Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T03:48:22.495Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

New Remedies in the High Court of Justice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2016

Claude Klein
Get access

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Cases
Information
Israel Law Review , Volume 10 , Issue 4 , October 1975 , pp. 582 - 591
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and The Faculty of Law, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 1975

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See Oppenheimer v. Ministers of Interior and Health (1965) (I) 20 P.D. 309. Important extracts of that case have been published in (1966) 1 Is. L.R. 462. The question there was whether a judicial order could be issued prescribing the Minister to act and issue administrative regulations for the implementation of a law. The French case referred to is Doublet, Conseil d'Etat 14 décembre, 1962 (1963) Actualité juridique—Droit administratif 101.

2 See, for instance, Zamir, I. “The Law of Public Tenders” (1964) 20 HaPraklit 226, 403, 497.Google Scholar

3 See his classic book on the subject, Traité de la juridiction administrative (1897) vol. 2, p. 25.

4 For an introduction in English, see Brown, and Garner, , French Administrative Law (2nd ed., 1973) 945.Google Scholar

5 This is the “recours pour excès de pouvoir” which is in fact the classical ultra vires proceeding under which the petitioner seeks only the annulment of the administrative act.

6 Here the plaintiff is seeking compensation; the Conseil d'Etat has full jurisdiction to decide whether to grant compensation and to what amount.

7 The administrative court is approached by a civil court in order to explain the legal meaning of an administrative act. Civil courts are forbidden to give such explanation themselves.

8 The administrative court acts as a criminal court. This is rather rare and relates to damage caused to the “domaine public” (roads, ports, seashore etc.). The person who causes the damage must pay not only compensation for the damage but also a fine determined by the administrative court.

9 There are some differences in the procedure: for instance, the “Recours pour excès de pouvoir” may be commenced without an advocate as intermediary (which is necessary in all other cases) and is free from tax. See Heilbronner, “Recours pour excès de pouvoir et recours de plein contentieux” Dalloz (1953) Chroniques 183.Google Scholar

10 Conseil d'Etat 8 mars 1912, Lafage, rec. des arrêts du Conseil d'Etat, p. 348; Sirey 1912–3–7 note Hauriou and conclusions du commissaire du gouvernement Pichat. See also the commentary of Long-Weil-Braibant, in Les grands arrêts de la jurisprudence administrative (6ème édition, 1974) 102Google Scholar, which also gives a survey of the development after Lafage. In Lafage the Conseil d'Etat admitted that a civil servant who commenced an action against a refusal to grant him some pecuniary benefit included in general regulations, could do so by way of “recours pour excès de pouvoir”. One should remember that that case is regarded as almost an exception to the rule of non-confusion of the two kinds of actions. See also the most restrictive case Ministre des Finances c/ Lafon, Conseil d'Etat 2 mai 1959, rec. des arrêts du Conseil d'Etat, p. 282 and the commentary of Combarnous, et Galabert, in (1960) Actualité juridique—Droit administratif 160.Google Scholar

11 See for instance the critical approach of Zamir, I., Adjudication in Administrative Cases (1975, in Hebrew) 104, 193Google Scholar, with special reference to the case under discussion here and also at pp. 31–32· A classical case of the High Court is: Tsigelman v. Central Committee for Further Studies (1969) (II) 23 P.D. 777. The case is very brief and very clear.

12 See for instance, Wade, , Administrative Law (3rd ed., 1971) 139Google Scholar: “…for the prerogative remedies as a body have hereditary defects due to the fact that they have escaped the great procedural reforms of the 19th century and have survived as a special form of action with their own special procedure…” see also Phillips, Hood, Constitutional and Administrative Law (5th ed., 1973) 534Google Scholar; Garner, , Administrative Law (3rd ed.) 167et seq.Google ScholarSchwartz, B. and Wade, , Legal Control of Government (1972) 216et seq.Google Scholar The system has often been criticized—see for instance, Wheare, K. C., Lectures, Hamlyn (25th series), Maladministration and its Remedies (1973) 31–33Google Scholar and proposals have frequently been made, see for instance, Wade, op. cit., at pp. 143–144 although it seems that there is less rigidity in the Court's attitude (in Britain) during the last years (see Wade at p. 140 and the decisions quoted). Of course one should refer to the Law Commission Working Paper (n. 40) Remedies in in Administrative Law (London, 1971).

13 11 L.S.I. 157. Sec. 7 of the Courts' Law is almost identical to sec. 7 of the Mandatory Courts Ordinance of 1940. See Zamir, I. “The Jurisdiction of the High Court of Justice” in Studies in Law in Memory of Abraham Rosenthal (1968, in Hebrew), 225.Google Scholar See also Rubinstein, A., “The Jurisdiction of the High Court of Justice” (1970) 1 Iyunei Mishpat 261.Google Scholar

14 See Zamir, op. cit. (preceding note) at p. 104.

15 Zamir, op. cit., at p. 193 et seq.

16 Tribunal des conflits (since 1872).

17 See Chapus, René, Responsabilité publique et responsabilité privée (les influences réciproques des jurisprudences administratives et judiciaires) (Paris, 1957) 33et seq.Google Scholar

18 Silberg, M., Personal Status in Israel (Jerusalem, 1965, in Hebrew) 6et seq.Google Scholar; See Silberg, J., Funk Schlesinger v. Minister of the Interior (1965) 17 P.D. 225Google Scholar, at p. 240 and Streit v. Chief Rabbi of Israel (1964) (I) 18 P.D. 598, at p. 625. See also Englard, I., “Unity and Plurality of System: General Relationship Between State and Religious Law” in Religious Law in the Israel Legal System (Jerusalem, 1975, in Hebrew) 33.Google Scholar

19 As stressed by Zamir, op. cit., at p. 195.

20 See Groshens, J.C., “Réflexions sur la dualité de jurisdiction” (1963) Actualité juridique: Droit administratif 536.Google Scholar

21 6 L.S.I. 147; see Tedeschi, ed., The Law of Civil Wrongs (per Barak) (1970, in Hebrew) 401et seq.Google Scholar

22 It is interesting to consider whether a matter of contract may be brought before the High Court in the form of ultra vires. French administrative law has developed a special theory “théorie des actes détachables” which in some cases allows a “recours pour excès de pouvoir” in matters of administrative contracts. This theory covers generally all acts preceding the signature of the contract or the signature itself—see Conseil d'Etat 4 août 1950, Martin, , recueil des arrêts du Conseil d'Etat, p. 749Google Scholar, conclusions Romieu; see also: Colliard, C. A., “La notion d'actes détachables et son rôle dans la jurisprudence de Conseil d'Etat”, Mélanges Mestre, p. 115Google Scholar, and Charles, Hubert, Actes détachables et actes rattachables en droit administratif français (Paris, 1968)Google Scholar; Laubadère, A. de, Traité théorique et pratique des contrats administratifs, vol. 3, p. 326.Google Scholar

23 25 L.S.I. 11.

24 Laubadère, A. de, “Conséquences juridiques du défaut de conclusion des contrats” in Traité théorique et pratiques des contrats administratifs, vol. 1, p. 181.Google Scholar

25 See for instance, Conseil d'Etat, 16 mars 1928, Bringer Recueil, p. 386; 11 mars 1927, Bareau Recueil, p. 324; 29 mai 1954, Consorts Givone Actualité juridique-Droit Administratif, 1954 (II) 294.

26 Conseil d'Etat, 20 février 1935, Barrières Recueil, p. 217.

27 Schwartz, B., French Administrative Law and the Common Law World (New York, 1954).Google Scholar

28 Brown, L. N. and Garner, J. F., French Administrative Law (2nd ed., London, 1973).Google Scholar

29 The best studies (in French) are: Chapus, op. cit.; Odent, , Contentieux administratif (1965–1966) 945–967Google Scholar; Cotteret, J.M., “Le régime de la responsabilité pour risques en droit administratif” in Etudes de droit public (1964) 377–407.Google Scholar See also Schwartz, op. cit., at p. 291 and Brown and Garner, op. cit., at pp. 104–107.

30 Conseil d'Etat, 21 juin 1895, Cames Rec., p. 509, conclusions Romieu Sirey 1897–3–33; note Hauriou.

31 Since 1897 there has been a general principle of liability without fault in the relations of master and servant (deviating from the classical principle of fault of article 1382 of the Code Civil).

32 Rylands v. Fletcher (1868) L.R. 3 H.L. 330.

33 Conseil d'Etat, 22 novembre 1946, Commune de Saint Priest la Plaine Recueil, p. 279, Dalloz (1947) 375, note Charles Blaevoet.

34 14 janvier 1938, Société anonyme des produits laitiers “La Fleurette”, rec. p. 25. In 1838 a decision rejecting the principle of liability arising from legislation had been issued: Conseil d'Etat 11 janvier 1838, Duchâtelet, p. 2. In a case decided in 1966 the liability was extended to consequences arising from international treaties. Compagnie générale d'énergie radio-électrique, 30 mai 1966, ree. p. 257. See also the commentary of Long-Weil-Braibant, op. cit. supra n. 10, at p. 535.

35 Conseil d'Etat 30 novembre 1923 Couiteas, ree. p. 789; Sirey 1923–3–57, note Hauriou (refusal of the government to enforce a judgment asking for the expulsion of a number of tribes in South Tunisia); Conseil d'Etat 3 juin 1938, Société La Cartonnerie et Imprimerie Saint-Charles, ree. p. 521, conclusions Dayras (in that case the workers had begun a strike and occupied the factory. A judgment ordered expulsion, but the Préfet refused to act for its enforcement on the ground of “ordre public”). More recently; Conseil d'Etat, 19 mars 1971, ree. p. 235.

36 Conseil d'Etat, 28 mars 1919, Regnault Desroziers, rec. p. 329, and Sirey, 1918–19–3–25 note Hauriou: the risk inherent in the fact that ammunitions and dynamite had been stored next to a residential quarter, although the Conseil d'Etat did not consider it to be a fault.

37 See Schwartz, op. cit., at pp. 292–93, which is quoted by Berinson J. at p. 457. See Devolve, , Le principe d'égalité devant les charges publiques (Paris, 1968).Google Scholar Prof. B. Schwartz writes: “… The Council of State has for many years assumed that one of the fundamental principles of French public law, derived from the equalitarian idea that inspired the men of the Revolution, was that which provided for an equal distribution among the citizenry of the costs of government, in the absence of a legislative disposition to the contrary …”

38 Cf. Friedmann, “Independent Development of Israeli Law”, supra p. 515.

39 See Barak, op. cit., supra n. 21, at p. 418. See also Rubinstein, A. and Friedmann, D. “The Liability in Tort of Public Officers” (1964) 21 HaPraklit 61 at n. 36Google Scholar “We demand that compensation be awarded as of right as part of public law, as in French law, in addition to the law of torts in civil law”.

40 Whenever another statute applies, compensation will not be awarded on the basis of this new approach. See e.g., Spolinski v. The Minister of Housing (1975) (I) 29 P.D. 421, 425, where the plaintiff tried to obtain compensation on the basis of the approach established in the case here discussed. Berinson J. who delivered the judgment rejected the petition on the ground that here it was possible to rely on another statute i.e., the Land (Acquisition for Public Purposes) Ordinance, 1943.