Public & Administrative Law & Judicial Review 2026 Comparisons

The judicial review of acts or decisions falling within the scope of public law was entrusted to the administrative court system, separate from the ordinary court system which normally resolves disputes between individuals and private entities (such as companies).

Acts, decisions and contracts falling within the scope of public law will usually:

• refer to the implementation of public authorities’ prerogatives (as defined by law or administrative acts);
• involve the exercise of public power prerogatives; or
• relate to the performance of a public service.

However, certain acts, considered intrinsically linked to the exercise of political prerogatives, are not subject to appeal and cannot be challenged in court (see 10.11 Exempt Decisions).

As set out in 9.1 Preliminary Requirements, before bringing a claim to a judge, a preliminary administrative appeal can also be mandatory. Outside of mandatory preliminary administrative appeals, an individual can always request the annulment of a decision from the relevant authority before taking their case to court. In liability cases against the administration, a prior claim for compensation directed to the relevant authority is also mandatory before the matter can be referred to a judge (see9.1 Preliminary Requirements).

Challenges related to public and administrative law are typically heard in administrative courts. The administrative judicial system primarily comprises:

• Administrative Courts;
• Administrative Courts of Appeal; and
• the Conseil d’Etat – the highest court in the administrative judicial system.

Specialised administrative courts can also hear appeals related to their specific areas of competence as established by law.

For instance, the State’s accountants and authorising officers for expenditure can be sanctioned by the Cour des comptes (the French Financial Court) if their management of public funds is non-compliant with the applicable regulation. Appeals regarding its decisions will fall into the jurisdiction of the Financial Court of Appeal, whose decisions can then be appealed before the Conseil d’Etat.

The National Court of Asylum is also a specialised administrative court that hears appeals against decisions of the French Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons. If a refugee is denied asylum, they can appeal the refusal before the National Court of Asylum. The National Court of Asylum’s decisions can only be appealed before the Conseil d’Etat.

There can also be legal uncertainty concerning the applicable forum, in which case judges can refer the matter to the Tribunal of Conflicts, which will then have to determine the competent court system (either the administrative or ordinary court system).

For instance, when it comes to public services, the Tribunal of Conflicts ruled that a difference should be made between administrative and industrial and commercial public services, the latter falling into the jurisdiction of ordinary courts (TC, 22 January 1921, No. 00706), except for regulatory acts adopted for the general organisation of the public service (TC, 15 January 1968, No. 01908).

Susceptibility to challenge can be determined by reference to the defendant, which relates to the issue of standing as set out in 6. Standing.

Also, as outlined in 3.5 Challenging Decisions Without Legal Effect and 10.11 Exempt Decisions, some acts cannot be challenged due to their political nature or because of their lack of concrete effects on their addressees.

The time limit for appeal, as outlined in 9.3 Time Limits, also has a significant impact on susceptibility to challenge.

Primary legislation can be challenged on two different grounds:

• constitutionality; and
• conventionality.

Regarding its conformity to the French “constitutional bloc” (which includes the French Constitution and other constitutional legislation as set out in 10.2 Constitutional Challenge), primary legislation can be challenged by:

• raising a “question prioritaire de constitutionnalité” (QPC); or
• bringing a priority constitutionality issue before a judicial or administrative court during a trial.

This can be done at the initial trial or on appeal, but not independently; it must stem from an ongoing case.

If the applicable law has not been previously declared constitutional, and if the issue is of a serious or novel nature, the QPC will be transferred to the Conseil constitutionnel. Neither ordinary nor administrative courts are competent to rule on the conformity of primary legislation to the “constitutional bloc”.

In contrast, the Conseil constitutionnel ruled in 1975 (CC, 15 January 1975, IVG, No. 74-54 DC) that it cannot assess the conformity of primary legislation to international treaties, including EU law. Ordinary and administrative courts therefore have jurisdiction to review whether laws comply with international treaties and EU legislation and must set aside any law that conflicts with them (see 13.2 Invalidating Legislation).

In France, secondary legislation can be challenged before the Administrative Courts by raising a “recours pour excès de pouvoir” (ultra vires action).

The aim of the appeal is the annulment of the legislation by the judge. As set out in 10.1 Scope of Judicial Review: Merits v Process, this type of claim can be based on:

• “external illegality” grounds, which relate to the procedure through which the legislation was enacted; or
• “internal illegality” grounds, which relate to the substance of the legislation.

Government decisions that affect only one person can also be challenged through an ultra vires action on the same grounds as those laid out in 3.2 Challenging Secondary Legislation. Such claims will usually include submissions seeking the annulment of the decision by the judge. Claimants can also seek an injunction requiring the judge to order the administration to carry out a specific course of action necessarily implied by the ruling (see 13.3 Mandating Government Action Through Court Orders).

However, individuals can also challenge these types of decisions through a “recours de plein contentieux” (full jurisdiction action). In this case, the judge will have greater powers than merely annulling the decision and will be able to order the administration to pay damages if its decision or behaviour caused harm to the claimant.

Private law agreements between private entities and public bodies can be challenged in the ordinary court system if it is clearly determined that the agreement is not of administrative nature because of its content (ie, the agreement does not relate to the performance of a public service nor does it involve prerogatives of public power, or the occupation of the public domain).

For instance, a contract for the supply of television sets to a hospital which does not involve the supplier in the performance of a public service and does not involve any public authority powers shall be submitted to the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts as it was only concluded for the needs of an existing service (TC, 21st May 2007, No. C3609).

The Conseil d’Etat has thoroughly addressed the question of whether decisions with little or no legal effect can be challenged. The focus has gradually shifted from their imperative nature to their potential to have a significant impact on the situation of their addressees.

Soft law decisions or acts, such as advice or guidance, enacted by independent administrative or public authorities (AAI or API) acting as regulatory authorities, can be challenged as long as they are likely to have a significant effect on their addressees or were adopted to influence their behaviour significantly (CE, 21 March 2016, No. 368082).

More generally, general documents such as circulars or guidelines enacted by any administrative authority can be challenged if they are likely to have a significant impact on the situation of their addressees (CE, 12 June 2020, No. 418142).

Consequently, acts that do not have any legal effect under that definition cannot be challenged in a court of law.

Public entities cannot engage in commercial activities at will. They must respect the principles of freedom of trade, industry, and free competition. Moreover, they may only undertake commercial activities justified by their legal powers and serving a specific public interest. Even when legally allowed, their public status must not give them advantages that undermine market competition (CE, 31 May 2006, No. 275531).

If a public entity engages in economic activity in violation of these rules, related administrative acts can be challenged before the Administrative Court. As noted in 1.1 General Rules or Specific Regimes?, a claim may first be referred to the relevant authority to request that it ceases the activity, though this is rarely the most effective approach.

Public entities are also subject to competition law. When acting as “undertakings” under European law, they must comply with prohibitions on illegal agreements and abuse of dominant position and are bound by state aid rules. Breaches outside public service provision or prerogatives of public power may be prosecuted before the Competition Authority (Cass, com, 1 April 2023, No. 20-21.844), while violations within the performance of public services or exercising public powers fall under the jurisdiction of the administrative courts.

There are numerous instances where the jurisdiction of administrative courts was transferred by legislation or case law to ordinary courts.

For example, matters involving the administration but related to personal freedom or property rights fall under the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts. This includes, for instance:

• cases of expropriation of private entities by the administration;
• appeals against decisions made by the French Competition Authority (pursuant to article L. 464-8 of the French Commercial Code); and
• appeals against decisions made by the French Financial Markets Authority (pursuant to article L. 621-30 of the French Monetary Code).

However, it is impossible to modify jurisdiction through an agreement between a public entity and a private entity.

The only circumstance in which certain contracts can exclude the jurisdiction of the administrative court is where it is legally permissible for them to contain an arbitration clause. Pursuant to Article 2060 of the French Civil Code, arbitration clauses are permissible in contracts concluded by industrial and commercial public entities (as opposed to administrative public entities) within areas that are specified by decree. The State, local authorities and public entities are also allowed to include an arbitration clause in contracts concluded for the realisation of operations of national interest. Arbitration clauses are also permissible for disputes related to the financial execution of works contracts and to the performance of public-private partnership contracts.

Claimants must have standing to challenge secondary legislation or an administrative decision.

First, they need to have capacity or authority (in case of a representative of a legal entity) to bring a claim before a court (or “qualité à agir”). 

Second, standing in administrative law must be:

• personal;
• legitimate, meaning that the challenge cannot be brought forward in order to maintain an immoral or unlawful situation;
• relevant, meaning that the claimant’s situation must be related to the act or decision;
• sufficiently direct; and
• certain and not merely possible.

Standing can be established on a collective level, meaning that charities and NGOs can bring challenges to government decisions if these decisions are related to their activities and purpose as defined in their articles of association.

Charities and NGOs whose articles of association define their activities on a national level usually will not have standing to challenge decisions that only have local ramifications, which in turn means that a decision which appears local at first glance but actually involves wider or national ramifications can be challenged by a national NGO (CE, 5 Novembre 2015, No. 375178).

Environmental protection NGOs are accustomed to bringing this type of legal action, which has notably led to the State being condemned for environmental inaction (TA Paris, 3 February 2021, The case of the century, No. 1904967).

Third parties may be involved in proceedings challenging a decision of a government body through several procedural mechanisms.

Firstly, third parties may participate by means of a voluntary intervention, which allows them to submit written pleadings and present arguments before the court to support the submissions of either the claimant or the defendant. In this case, the intervenor’s role is limited to reinforcing the position of the party it supports. Its pleadings are then limited to the legal grounds (“external” or “internal illegality” as indicated in 10.1 Scope of Judicial Review: Merits v Process) raised by the applicant before the expiry of the time limit for appeal. The third party must demonstrate standing to intervene (ie, a sufficient interest in the outcome of the case), and the intervention is subject to the judge’s approval. A refusal to admit the intervention may be appealed.

Secondly, the judge may order a forced intervention, requiring a third party to join the proceedings as defendant and become a party to the case. Such measure must be requested by either party and only applies in full jurisdiction cases as laid out in 3.3 Challenging Government Decisions Affecting Sole Individuals.

Finally, the judge may decide to notify the claim to a third party so that it may submit observations. In such circumstances, the third party is invited to provide input but, like a voluntary intervenor, does not formally become a party to the proceedings.

As mentioned in 7.1. Joinder, voluntary intervenors do not become parties in the proceedings. However, they can play a role in the proceedings by strengthening the arguments made by the claimant or defendant. Third parties allowed to submit observations can also play this role.

In the event of forced intervention, the intervenor becomes a party to the proceedings if it appears that they may in fact be liable for part of the damage. They can be compared to third-party proceedings. This can be the case, for example, when public works cause damage to an individual who decides to hold the constructor liable. The constructor will then be able to request the project owner’s intervention if the works were accepted by the project owner without any reservation and if the constructor cannot be held liable under the ten-year guarantee or the guarantee of perfect completion (CE, 6 February 2019, No. 414064). 

Disclosure and discovery procedures do not apply in the French judicial system. The parties are not required to produce all the documents in their possession that are linked to the case, but only those they deem favourable to their claim. 

During a litigation before the Administrative Court, the parties are expected to disclose evidence to support their claim. The burden of proof can sometimes be shifted to the administration, for example in discrimination cases where it will have to prove that the decision was based on objective grounds.

The administrative judge can order investigative measures if they consider that non-disclosed documents are necessary for the resolution of the case. These measures usually concern the administration which will be asked to disclose administrative documents (CE, 1st  May 1936, Couespel du Mesnil, p. 485) but they can also be addressed to private parties (Article R. 611-10 of the Code of Administrative Justice (CAJ)). The judge may be asked by one of the parties to use this prerogative, but can also use it at their own will.

The judge possesses a wide variety of investigative powers to collect evidence, as set out in 8.3 Live Evidence and Cross-Examination.

If a judge uses one of these prerogatives, they must ensure that the procedural rights of the parties involved are respected. Most importantly, the judge must ensure that all documents relied on in reaching the decision have been disclosed to the parties beforehand, allowing them to formulate observations if necessary.

The parties can also use interim procedures referred to as “référé” to consolidate evidence, as detailed in 9.7 Expedited Proceedings and 12.1 Common Forms of Interim Relief.

Proceedings before administrative courts in France are mainly written. The parties must produce their evidence in writing to support their written submissions, and their oral observations at the hearing serve only to clarify those submissions. The written nature of the procedure prevents the judge from considering arguments presented orally that do not appear in the written proceedings (CE, 18 January 1957, Mantega, p. 56). As an exception, emergency procedures (see 9.7 Expedited Proceedings) are oral procedures in which the hearing plays a more significant role.

Furthermore, proceedings are inquisitorial rather than adversarial. Thus, it is the judge who has to investigate and gather evidence and testimony, using for example.

• Investigation (CAJ, Article R. 623-1): the judge may, at the request of the parties or on their own initiative, order an investigation into the facts which they consider relevant for the case. In this context, they are required to hear witnesses presented by the parties and may confront them.
• Oral investigation procedures (CAJ, Article R. 625-1): the judge may hold an oral investigation hearing during which they hear the parties on any question of fact or law that they believe useful to examine.
• Technical opinion procedure (CAJ, Article R. 626-2): the judge may request a person of their choice to provide an opinion on a technical issue that does not require complex investigations.
• Amicus curiae procedure (CAJ, Article R. 626-2): the judge may invite any person whose expertise or influence could be useful in determining the outcome of a dispute to submit general observations on the points they deem relevant.
• Expert opinion procedure (CAJ, Article R. 621-1): at the request of the parties or at his own initiative, the judge may order, before ruling on the merits, that an expert opinion be obtained on certain points.
• Site visits (CAJ, Article R. 622-1): the judge may decide to visit a site to make observations and carry out checks.
• Document verification procedure (CAJ, Article R. 624-1): the judge may decide to have documents verified by one or more experts.

In principle, the claimant is not required to take any preliminary steps before challenging an administrative decision. However, before taking the dispute to court, the claimant may file an administrative appeal with the authority that issued the decision or with its superior authority. This may allow the claimant to resolve the dispute amicably, thereby avoiding lengthy and costly legal proceedings.

More importantly, any challenge before the Administrative Court must be filed against a decision (CAJ, Article R. 421-1). In the absence of a decision to challenge, the claimant must, first, obtain it: they must submit a request to the administrative authority and may subsequently file an appeal with the judge against the authority’s explicit or implicit response - resulting from its failure to respond within a certain period, generally two months.

As an exception, the claimant is required to take preliminary steps before bringing their dispute before a judge in certain cases:

• the claimant is required to file a mandatory preliminary administrative appeal (RAPO) with the administrative authority before bringing a case to court when the law, regulations, or an agreement specifically provides for it. RAPOs are common in disputes relating to taxes and public debts, the civil service, administrative elections, education, professional bodies and sports federation. For example, to challenge decisions by the regional medical board regarding medical ethics, the applicant must file a RAPO before the National Council of the Medical Association; and
• the claimant is always required to make a prior claim for compensation to an authority before bringing a claim before the court seeking an order requiring this authority to pay a sum of money.

Failure to take these preliminary steps renders the appeal before the judge inadmissible.

In principle, there is no requirement to exhaust all administrative remedies before filing a lawsuit. However, law, regulations or an agreement may in certain cases require that a prior administrative appeal be filed with the administrative authority before bringing the matter before a court (see 9.1 Preliminary Requirements).

In principle, the claimant must bring a challenge within two months of the notification or publication of the decision being challenged. When this decision is a deemed rejection decision resulting from the administration’s failure to respond to a request submitted to it, this period begins on the date on which the deemed decision took effect (CAJ, Article R. 421-1).

The two-month period is applicable only if it was mentioned along with the available remedies in the notification of the decision. In the absence of such a mention, the claimant has a reasonable period of one year – either from the date on which the decision was notified to them or from the date on which it is established that they became aware of it – to bring the matter before the court (CE, 13 July 2016, Czabaj, No. 387763 ; CE, 25 September 2020, No. 430945).

As an exception, certain laws or regulations establish different time limits - longer or shorter than two months - for bringing a challenge in certain disputes or under certain circumstances (such as for individuals residing outside mainland France or abroad).

To initiate a claim before the Administrative Court, the claimant must submit the decision being challenged (CAJ, Article R. 412-1). If the claimant is challenging an implied decision of the administration, they must provide proof of the date on which their request was submitted to the administration.

However, if the claimant does not submit the contested decision along with the petition, the judge must request that the claimant does so by issuing a notice to cure the defect. The petition is inadmissible only if the claimant fails to comply with that request (CE, 11 February 1966, Denis, No. 62284).

Legal arguments and evidence are required in the petition filed by the claimant within the time limit for appeal (CE, 20 February 1953, Société Intercopie, No. 9772) (see also 9.3 Time Limits).

However, those arguments do not necessarily need to be fully developed at that stage. For instance, if the claimant does not have sufficient time to finalise a full application before the time limit for appeal expires, they may submit a “summary petition”, which they can supplement with a supplementary brief after the time limit for appeal has expired.

What is important is that claimants raise arguments related to both the “external” and “internal illegality” of the challenged act (as detailed in 10.1 Scope of Judicial Review: Merits v Process) before the time limit for appeal expires, so that they do not lose the ability to raise any type of argument after that time in their supplementary brief.

Before the Conseil d’Etat, an appeal in cassation is always subject to a preliminary admissibility review (CAJ, Article L. 822-1). The judge will only admit the appeal if it is admissible and based on serious grounds.

Before the Administrative Court and the Administrative Court of Appeal, petitions of first instance and on appeal are subject to less restrictive screening processes but may nevertheless be dismissed in certain cases (CAJ, Article R. 222-1). The judge may dismiss the petition if:

• it is manifestly inadmissible;
• if it contains only grounds of external legality (see 10.1 Scope of Judicial Review: Merits v Process) that are manifestly unfounded, inadmissible or ineffective; or
• if it contains only grounds that rely on facts that are manifestly incapable of supporting them or are manifestly lacking the details necessary to assess their merits.

The following summary proceedings allow for the expedited processing of a request in urgent situations.

The interim suspension procedure (CAJ, Article L. 521-1): the claimant may ask the judge to order the suspension of the enforcement of a decision when urgency warrants it. The judge is then required to rule as soon as possible. The claimant must:

• file an admissible appeal on the merits challenging the same decision;
• demonstrate that the administrative decision for which they seek suspension causes sufficiently serious and immediate harm to public interest, to their situation, or to the interests they intend to defend; and
• demonstrate that there is serious doubt as to the legality of the decision.

The interim fundamental freedoms procedure (CAJ, Article L. 521-2): The claimant may ask the judge to order any measures necessary to safeguard a fundamental freedom when urgency so warrants. The judge is then required to rule within 48 hours. The claimant must demonstrate:

• an urgency justifying that a measure be taken within 48 hours;
• a violation of a fundamental freedom within the meaning of Article L. 521-2 of the Code Administrative Justice; and
• that this violation of a fundamental freedom is serious and manifestly unlawful.

The interim useful measures procedure (CAJ, Article L. 521-3): The claimant may ask the judge to order any useful measures when the urgency warrants it. The claimant must demonstrate that the measures they are asking the judge to order:

• address an emergency;
• are appropriate;
• do not impede the enforcement of an administrative decision;
• are not the subject of serious dispute; and
• cannot be obtained through the interim suspension procedure or the interim fundamental freedoms procedure.

The judge reviews both the merits of the decision and the way in which it was made. More specifically, the judge reviews two legal grounds:

• “internal legality” – the judge reviews the merits of the decision verifying it is not marred by error of fact (see 10.4 Factual Errors) or error of law (he verifies that it does not violate or misinterpret the law); and

• “external legality” – the judge verifies that the decision (i) was made by a competent authority, (ii) complies with the formal requirements set forth in the relevant statutes and (iii) was made in accordance with the proper procedure.

France has a written Constitution adopted on 4 October 1958, which stands at the top of the hierarchy of norms within the “constitutional bloc.”

In addition to the written Constitution of 4 October 1958, this “constitutional bloc” includes other texts with constitutional status:

• the Preamble to the 1946 French Constitution;
• the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789; and
• the 2004 Environmental Charter.

These texts establish fundamental rights and freedoms, for example:

• the principle of equality;
• freedom of enterprise;
• the right to property;
• freedom of conscience;
• freedom of expression of thoughts and opinions;
• the right to privacy; and
• freedom of association.

A claimant may therefore challenge a decision on the grounds that it violates a right or freedom guaranteed by the Constitution of 4 October 1958 or another of these constitutional norms. The claimant may also challenge an administrative decision on the grounds that it is based on a law which violates these norms through the Priority Preliminary Ruling on Constitutionality (see 3.1 Challenging Primary Legislation).

A claimant can bring challenge to a government decision when the decision-maker did not follow the relevant procedure for that decision. However, in such a case, the claimant must demonstrate that the procedural defect influenced the outcome of the decision or that it had the effect of depriving the claimant of procedural guarantees (CE, 23 December 2011, Danthony, No. 335033).

A claimant can bring a challenge on the basis that the decision-maker made an error of fact. In such a case, they must demonstrate:

• a material inaccuracy of the facts – the claimant must prove that the decision is based on a fact that is materially inaccurate (CE, 14 January 1916, Camino, No. 59619); or

• an error in the legal characterisation of the facts – the claimant must prove that the facts are not such to justify the decision taken (CE, 4 April 1914, Gomel, No. 55125).

A claimant can bring a challenge on the grounds that the authority abdicated or fettered their legally granted discretion, invoking the principle of the inalienability of authority.

For example, the Conseil d’Etat held that an authority cannot abdicate or fetter their discretion:

• by considering itself bound by the position of an advisory authority without a statutory provision to that effect (CE, 20 June 2003, No. 248242);
• by relinquishing its power in favour of a third party (CE, 8 June 2005, No. 255987) or by entrusting a third-party authority, in the absence of any provision authorising it, with the task of deciding in its stead (CE, 5 December 1975, No. 98806); and
• by hindering the exercise of its discretion due to a course of action previously established in guidelines or any other instruments (CE, 13 April 2017, No. 403202).

A claimant can bring a challenge on the basis that the decision-maker was biased, by invoking the principle of impartiality of administrative authorities which is:

• a general legal principle (CE, 30 December 2010, No. 338273); and
• a principle of constitutional value (CC, 28 July 1989, No. 89-260 DC).

In such a case, the claimant must demonstrate that the individual conduct of the decision-makers reveals the existence of a conflict of interest or bias that affects the decision’s neutrality (subjective impartiality). The mere fact that the decision-maker has held, or continues to hold, other positions regardless of any considerations relating to the person concerned or their conduct (objective impartiality) is generally not sufficient, in and of itself, to establish a violation of the principle of impartiality – except in the specific case of administrative sanctions, in respect of which the courts have recognised the applicability of the principles of a fair trial as detailed below.

In administrative case law, the principle of impartiality is primarily applied in disputes concerning:

• public procurement;
• disciplinary matters; and
• appointment procedures involving examination or competition panels.

For example, a public procurement procedure violates the principle of impartiality if a person involved in evaluating bids has held significant responsibilities in one of the bidding companies (CE, 14 October 2015, No. 390968).

In case of sanctions issued by an administrative authority, the claimant can also invoke the principle of judicial impartiality, which derives from Article 16 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (CC, 28 December 2006, No. 2006-545 DC) and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). In such cases, the petitioner may therefore demonstrate a violation of the principle of subjective or objective impartiality.

For example, the court held that, by exercising his authority to initiate proceedings and then participating in the deliberations and vote that led to a sanction against a company, the president of the Airport Noise Control Authority violated the principle of impartiality set forth in Article 6 of the ECHR (CE, 29 July 2020, No. 432969).

A claimant can bring a challenge on the basis of unequal treatment, by invoking the principle of equality which:

• has constitutional status under Articles 1 and 6 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (CC, 27 December 1973, No. 73-51 DC); and
• is a general principle of law (CE, 9 March 1951, Société des concerts du conservatoire, No. 92004).

For persons in identical situations, the principle of equality means they should only be treated differently when such distinction is justified by public interest and consistent with the rule’s purpose. Moreover, the difference in treatment must not be disproportionate to the interest that justifies it. 

For persons in different situations, the difference in treatment still needs to be consistent with the rule’s purpose and proportionate to the interest that justifies it.

For instance, it was held that granting certain advantages to technical inspection centres belonging to approved networks breached the principle of equality, since independent centres carried out the same activity and the difference in treatment was disproportionate to the difference in situation and could not be justified by the purpose of the regulation (CE, 21 Octobre 2011, No. 342498).

France ratified the European Convention on Human Rights on 3 May 1974, and accepted the right of individual petition to the European Court of Human Rights in 1981. It is therefore possible to invoke a violation of the rights guaranteed by the ECHR before French administrative courts, and it is possible to bring an action before the European Court of Human Rights after exhausting all remedies before French courts.

France is also subject to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union of 2011, which has been binding since 1 December 2009. An applicant may therefore invoke a violation of the rights guaranteed by this charter, provided that the contested decision implements European Union law, before French administrative courts and before the courts of the European Union.

Since 1933, administrative case law has recognised that a claimant bringing an ultra vires action against an administrative “police” act infringing on civil liberties can allege that its effects are disproportionate (CE, 19 May 1933, Benjamin, No. 17413).

When presented with such an argument, the administrative court reviews the merits of the administrative act by verifying whether the imposed measure was indeed:

• appropriate;
• necessary; and
• proportionate.

And when the contested administrative act is a “police” measure aimed solely at restricting civil liberties, the administrative judge adopts a very concrete approach and notably requires the administrative authority to duly justify its measure with established facts and data, rather than relying solely onto principles alone.

But the administrative court also reviews the proportionality of other types of administrative acts, such as acts imposing public service obligations on operators in the pursuit of an objective of economic general interest (CE 9 October 2015, No 369417) or administrative sanctions – the Conseil d’Etats for example reduced the fine imposed on a French multinational optician for personal data leaks, finding its amount disproportionate to the infringements at stake (CE, 17 April 2019, No 422575).

Within the two grounds of “internal” and “external legality” (see 10.1 Scope of Judicial Review: Merits v Process), there are a number of arguments that can be raised. In addition to the grounds mentioned  (see 10.2 Constitutional Challenge to 10.9 Proportionality), some of those are particularly interesting and topical at the present time, such as:

• the principles set out in the French Charter for the Environment – for example, the principle of non-regression implies that environmental protection must be subject to constant improvement and thus must be respected (CC, 4 August 2016, No. 2016-737 DC);
• the prohibited delegation of a sovereign power to a private body (CE, 18 September 2025, No. 495025); or
• the principle of non-retroactivity, which prohibits a new rule from calling into question situations that have already been definitively established under the previous rules (Article L. 221-4 of the Code for Relations Between the Public and the Administration).

In addition to the decisions which produce no legal effect whatsoever (see 3.3 Challenging Government Decisions Affecting Sole Individuals), specific decisions called “acts of government” can never be challenged before the administrative courts pursuant to case law (CE, 19 February 1875, No. 46707).

These administrative acts fall into two categories:

• acts relating to the relationship between the executive and legislative branches – for instance, the executive order to promulgate a law cannot be challenged (CE, 27 October 2015, No. 388807); and
• acts involving the conduct of France’s foreign relations – for example, this can refer to the preparation, signing, and ratification of an international agreement (CE, 23 July 1961, Société Indochinoise d'électricité, p. 519).

The administrative judge being the “master” of the pre-trial phase, they directly manage the exchange of pleadings before the case is heard. The defendant may file pleadings in response to the claimant’s claim and subsequent pleadings, which are transmitted by the court. The defendant can file their pleadings until a deadline set by the administrative judge or, where no express deadline has been set:

• until three days before the hearing before the Administrative Courts of first instance or the Administrative Courts of Appeal; or
• until the hearing if the case is before the Conseil d’Etat.

Aside from the fact that the claimant's arguments are groundless (in fact or in law), meaning that the challenged administrative act is therefore legal, or that the administration cannot be held liable for the alleged misconduct, there are five typical defences:

• lack of jurisdiction of the court – the defendant asserts that the court lacks jurisdiction to hear the claim brought before it;
• dismissal for mootness – the defendant argues that the subject matter of the claim has ceased to exist during the proceedings and that, consequently, there is no longer a need for the court to rule on it;
• inadmissibility of the claim – the defendant argues that the claim must be dismissed as inadmissible, for example, because it is time-barred or because the petitioner lacks standing to challenge the contested administrative act or behaviour;

• the irrelevance of the argument raised – this means that the argument raised has no bearing on the outcome of the dispute and must therefore be dismissed in any event, without any need for the judge to examine its substance – for example, a claimant cannot argue that a specific law was violated, if this law is not even applicable to the case; and

• the inadmissibility of the argument raised – this means that the argument cannot be raised by the claimant because of a specific procedural rule – for instance, when the argument was not raised within the time limit (see 9.5 Procedural Stages).

It is possible to seek interim measures before the administrative court, the majority of which are requested through the emergency proceedings mentioned in 9.7 Expedited Proceedings:

• in the interim suspension procedure, the judge can urgently order the suspension of the execution of an administrative act before ruling on the merits of its legality, such as, for instance, the disciplinary dismissal of a civil servant (CE, 4 May 2023, No. 470035) or the performance of a contract (CE, 15 February 2021, No. 445488);
• in the interim fundamental freedoms procedure, the judge may urgently order any interim measure necessary to end an illegal infringement of a fundamental freedom, such as remedying undignified detention conditions (CE, 22 December 2012, No. 364584) or taking measures regarding access to housing and food for homeless people (CE, 23 November 2015, No. 394540);
• in the interim useful measures procedure (CAJ, Article L. 521-3), the judge may order any useful measure when there is an emergency, such as the disclosure of documents or information necessary to a legal challenge (CE, 20 February 2012, No. 353134), or even the removal or dismantling of a physical structure without destroying it (CE, 14 April 2023, No. 466993); and
• in the interim necessary investigative or expertise procedure (CAJ, Article R. 532-1), the judge may prescribe any useful expert appraisal or investigative measure, for example a medical expert report regarding the circumstances of a child's birth and death (CE, 7 April 2010, No. 331551) or a report to determine the causes of fire outbreaks (CE, 7 June 2018, No. 416535).

The administration may incur liability where it has committed a fault that caused harm (fault-based liability) or even in the absence of any fault (no-fault liability). When the administration is found liable in either case, and the claimant proves the existence of the harm, the claimant may be awarded damages.

Regarding fault-based liability, the claimant must demonstrate that:

• the administration’s action or inaction resulted in a fault, which may also consist solely in the illegality of an administrative act (CE, 26 January 1973, No. 84768);
• they suffered direct and certain damage; and
• a causal link exists between the administration's fault and the damage suffered.

For example, the Conseil d’Etat ordered the French audiovisual regulator to pay EUR1.1 million in damages due to the illegality of one of its sanctions, which caused significant harm to a television channel by prohibiting it from broadcasting advertisements for a certain amount of time (CE, 13 November 2019, No. 415397).

Regarding no-fault liability, the claimant must demonstrate that the administration’s conduct or the act adopted – even a law – caused them serious and special harm. For instance, no-fault liability of the administration was recognised when a law caused serious prejudice to a company by prohibiting the manufacture and sale of a product (CE, 14 January 1938, No. 51704) or when the administration legally refused to provide the assistance of law enforcement to a citizen (CE, 30 November 1923, No. 38284).

The administrative court may annul an administrative act it finds to be unlawful (see 13.4 Next Steps Where a Decision Is Found Unlawful).

In addition, when the challenged administrative act is based on another administrative act, the judge can declare the latter illegal and then annul the first one deemed subsequently illegal. It is called an “exception of illegality”. 

As explained in 3.1 Challenging Primary Legislation, the claimant can also argue that:

• the challenged administrative act is based on an unconstitutional law – in this case, the law first needs to be declared unconstitutional by the Conseil constitutionnel. If the Conseil constitutionnel finds the law unconstitutional, the administrative judge must then give effect to the Conseil constitutionnel’s ruling (Article 62 of the French Constitution) and annul the administrative act based on it; and

• the administrative act is based on a law which violates a treaty, EU law or ECHR law – in this case, the administrative judge can declare that the law is “unconventional” and, consequently, set it aside in the case at hand (CE, 20 October 1989, Nicolo, No. 108243) and annul the administrative act based on it.

The administrative judge can order the government to carry out a specific course of action when the ruling necessarily implies that it must take a specific enforcement measure or that it must take a new decision after a new examination (CAJ, Articles L. 911-1 and L. 911-2).

The judge outlines the measures to be taken by issuing “injunctions” and setting the delay within which they must be accomplished. These injunctions are very diverse and can concern, for instance:

• the re-examination of the petitioner’s request;
• the delivery of an administrative document; or
• the adoption of a new administrative act free from certain defects.

For example, in 2021, the Conseil d’Etat famously ordered the Prime Minister to take additional measures to curb the greenhouse gas emissions curve before the end of March 2022 (CE, 1st July 2021, No. 427301).

In the event of non-compliance with a ruling of the administrative judge, a claimant may request a daily penalty (called “astreinte”) to compel the defendant to execute the injunction imposed upon them (CAJ, Article L. 911-3). If the defendant fails to comply, the claimant can ask the judge to then proceed to “liquidate the penalty”, meaning authorising its direct payment (CAJ, Article L. 911-7).

The administrative judge’s jurisdiction is limited by the claims submitted by the parties. When a claimant seeks the annulment of the administrative act, the judge must annul it if they find it to be unlawful. The claimant can also ask for the judge to annul the act, meaning that, if found unlawful, it will cease to exist for the future (CE, 19 November 2021, No. 437141).

In principle, the annulment of the administrative act removes it from the legal order retroactively, but if it appears that this retroactive effect is likely to have manifestly excessive consequences, the judge can adjust its temporal effects, either by postponing its effective date, by considering past effects as definitive or by combining both options (CE, 11 May 2004, Association AC!, No. 255886). For instance, when the Conseil d’Etat annulled the railway toll tariffs in March 2024 on procedural grounds, it used this power to postpone the effective date of the annulment to 1 October. This was intended to allow the railway infrastructure manager enough time to adopt new tariffs and thus avoid losing astronomical sums due to a lack of legal basis (CE, 5 March 2024, No. 472859).

The judge also has the power to annul or terminate administrative contracts (CE, 28 December 2009, No.304802; CE, 4 April 2014, No. 358994).

The judge can also award damages when the administration is found liable, as explained in 13.1 Damages.

Natural persons whose resources are insufficient to assert their rights in court may benefit from a legal aid granted by the State called “aide juridictionnelle” (Loi No. 91-647 of the 10th July 1991; CAJ, Article R. 441-1). This aid aims to cover regulated legal costs, such as lawyer fees, for a limited amount.

Pursuant to article L. 761-1 of the CAJ, the administrative judge may also order the losing party to pay the legal costs (called “dépens”), meaning the costs related to the proceedings such as translation fees or witness appearance fees, as well as non-recoverable costs (called “frais exposés et non compris dans les dépens”), such as attorney fees.

There is no specific rule equivalent to the “public interest costs” mechanism in French administrative Law.

However, there is an unwritten and non-binding custom within the administrative court system by which, depending on the specific circumstances of the case, the administrative judge may decide not to award costs to the administration under Article L. 761-1 of the CAJ when it wins a case against a natural person, particularly in disputes involving civil servants against the administration.

Pursuant to Article R. 741-12 of the CAJ, the administrative judge can impose a fine not exceeding EUR10.000 on the author of a claim deemed to be an abuse of process.

This procedure is usually used by the judge for claims that are manifestly useless as they are clearly destined for rejection. In other cases, it is the content of the application itself that reveals its abusive nature:

• the petition is not reasoned;
• the allegations are outrageous or fanciful;
• all grounds for appeal are inoperative; or
• the petitioner produces falsified documents in support of their appeal.

However, in practice, these fines are rarely imposed.

Any party involved in a case before the Administrative Court may file an appeal against its ruling (CAJ, Articles L. 211-2, L. 321-1, and R. 811-1). The appeal is usually filed before an Administrative Court of Appeal. If the party then loses its appeal, it may file an appeal against the Administrative Court of Appeal’s decision, called an appeal in cassation before the Conseil d’Etat, which is the supreme administrative court and rules in the last resort (CAJ, Articles L. 111-1 and L. 331-1). In certain cases, the Conseil d’Etat can also directly serve as a court of appeal, for example when appealing against a ruling of an interim fundamental freedom procedure.

However, some other administrative acts must also be directly challenged before the Conseil d’Etat, for instance when challenging a decree. In this case, the Conseil d’Etat then rules as a court of first and last resort (CAJ, Articles L. 311-2 to L. 311-5, R. 311-1 and R. 311-1-1), for which no appeal is available to the losing party.

Also, for some administrative acts, the Administrative Court or specific Administrative Courts of Appeal rule as a court of first and last resort (CAJ, Articles R. 811-1, R. 311-2 to R. 311-5), for which no appeal is available, but an appeal in cassation before the Conseil d’Etat remains possible.

A claimant must file its appeal against a ruling before the competent court. They must usually bring it before the Administrative Court of Appeal which has jurisdiction over the Administrative Court whose ruling is being challenged (CAJ, Article R. 322-1). There are nine Administrative Courts of Appeal in France.

But as mentioned in 15.1 Right to Appeal, for some cases, the appeal must be brought before the Conseil d’Etat which rules as an appellate court (CAJ, Articles L. 523-1 and R. 321-1). A claimant may then file an appeal in cassation before the Conseil d’Etat against that appellate decision.

There is no permission to appeal given by a court in French administrative law, as the rules for appeal are directly set by legislation (see also 15.1 Right to Appeal, 15.2 Appeal Forums and 15.4 Rehearing of Appeal).

The appellate court (ie, the Administrative Court of Appeal or the Conseil d’Etat when acting in its appellate capacity):

• examines the procedural regularity of the initial ruling – the appellate court verifies that all procedural conditions were respected by the administrative court in the initial ruling; and
• rehears the case – it can either affirm or annul (totally or partially) the ruling of the court of first instance. When overturning the ruling of the court of first instance, the appellate court can decide to rule on it itself, or to remand the case to the Administrative Court of first instance. In practice, however, the appellate court usually rules on the case itself in the interest of the proper administration of justice.

Regarding the appeal in cassation, the Conseil d’Etat also verifies the procedural regularity of the appellate court's decision, but then reviews points of law and determines, where applicable, whether the appellate court has distorted the evidence in the case file. If the Conseil d’Etat annuls the appellate court’s ruling, it can either remand the case to the appellate court for retrial or rule on the case itself, in the interest of the proper administration of justice.