Google between the Council of State and the Court of Justice of the European Union

Ovi primjeri pokazuju da se mehanizam pitanja koja se upućuju Sudu Europske unije ne odnosi samo na tumačenje standarda Zajednice (propisa, direktiva, itd.) ili na određena pitanja, poput prava tržišnog natjecanja. Oni također mjere važnost odgovornosti Suda Europske unije na osjetljivom području privatnosti. Očito je da će odgovori koje će Sud Europske unije dati na ova dva skupa pitanja imati veliku ulogu na utjecaj velikih američkih internetskih kompanija (Google, Amazon, Facebook, Apple) i život Interneta. Konačno, oni ilustriraju činjenicu da ni najprestižniji sudovi ne oklijevaju, kad je to opravdano, zauzeti stajalište Suda Europske unije. Valja napomenuti da je u Francuskoj, Ustavno vijeće, iako čvrsto povezano s načelom superiornosti Ustava, upućeno na zahtjeve Suda Europske unije za tumačenje normi Zajednice kada je ovo tumačenje potrebno za kontrolu usklađenosti zakona kojim se propis Zajednice prenosi u Ustav Francuske (prvi put Odlukom 2013-314 P QPC od 4. travnja 2013., koji se odnosi na Europski nalog za uhićenje).These examples demonstrate that the mechanism of questions directed at Europske Union Courts is not only related to interpreting Community Standards (regulations, directives, etc.) or to certain issues such as market competition law. They also measure the importance of the European Union Court in the sensitive area of privacy. It is obvious that the answers the European Union Court will give to these two groups of questions will play a major role in the impact of large American Internet companies (Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Apple) and life on the Internet. Finally, they illustrate the fact that the most prestigious courts do not hesitate, where necessary, to take the stance of the European Union Court. It must be mentioned that in France, the Constitutional Council, although firmly linked to the principle of Constitutional superiority, is directed to European Court demands for interpreting Community norms where this interpretation is necessary for controlling the harmonisation of laws by which Community regulations are transferred into the French Constitution (first time by decision 2013-314 P QPC of 4 April 2013 related to the European arrest warrant)

Explanation of Judicial Decisions by Administrative Judges

Pravo na pravično suđenje sadrži i implicitna jamstva koja su nastala kroz praksu Europskog suda za zaštitu ljudskih prava, Sud u Strasbourgu je kao sastavni element prava na pravično suđenje ustavnovio i pravo na obrazloženje sudske odluke. Nije dovoljno samo formalno pozvati se ili citirati određene propise kao mjerodavne već su nadležna tijela, a osobito sudovi, dužni obrazložiti na temelju kojih činjenica i okolnosti su utvrdili da su u okolnostima konretnog slučaja ispunjene pretpostavke iz tih propisa.The right to a fair trial also consists essentially of implicit guarantees arising from the practice of the European Court for the Protection of Human Rights. This court in Strasbourg has, in addition to establishing the right to a fair trial, also established the right to an explanation of the judicial decision. It is not enough to merely formally refer to or cite certain regulations as being reliable, but rather, authorized bodies, in particular courts, are obliged to explain the foundation on which the facts and circumstances were based. That this, they must justify that the facts and circumstances of the particular case have fulfilled the presumptions from those regulations

French conception of public servic

Avec un effectif total de 5,5 millions d’agents (soit 20 % de l’emploi total), pour une population de 67 millions d’habitants, la France pourrait faire figure de pays « suradministré ». Mais il faut se méfier des comparaisons internationales en matière de fonction publique : les mêmes fonctions peuvent, selon l’organisation sociale et administrative des pays, être assurés par des organismes et des personnes aux statuts fort différents. En outre, cet effectif total se répartit en 4 catégories juridiques principales, les fonctionnaires civils au sens strict (3,850 millions, soit 70% du total), les agents contractuels (930 000), les militaires (300 000) et une catégorie composite, relevant de divers statuts juridiques (360 000). Quel que soit leur statut juridique, tous sont au service de l’intérêt général et, à ce titre, soumis à des règles déontologiques strictes, en particulier la neutralité politique et religieuse, l’impartialité et la probité.S ukupnom radnom snagom od 5,5 milijuna (ili 20% ukupne zaposlenosti), za 67 milijuna stanovnika, Francuska bi mogla biti "superuprava" zemlja. Međutim, Francuska mora paziti na međunarodne usporedne elemente javnog službovanja. Naime, iste funkcije mogu, prema društvenoj i administrativnoj organizaciji država, osigurati institucije i osobe s vrlo različitim statusom. Osim toga, spomenuti je ukupan broj podijeljen u četiri kategorije: državni službenici u strogom smislu (3.850 milijuna, ili 70% od ukupnog broja), ugovorni službenici (930.000), vojska (300.000) i složena kategorija različitog pravnog statusa (360 000). Bez obzira na različitosti njihovog pravnog statusa, svi su u službi općeg interesa, te su podložni strogim deontološkim pravilima, osobito političkom i vjerskom neutralnošću, nepristranosti i pravičnosti.With a total of od 5.5 million employees (or 20% of total employment), out of 67 million inhabitants, France could be classed as a "super administrative" country. However, France must take care of international comparative elements of public service. Namely, the same functions can, according to social and administrative state organization, ensure institutions and people with various types of status. Apart from that, also mentioned is the total number divided into four categories: state public servants in the strict sense (3.850 million, or 70% of the total number), public servants under contract (930,000), army (300, 000) and the complex category of varying legal status (360, 000). Regardless of the variance of their legal status, they are all in the service of the general interest, and are subject to strict deontological rules, especially political and religious neutrality, impartiality and equity

La motivation des décisions des juridictions administratives

Pravo na pravično suđenje sadrži i implicitna jamstva koja su nastala kroz praksu Europskog suda za zaštitu ljudskih prava, Sud u Strasbourgu je kao sastavni element prava na pravično suđenje ustavnovio i pravo na obrazloženje sudske odluke. Nije dovoljno samo formalno pozvati se ili citirati određene propise kao mjerodavne već su nadležna tijela, a osobito sudovi, dužni obrazložiti na temelju kojih činjenica i okolnosti su utvrdili da su u okolnostima konretnog slučaja ispunjene pretpostavke iz tih propisa

Administrative deconcentration

L\u27établissement d\u27un État moderne en Europe a entraîné l\u27apparition d\u27un système d\u27introduction d\u27un État sur l\u27ensemble de son territoire. La raison en est que les décisions gouvernementales doivent être appliquées de manière égale à tous. Cela ne peut être garanti que si les fonctionnaires, nommés par le gouvernement et responsables de la mise en oeuvre et du suivi de la politique gouvernementale, les transfèrent effectivement du niveau de fonctionnaire gouvernemental au niveau local et régional. En règle générale, l’administration centrale s’acquitte de tâches de caractère national dont la mise en oeuvre en vertu de la loi ne peut être confiée à un niveau régional. Cependant, l\u27État doit également avoir des fonctionnaires au niveau local qui mettront en oeuvre de véritables pouvoirs lors de la prise de décisions (sur la base de la délégation de pouvoirs), afin de prendre en compte les besoins et la situation locales. La «déconcentration» représente précisément cela. Par conséquent, nous traitons avec des services qui incluent des fonctionnaires nommés qui sont soumis à l\u27autorité d\u27un organisme central et qui représentent localement le gouvernement et les ministères. En France et en général, nous distinguons trois catégories d’administrations: l’administration centrale, l’administration périphérique (décentralisée ou déconcentrée), l’administration spécialisée indépendante qui reste néanmoins rattachée à l’un des ministères compétents qui supervisent les organismes placés sous le contrôle du gouvernement. La déconcentration à la française enrichit la dimension interministérielle, présente localement chez le préfet qui représente le président du gouvernement et les ministres et qui est chargé de la gestion du territoire, du dialogue avec les représentants locaux du pouvoir exécutif et de la modernisation de l\u27administration. Compte tenu de la carte administrative de la France comprenant trente mille communes, une centaine de départements et une vingtaine de régions (13 depuis 2015), la déconcentration repose sur les éléments suivants: le préfet de région met en oeuvre la politique nationale et la politique de la communauté (européenne) fixe des objectifs stratégiques, alloue des ressources , évalue l\u27activité de l\u27Etat. Le préfet de département est responsable de l\u27activité opérationnelle et de l\u27administration des politiques publiques. Le vice-préfet initie et rejoint des partenaires dans des «centres de vie» (villes et villages) au sein d\u27un département.Uspostava moderne države u Europi dovela je do uvođenja države na cijelom njezinom teritoriju. Razlog za to je potreba da se njene odluke primjenjuju jednako na sve. To se može osigurati jedino ako službenici, koje vlada imenuje i koji su odgovorni za provedbu i praćenje vladine politike, iste učinkovito prenose s državne na lokalnu i regionalnu razinu. Središnja uprava općenito obavlja poslove nacionalnog karaktera čija se provedba sukladno zakonu ne može staviti na regionalnu razinu. Međutim, država također mora imati dužnosnike na lokalnoj razini koji će provoditi stvarne ovlasti prilikom donošenja odluka (na temelju delegiranja ovlasti), kako bi se brinuli o lokalnim potrebama i okolnostima. Ovdje je riječ o "dekoncentraciji". Radi se, dakle, o uslugama koje uključuju imenovane službenike koji podliježu središnjem tijelu vlasti i koji lokalno predstavljaju vladu i ministarstva. U Francuskoj i općenito razlikujemo tri kategorije uprave: središnja, periferna (decentralizirana ili dekoncentrirana), te neovisna specijalizirana uprava koja je ipak povezana s jednim od relevantnih ministarstava koja nadziru tijela koja su pod kontrolom vlade. Dekoncentracija na francuski način obogaćuje međuresorsku dimenziju, lokalno prisutnu u osobi imenovanog prefekta koja predstavlja predsjednika vlade i ministre i koja je zadužena za upravljanje teritorijem, održavanje dijaloga s lokalnim predstavnicima izvršne vlasti i modernizaciju uprave. S obzirom na administrativnu kartu Francuske koja uključuje trideset tisuća općina, oko stotinu odjela i dvadeset regija (13 od 2015.), dekoncentracija se temelji na sljedećem: regionalni župan provodi nacionalnu politiku i politiku (europske) zajednice uspostavlja strateške ciljeve, alocira resurse , ocjenjuje državnu aktivnost. Župan odjela je odgovoran za operativne aktivnosti i upravljanje javnim politikama. Potpredsjednik pokreće i pridružuje se partnerima u takozvanim «središtima života» (gradovima i selima) u okviru odjela.Establishing a modern state in Europe has brought about the appearance of a system of introducing state on all of its territory. The reason this has come about is the need for government decisions to be applied in an equal way to everyone. This can only be ensured if officials, whom the government appoints and who are responsible for implementing and following government policy, effectively transfer them from government official level onto local and regional level. Central administration generally singularly carries out tasks of a national character the implementation of which pursuant to law cannot be placed onto a regional level. However, the state also must have officials at a local level who will implement real powers when making decisions (based on delegating powers), in order to take care of local needs and circumstances. «Deconcentration» precisely represents that. Therefore, we are dealing with services which include appointed officials who are subject to central body authority and who locally represent the government and ministries. In France and in general, we differentiate among three categories of administration: central administration, peripheral administration (decentralized or deconcentrated), independent specialized administration which are nevertheless still linked to one of the relevant ministries which supervise the bodies which are under government control. Deconcentration French style enriches the inter-department dimension, locally present in the person named prefect who represents government president and ministers and who is in charge of managing territory, maintaining dialogue with local representatives of executive powers and modernization of administration. Given the administrative map of France which includes thirty thousand municipalities, about a hundred departments and twenty regions (13 since 2015), deconcentration is based on the following : regional prefect implements national policy and policy of (European) community establishes strategic goals, allocates resources, evaluates state activity. The department prefect is responsible for operative activity and administering public policies. The vice-prefect initiates and joins partners in so-called «life centers» (towns and villages) within a department framework

Enforcement of judgements in disputes over legality; study of practical case

Bien que caractéristique fondamentale de l’Etat de droit, l’exécution effective et complète des jugements administratifs prononçant l’annulation d’un acte administratif n’a pas toujours été garantie. Le législateur français a ainsi été conduit à élaborer plusieurs dispositifs mis à la disposition du justiciable pour obtenir cette exécution, contraindre l’administration à exécuter ces jugements, voire sanctionner les personnes physiques qui entravent cette exécution. Ces dispositifs seront examinés à partir de deux cas concrets empruntés à la pratique juridictionnelle française à partir d’un jugement de tribunal administratif et d’un arrêt de cour administrative d’appel.Premda je to jedna od temeljnih značajka pravne države, stvarno i potpuno izvršenje upravnih presuda, kojima se poništava pojedine upravne akte, nije uvijek bilo zajamčeno u Francuskoj. Francuski je zakonodavac zbog toga bio primoran izraditi više sustava koje je stavio na raspolaganje strankama (tužiteljima) za postizanje tog izvršenja i prisiliti javnu upravu da izvrši te presude, štoviše da sankcionira fizičke osobe koje sprječavaju to izvršenje. Ovi će sustavi biti predmetom ispitivanja kroz dva konkretna slučaja iz francuske upravnosudske prakse, tj. kroz jednu presudu upravnog suda i kroz jednu odluku žalbenog upravnog suda.Although it is one of the fundamental characteristics of a state ruled by law, true and complete enforcement of administrative judgements which nullify certain administration acts has not always been guaranteed in France. Because of this, the French legislator was forced to formulate several systems which were placed at parties’ (claimants’) disposition for achieving enforcement and forcing public administration to implement judgements and to moreover sanction legal entities hindering that enforcement. These systems were the subject of research through two concrete examples in French administrative court practice, that is, through a judgement by the administration court and a judgement by the administration appeal court

Judicial control of one-sided sub-constitutional acts

Kelsenov model pravne države (vladavine prava) podrazumijeva da obvezatno svi jednostrani pravni akti koje donosi javnopravno tijelo, osim samog ustavotvorca, moraju moći biti predmetom upravnosudske kontrole. Upravo na temelju ovog načela treba ocijeniti kombinaciju odgovarajućih sudskih praksi Državnog savjeta i Ustavnog vijeća u tom pogledu. Oslanjajući se na odredbe velikog utemeljujućeg Zakona od 24. svibnja 1872. Državni savjet je vrlo rano omogućio da organski kriterij nadležnosti upravnog suda ima prednost. Prema tome, načelo određuje da svaka jednostrana odluka, opća ili ne, koju donosi upravno tijelo vlasti može biti predmetom tužbe zbog prekoračenja ovlasti, bez obzira na to o kojoj se stvari radi i u kojoj je stvari odluka donesena. Pojam upravnog tijela je iznimno širok jer ne obuhvaća samo lokalna tijela vlasti, specijalizirana tijela, već i ministarstva, vladu i predsjednika Republike. Osim toga, pojam prekoračenja ovlasti također se široko poima, te na taj način omogućuje upravnom sucu da cenzurira nenadležnost, greške u proceduri i formi, zlouporabu ovlasti, greške u činjeničnom stanju i greške u cilju i svrsi koje su počinila upravna tijela. Pa čak i u slučaju u kojem takvo tijelo ima „diskrecijsku ovlast ili ovlast slobodne ocjene“, upravni sudac poništava zbog nezakonitosti odluke koje sadrže „očitu pogrešku“ u ocjeni, koju je dalo to tijelo, o prilagođenosti odluke činjeničnom stanju na koju je to tijelo htjelo dati odgovor. Jedino ograničenje ove kontrole je to da sudac ne može supstituirati svojom ocjenom ocjenu zakonodavca ili uprave o „oportunosti“ propisa ili pojedinačne odluke. Kada se radi o prekoračenju ovlasti, u načelu, sudac može samo proglasiti poništenje nezakonitog upravnog akta, odnosno povući ga s retroaktivnim učinkom iz pravnog sustava. Međutim, različiti instrumenti, katkad predviđeni zakonom, katkad iz sudske prakse, sve više približavaju suca u sporu običnog poništenja sucu u „objektivnom sporu pune jurisdikcije“ koji više ili manje izravno pridonosi rješavanju merituma pitanja koje mu je upućeno. Što se tiče Ustavnog vijeća, ako ono ne može raspolagati istim temeljitijim ovlastima kontrole zakona koji mu se predaju izravno ili neizravno ono se smatralo nadležnim za kontrolu određenog broja akata koje mu tekstovi izričito ne daju na znanje. Zatim, iako ne zamjenjuje zakonodavca, Ustavno vijeće prihvaća i smatra da „očita pogreška u ocjeni“ koju je mogao počiniti zakonodavac predstavlja kršenje Ustava. U francuskom pravnom sustavu gotovo više ne postoje jednostrani javni akti kojima se donosi odluka, a koji bi mogli izbjeći kontrolu suca. Opseg te kontrole ovisi samo o opsegu ovlasti u ocjeni koju ustav, zakon ili pravilnici daju javnim tijelima.The Kelsenov model of rule or state of law implies that all one-sided legal acts brought in by a public law body, apart from that of the very constitutional creators themselves, must compulsorily be able to be the subject of administrative judicial control. It is on this very principle that the combination of appropriate court practice of the State and Constitutional Councils should be evaluated in this sense. Relying on the provisions of the great fundamental Act of 24 May 1872, the State Council very early on enabled that the organic criterion of administrative court supervision has preference. Therefore, the principle demands that every one-sided decision, general or not, which brings the administrative body power, can be the subject of a lawsuit for excessive use of powers, regardless of what it is about and on which thing the decision is reached. The concept of administrative bodies is particularly broad because it not only includes powers of local bodies, but of ministries, the government and the president of the Republic too. Apart from that, the concept of excessive use of powers is also a broad concept and in this way enables the administrative judge to censor supervision, mistakes in procedure and form, the abuse of power, errors of fact and mistakes in the aim and purpose committed by administrative bodies. This is even in the case where such a body has „discretionary power or the power of free evaluation“and the administrative judge nullifies, due to the illegality of the decision which contains an „obvious error “in evaluation, which that body has given, on the appropriateness of the decision with the facts on which that body wanted to give the decision. The only limitation of this control is that the judge cannot substitute with his/her evaluation the evaluation of the legislator or administration on the „opportunism “of the provision or individual decision. Where the excessive use of powers is concerned, in principle, the judge can only declare nul and void the illegal administrative act, that is retract it retroactively from the legal system. However, various instruments, sometimes prescribed by law, sometimes from court practice bring even closer the dispute judge in nullifying even closer to the judge in an „objective full jurisdiction dispute“ which more or less contributes to resolving the merit of the issue aimed at it. As far as the Constitutional Council is concerned, if it cannot have at its disposal the same fundamental powers of legal control which are assigned to it directly, it is considered responsible for the control of a certain number of acts the texts of which are not expressly made known to it.. Furthermore, even if it does not replace the legislator, the Constitutional Council accepts and considers that the „obvious error in evaluation“, which the legislator could have made, represents a violation of the Constitution. In the French legal system a one-sided public act which reaches the decision and which could avoid judge control is almost non-existent. The scope of this control only depends on the scope of the power under evaluation which the constitution, law or rulebooks give to public bodies

Izvršenje presuda u sporovima o zakonitosti ; proučavanje praktičnog slučaja

Premda je to jedna od temeljnih značajka pravne države, stvarno i potpuno izvršenje upravnih presuda, kojima se poništava pojedine upravne akte, nije uvijek bilo zajamčeno u Francuskoj. Francuski je zakonodavac zbog toga bio primoran izraditi više sustava koje je stavio na raspolaganje strankama (tužiteljima) za postizanje tog izvršenja i prisiliti javnu upravu da izvrši te presude, štoviše da sankcionira fizičke osobe koje sprječavaju to izvršenje. Ovi će sustavi biti predmetom ispitivanja kroz dva konkretna slučaja iz francuske upravnosudske prakse, tj. kroz jednu presudu upravnog suda i kroz jednu odluku žalbenog upravnog suda

Administrative deconcentration

Establishing a modern state in Europe has brought about the appearance of a system of introducing state on all of its territory. The reason this has come about is the need for government decisions to be applied in an equal way to everyone. This can only be ensured if officials, whom the government appoints and who are responsible for implementing and following government policy, effectively transfer them from government official level onto local and regional level. Central administration generally singularly carries out tasks of a national character the implementation of which pursuant to law cannot be placed onto a regional level. However, the state also must have officials at a local level who will implement real powers when making decisions (based on delegating powers), in order to take care of local needs and circumstances. «Deconcentration» precisely represents that. Therefore, we are dealing with services which include appointed officials who are subject to central body authority and who locally represent the government and ministries. In France and in general, we differentiate among three categories of administration: central administration, peripheral administration (decentralized or deconcentrated), independent specialized administration which are nevertheless still linked to one of the relevant ministries which supervise the bodies which are under government control. Deconcentration French style enriches the inter-department dimension, locally present in the person named prefect who represents government president and ministers and who is in charge of managing territory, maintaining dialogue with local representatives of executive powers and modernization of administration. Given the administrative map of France which includes thirty thousand municipalities, about a hundred departments and twenty regions (13 since 2015), deconcentration is based on the following : regional prefect implements national policy and policy of (European) community establishes strategic goals, allocates resources, evaluates state activity. The department prefect is responsible for operative activity and administering public policies. The vice-prefect initiates and joins partners in so-called «life centers» (towns and villages) within a department framework

French conception of public servic

With a total of od 5.5 million employees (or 20% of total employment), out of 67 million inhabitants, France could be classed as a "super administrative" country. However, France must take care of international comparative elements of public service. Namely, the same functions can, according to social and administrative state organization, ensure institutions and people with various types of status. Apart from that, also mentioned is the total number divided into four categories: state public servants in the strict sense (3.850 million, or 70% of the total number), public servants under contract (930,000), army (300, 000) and the complex category of varying legal status (360, 000). Regardless of the variance of their legal status, they are all in the service of the general interest, and are subject to strict deontological rules, especially political and religious neutrality, impartiality and equity