforme henricienne ne peut être comprise qu'au regard du rôle central joué par l'institution parlementaire. Henry VIII, conscient que la Chambre des Communes est prompt à exprimer la lassitude croissante qu'éprouvent les classes commerçantes et industrielles face au joug religieux, n'hésite pas en effet à encourager, pour mieux l'encadrer, la montée en puissance du Parlement. C'est avec l'appui de ce dernier que s'effectue le passage du particulier au général, d'une demande d'annulation de mariage à un assaut contre l'ensemble des prérogatives pontificales. Il apparaît alors progressivement comme un instrument utile susceptible de favoriser le maintien, voire le renforcement, de la prérogative royale. Dès lors, si la place centrale qu'occupe le Parlement au sein des institutions anglaises ne sera véritablement assurée qu'avec le Bill of Rights de 1689, le Parlement de la Réforme n'en constitue pas moins un premier pas, ambivalent mais précoce, dans cette direction.

Issu du colloque du CECP sur "La notion de constitution dans la doctrine de la IIIe République" ; National audience ; In order to pressurise the pope in Rome into granting Henry VIII's divorce from Catherine of Aragon, the King summoned what would be latter known as the Reformation Parliament. Sitting from 1529 to 1536, it fundamentally changed the nature of Parliament and of English government, Henry VIII becoming conscious that he could best effect his will through the assent of Parliament in statute. Under the direction and impetus of the King, it passed laws which transferred religious authority from the Pope to the English Crown, affecting not only religious practice and doctrine – in a more schismatic than protestant way – but also many aspects of national life. Framed by the monarch's will, the Reformation Parliament can thus be considered as an ambiguous but early step toward the doctrine of sovereignty of King-in-Parliament. ; Comment expliquer que l'Angleterre du XVIe siècle, profondément marquée dans ses structures politiques, économiques et sociales par le catholicisme romain s'en soit soudain défaite au profit de l'établissement d'une Église nationale ? Plus schismatique qu'hérétique, provoquée par les amours contrariés d'un roi de la Renaissance et facilitée par les écarts et les excès du clergé traditionnel, la Réforme henricienne ne peut être comprise qu'au regard du rôle central joué par l'institution parlementaire. Henry VIII, conscient que la Chambre des Communes est prompt à exprimer la lassitude croissante qu'éprouvent les classes commerçantes et industrielles face au joug religieux, n'hésite pas en effet à encourager, pour mieux l'encadrer, la montée en puissance du Parlement. C'est avec l'appui de ce dernier que s'effectue le passage du particulier au général, d'une demande d'annulation de mariage à un assaut contre l'ensemble des prérogatives pontificales. Il apparaît alors progressivement comme un instrument utile susceptible de favoriser le maintien, voire le renforcement, de la ...

Issu du colloque du CECP sur "La notion de constitution dans la doctrine de la IIIe République" ; National audience ; In order to pressurise the pope in Rome into granting Henry VIII's divorce from Catherine of Aragon, the King summoned what would be latter known as the Reformation Parliament. Sitting from 1529 to 1536, it fundamentally changed the nature of Parliament and of English government, Henry VIII becoming conscious that he could best effect his will through the assent of Parliament in statute. Under the direction and impetus of the King, it passed laws which transferred religious authority from the Pope to the English Crown, affecting not only religious practice and doctrine – in a more schismatic than protestant way – but also many aspects of national life. Framed by the monarch's will, the Reformation Parliament can thus be considered as an ambiguous but early step toward the doctrine of sovereignty of King-in-Parliament. ; Comment expliquer que l'Angleterre du XVIe siècle, profondément marquée dans ses structures politiques, économiques et sociales par le catholicisme romain s'en soit soudain défaite au profit de l'établissement d'une Église nationale ? Plus schismatique qu'hérétique, provoquée par les amours contrariés d'un roi de la Renaissance et facilitée par les écarts et les excès du clergé traditionnel, la Réforme henricienne ne peut être comprise qu'au regard du rôle central joué par l'institution parlementaire. Henry VIII, conscient que la Chambre des Communes est prompt à exprimer la lassitude croissante qu'éprouvent les classes commerçantes et industrielles face au joug religieux, n'hésite pas en effet à encourager, pour mieux l'encadrer, la montée en puissance du Parlement. C'est avec l'appui de ce dernier que s'effectue le passage du particulier au général, d'une demande d'annulation de mariage à un assaut contre l'ensemble des prérogatives pontificales. Il apparaît alors progressivement comme un instrument utile susceptible de favoriser le maintien, voire le renforcement, de la ...

Issu of the CECP Colloquium on 'The concept of constitution in the Third Republic doctrine' National Hearing How can it be explained that England of the 16th century, which is deeply marked in its political, economic and social structures by Catholicism, suddenly defeated in favour of the establishment of a national church? More schismatic than heretic, caused by the frustration of a King of the Renaissance and facilitated by the differences and excesses of the traditional clergy, the henrician reform can only be understood in the light of the central role played by the parliamentary institution. Henry VIII, aware that the House of Commons is quick to express the growing fatigue experienced by industrial and professional classes in the face of religious toys, does not hesitate to encourage, in order to better frame it, the rise of Parliament. It is with the support of the latter that the transition from an individual to the general, from an application for annulment of marriage to an assault against all the pretifical prerogatives, is made. It then gradually appears to be a useful instrument which could help to maintain or even strengthen the royal prerogative. Therefore, while the central position of the Parliament in the English institutions will only really be ensured with the 1689 Bill of Rights, the Reform Parliament is a first, ambivalent but early step in this direction. ; In order to pressurise the pope in Rome into granting Henry VIII's divorce from Catherine of Aragon, the King summoned what would be latter known as the Reformation Parliament. Sitting from 1529 to 1536, it fundamentally changed the nature of Parliament and of English government, Henry VIII becoming conscious that he could best effect his will through the assent of Parliament in statute. Under the direction and impetus of the King, it passed laws which transferred religious authority from the Pope to the English Crown, affecting not only religious practice and doctrine – in a more schismatic than protestant way – but also many aspects ...

National audience ; Der französische Gerichtshof der Republik ist neulich wegen verschiedenen Gerichtsverfahren wieder ans Licht des öffentlichen Interesse geraten. Ein verfassungsändernder Entwurf aus dem Jahre 2013 zielte ausserdem auf seine Abschaffung ab. Eine ausführliche Analyse seines Rechtsstatus und seiner Rechtsprechung zeigt die Schwächen dieses Gerichts auf : atypische Organisation, wechselnde Zuständigkeiten, immer wiederkehrende Tendenz zur politischen Justiz, schwache Kontrolle des Kassationsgerichtshofs. Eine Reform zugunsten der Zuständigkeit der ordentlichen Gerichtsbarkeit für jegliche Straftaten der im Amt handelnden Minister erscheint folglich rechtspolitisch als wünschenswert. ; The french Law Court of the Republic has recently reappeared back on stage, on various occasions : the Karachi affair, arbitration in favor of Bernard Tapie or, in the perspective of an institutional transformation, the draft constitutional law of March 14th 2013 which contemplated removing this Court. Through an analysis on its legal status and an exhaustive study of its case law – especially the Pasqua decision of April 30th 2010 – this article seeks to highlight the weakness of the Court : atypical constituent bodies, geometrically variable competencies, regular recurrence of a Law fundamentally political, practically nonexistent control of the french Court of Cassation. It also proposes a critical reading of the draft constitutional law and reminds the need to reintroduce the jurisdiction of ordinary tribunals to judge voluntary acts, criminals or not, committed by Ministers in the course of their duties. ; La CJR est récemment réapparue sur le devant de la scène, à diverses occasions : affaire Karachi, arbitrage en faveur de Bernard Tapie ou encore, dans une perspective de rénovation institutionnelle, projet de loi constitutionnelle du 14 mars 2013 envisageant la suppression de ladite juridiction. A travers une analyse de son statut juridique et une étude exhaustive de sa jurisprudence - notamment de la ...

National audience ; Der französische Gerichtshof der Republik ist neulich wegen verschiedenen Gerichtsverfahren wieder ans Licht des öffentlichen Interesse geraten. Ein verfassungsändernder Entwurf aus dem Jahre 2013 zielte ausserdem auf seine Abschaffung ab. Eine ausführliche Analyse seines Rechtsstatus und seiner Rechtsprechung zeigt die Schwächen dieses Gerichts auf : atypische Organisation, wechselnde Zuständigkeiten, immer wiederkehrende Tendenz zur politischen Justiz, schwache Kontrolle des Kassationsgerichtshofs. Eine Reform zugunsten der Zuständigkeit der ordentlichen Gerichtsbarkeit für jegliche Straftaten der im Amt handelnden Minister erscheint folglich rechtspolitisch als wünschenswert. ; The french Law Court of the Republic has recently reappeared back on stage, on various occasions : the Karachi affair, arbitration in favor of Bernard Tapie or, in the perspective of an institutional transformation, the draft constitutional law of March 14th 2013 which contemplated removing this Court. Through an analysis on its legal status and an exhaustive study of its case law – especially the Pasqua decision of April 30th 2010 – this article seeks to highlight the weakness of the Court : atypical constituent bodies, geometrically variable competencies, regular recurrence of a Law fundamentally political, practically nonexistent control of the french Court of Cassation. It also proposes a critical reading of the draft constitutional law and reminds the need to reintroduce the jurisdiction of ordinary tribunals to judge voluntary acts, criminals or not, committed by Ministers in the course of their duties. ; La CJR est récemment réapparue sur le devant de la scène, à diverses occasions : affaire Karachi, arbitrage en faveur de Bernard Tapie ou encore, dans une perspective de rénovation institutionnelle, projet de loi constitutionnelle du 14 mars 2013 envisageant la suppression de ladite juridiction. A travers une analyse de son statut juridique et une étude exhaustive de sa jurisprudence - notamment de la décision Pasqua du 30 avril 2010 - le présent article s'attache à mettre en évidence les faiblesses de la juridiction : atypisme de ses organes constitutifs, compétence à géométrie variable, résurgence régulière d'une justice fondamentalement politique, contrôle pratiquement inexistant de la Cour de cassation. Il propose également une lecture critique du projet de loi constitutionnelle et rappelle la nécessité de réintroduire la compétence des tribunaux ordinaires pour juger des actes volontaires, délictueux ou criminels, commis par les ministres, dans l'exercice de leurs fonctions.

National audience ; Der französische Gerichtshof der Republik ist neulich wegen verschiedenen Gerichtsverfahren wieder ans Licht des öffentlichen Interesse geraten. Ein verfassungsändernder Entwurf aus dem Jahre 2013 zielte ausserdem auf seine Abschaffung ab. Eine ausführliche Analyse seines Rechtsstatus und seiner Rechtsprechung zeigt die Schwächen dieses Gerichts auf : atypische Organisation, wechselnde Zuständigkeiten, immer wiederkehrende Tendenz zur politischen Justiz, schwache Kontrolle des Kassationsgerichtshofs. Eine Reform zugunsten der Zuständigkeit der ordentlichen Gerichtsbarkeit für jegliche Straftaten der im Amt handelnden Minister erscheint folglich rechtspolitisch als wünschenswert. ; The french Law Court of the Republic has recently reappeared back on stage, on various occasions : the Karachi affair, arbitration in favor of Bernard Tapie or, in the perspective of an institutional transformation, the draft constitutional law of March 14th 2013 which contemplated removing this Court. Through an analysis on its legal status and an exhaustive study of its case law – especially the Pasqua decision of April 30th 2010 – this article seeks to highlight the weakness of the Court : atypical constituent bodies, geometrically variable competencies, regular recurrence of a Law fundamentally political, practically nonexistent control of the french Court of Cassation. It also proposes a critical reading of the draft constitutional law and reminds the need to reintroduce the jurisdiction of ordinary tribunals to judge voluntary acts, criminals or not, committed by Ministers in the course of their duties. ; La CJR est récemment réapparue sur le devant de la scène, à diverses occasions : affaire Karachi, arbitrage en faveur de Bernard Tapie ou encore, dans une perspective de rénovation institutionnelle, projet de loi constitutionnelle du 14 mars 2013 envisageant la suppression de ladite juridiction. A travers une analyse de son statut juridique et une étude exhaustive de sa jurisprudence - notamment de la ...

National audience ; Der französische Gerichtshof der Republik ist neulich wegen verschiedenen Gerichtsverfahren wieder ans Licht des öffentlichen Interesse geraten. Ein verfassungsändernder Entwurf aus dem Jahre 2013 zielte ausserdem auf seine Abschaffung ab. Eine ausführliche Analyse seines Rechtsstatus und seiner Rechtsprechung zeigt die Schwächen dieses Gerichts auf : atypische Organisation, wechselnde Zuständigkeiten, immer wiederkehrende Tendenz zur politischen Justiz, schwache Kontrolle des Kassationsgerichtshofs. Eine Reform zugunsten der Zuständigkeit der ordentlichen Gerichtsbarkeit für jegliche Straftaten der im Amt handelnden Minister erscheint folglich rechtspolitisch als wünschenswert. ; The french Law Court of the Republic has recently reappeared back on stage, on various occasions : the Karachi affair, arbitration in favor of Bernard Tapie or, in the perspective of an institutional transformation, the draft constitutional law of March 14th 2013 which contemplated removing this Court. Through an analysis on its legal status and an exhaustive study of its case law – especially the Pasqua decision of April 30th 2010 – this article seeks to highlight the weakness of the Court : atypical constituent bodies, geometrically variable competencies, regular recurrence of a Law fundamentally political, practically nonexistent control of the french Court of Cassation. It also proposes a critical reading of the draft constitutional law and reminds the need to reintroduce the jurisdiction of ordinary tribunals to judge voluntary acts, criminals or not, committed by Ministers in the course of their duties. ; La CJR est récemment réapparue sur le devant de la scène, à diverses occasions : affaire Karachi, arbitrage en faveur de Bernard Tapie ou encore, dans une perspective de rénovation institutionnelle, projet de loi constitutionnelle du 14 mars 2013 envisageant la suppression de ladite juridiction. A travers une analyse de son statut juridique et une étude exhaustive de sa jurisprudence - notamment de la décision Pasqua du 30 avril 2010 - le présent article s'attache à mettre en évidence les faiblesses de la juridiction : atypisme de ses organes constitutifs, compétence à géométrie variable, résurgence régulière d'une justice fondamentalement politique, contrôle pratiquement inexistant de la Cour de cassation. Il propose également une lecture critique du projet de loi constitutionnelle et rappelle la nécessité de réintroduire la compétence des tribunaux ordinaires pour juger des actes volontaires, délictueux ou criminels, commis par les ministres, dans l'exercice de leurs fonctions.