In this section, we will first introduce the judgment assistance enforcement procedure with mediation attributes, The procedure for delaying the execution of fines will then be introduced.
(1) Help in the execution of procedures (limited to the administrative party losing the case)
This is to promote The procedures established by the losing administrative party to fully and comprehensively implement the judgment. It should be pointed out that the litigants who can use this procedure to safeguard their rights and interests may be either the administrative counterparty or another public legal person who is in court against the losing public legal person. The power to initiate this procedure was initially concentrated in the Supreme Administrative Court, but began to be delegated to local administrative courts at all levels in 1995. In this way, the judge with jurisdiction over the enforcement case is the judge who originally issued the effective administrative judgment.
Within the framework of this system, as long as the winning party has sufficient reasons to believe that the losing administrative party has not implemented or has not fully implemented the effective judgment, the judge can take persuasive measures, if necessary. Coercive measures may even be taken to compel execution of the judgment.
(2) Specific provisions on assistance in enforcement procedures
Three days from the date of service of the administrative judgment After the expiration of the three-month period, the successful administrative counterparty may request the court to help enforce the judgment. The three-month period is the period that a judge leaves to a public legal entity to enforce the judgment, regardless of which court issued the judgment. In emergencies, this period can disappear or be reduced. The judge may also stipulate another time limit in the judgment (usually less than three months) in accordance with the provisions of Article L911-1 or L911-2 of the Code, or set another time limit when the administrative agency clearly shows its willingness to refuse to perform.
When the court that makes the judgment receives an application from the administrative counterparty to help with execution, the process enters the mediation stage.
Mediation is presided over by the President of the Administrative Tribunal and the Administrative Court of Appeal. These presidents often assign a judge to help them do this. In the Supreme Administrative Court, this mission is fulfilled by the Reporting and Research Group.
The purpose of establishing such a friendly consultation process is to identify the sources of implementation difficulties and resistance. The difficulty in enforcing a judgment may be objective;It is not an easy task for a public legal person to enforce a valid judgment. Difficulties in enforcing judgments may also arise from the malicious intent of administrative agencies. In this case, the public legal person just does not want to execute the effective judgment that is not good for itself.
After accepting the application for assistance with execution, the court will try to take all measures that it deems useful to break the deadlock of difficult execution. These measures can take the form of letters, phone calls, meetings, etc. Its purpose is to judge the content of the judgment, identify and analyze specific difficulties in enforcement and take necessary enforcement measures. Helping with enforcement actually falls into the realm of mediation, advice, and even warning. Letters from the court to the parties may be very straightforward in content, directly informing each party of their respective rights and obligations. Helping with execution may also be to allow the winning counterparty to correctly understand the content of the judgment, because sometimes they may understand the judgment beyond its original meaning.
The vast majority of cases can be resolved satisfactorily with help in executing the procedures. The fines mentioned below are more likely to prevent problems before they occur.
(3) Delay in execution of fines
In practice, it sometimes happens that despite the above measures, the administrative The judgment remains unexecuted, is improperly executed, or is not fully executed. In this case, the court can take the following measures: (1) Record the case in the annual report of the Supreme Administrative Court. [3] This approach does not have any legal effect, but the advertising effect of negative evaluation in the annual report will constitute an effective pressure on public legal persons with enforcement obligations. (2) At the request of the administrative counterpart or by the judge ex officio, the procedure for delaying the execution of fines is initiated. [4] This procedure originates from civil litigation procedures and can be defined as an incidental and contingent monetary payment judgment. This usually manifests as a one-day delay in paying X euros. Delay penalties exist in addition to the main judgment for payment and usually apply when the main judgment for payment is not executed within a specified period. Specifically, by threatening to gradually increase the total amount of monetary debt, the debtor is forced to perform the judgment obligations in a timely manner. Delayed execution fines are not compensation for the damage suffered by the administrative counterpart due to the administrative agency's delay in executing the judgment. It is only a means of pressure to force the administrative agency to execute the judgment. Therefore, it is an enforcement measure.
The successful administrative counterparty may request a penalty for delayed execution of the judgment after the expiration of six months from the date of delivery of the judgment.
This request does not necessarily require starting the help execution program. According to the provisions of Article L911-1 or L911-2 of the Administrative Justice Code, the six-month period may be set separately by the judge in his or her judgment due to emergency circumstances.Disappear or reduce within a specified period. When the administrative counterpart initiates the assistance enforcement procedure and the procedure fails to bring effective results, the friendly negotiation procedure is automatically converted into a litigation procedure. When the report and study group of the Supreme Administrative Court or the heads of the Administrative Tribunal and the Administrative Court of Appeal believe that the friendly consultations that have been conducted cannot achieve the effect of executing the judgment, the case will be directly transferred to the trial organization for acceptance, which will decide whether to order the administrative agency to pay Delay in enforcement of fines.
Like civil judges, French administrative judges have greater room for discretion in imposing delay fines. Even if all conditions are met, they are not obliged to impose a fine. They may subjectively consider a judgment to be being enforced even though enforcement was still incomplete at the time of its decision. In this case, if the administrative counterparty believes that the execution is still ineffective, he can again request a penalty for delaying execution.
The administrative judge's freedom in delaying the execution of fines is also reflected in determining the standard of fines. The specific standard varies from case to case, but is usually set at an amount sufficient to dissuade a public legal person from maliciously refusing to perform. Therefore, when specifically determining the standard, the judge needs to consider the financial situation of the public legal person, regardless of the amount proposed by the counterparty. In addition, there is no "price list" determined in advance.
Everything depends on whether the public legal person has implemented the effective judgment.
If it is found that the public legal person has not implemented or has not fully implemented the judgment, the trial organization will conduct a so-called "provisional liquidation of delayed execution fines." This means that the judge, after ascertaining the fact that the judgment has not been executed, determines the amount of money that should be temporarily borne by the public legal person until the judgment is fully executed.
If it is found that the public legal person has executed the judgment within the established time limit, the court will make a decision not to impose a fine, that is, the court will not order the public legal person to bear additional monetary payment obligations. If a public legal person executes a judgment beyond the determined time limit, the judge will usually decide not to impose a fine if the delay in execution is not obvious (that is, a delay of several days or weeks); if the delay is obvious, the court will impose a fine. In this case, the court will determine a final fine amount for the public legal person as the "consideration" for the delay in performance by the public legal person to the other party.
This situation is called "delay penalty final settlement".
The court may enforce the amount originally determined by it, or it may reduce this amount. The court may also decide that part of the amount will not be paidNot to the administrative counterparty, but to the national treasury. Therefore, the courts responsible for the settlement of delayed execution fines have considerable discretion and can make specific judgments that they consider fair based on the circumstances of the case.
No comments yet. Say something...