The traditional presentation of French administrative law held that it was first and foremost the product of the case law developed since the beginning of the nineteenth century by the Conseil d’État established in 1799. Contrary to the traditional narrative, administrative law existed since the fourteenth century; it was not merely protecting public bodies and offices but also protecting individuals, as was further developed by “adult” administrative law. After the Revolution, administrative law has mainly developed as judge-made law by the Conseil d’État. The article explains the main features of the law that developed since the nineteenth century, the contribution of academia to that development, and gives details about the scope, tools and principles of French administrative law, including the impact of constitutionalisation and Europeanisation.

The article presents the current territorial organisation, which has its roots in the Revolution of 1789. The concepts of décentralisation, which concerns the transfer of powers from the state to local government, and déconcentration, which refers to the transfer of executive functions from central to local administrations of the state, are essential. Municipalities have general powers to regulate local affairs, while departments and regions have specific powers defined by law. Inter-municipal cooperation mainly takes place through public inter-municipal cooperation bodies: communities of municipalities, agglomerations, urban communities, and metropolises. Prefects play a crucial role in coordinating administrations. In terms of the sociology of administrative cooperation, the practice of multiple mandates, whereby an elected representative can hold several positions at distinct levels, is common in France. Engineers, particularly bridge and road engineers, also play a leading role.

General principles of law are different concepts according to different strands of scholarship and especially according to the countries where they are used in positive law. General principles of EU law, which are similar as a concept to those of French public law, have been developed by the Court of justice of the EU since its first rulings, especially due to the influence of Advocate general Lagrange, a former member of the French Conseil d’État. The material sources of those principles are to be found in the EU treaties, in international law, in secondary EU law and in the law of member states, as is the case of “general principles common to the member states”. Their formal source is usually the jurisprudence of the CJEU; therefore, their place in the hierarchy of norms of EU law is immediately below primary law, but above all other sources of EU law. As illustrations, Common Constitutional Traditions of the Member States as well as general principles of EU administrative law are presented. The role of general principles of EU law in face of the current polycrisis has yet to be analysed by scholarship.

Since the early years of the European Coal and Steel Community, the system of government of the Communities and then of the European Union has been comparable to a dual parliamentary system. The European Commission needs a relationship of trust with both the Council (or European Council) and the European Parliament. Neither the importance of the European Council nor that of the European Parliament should be underestimated if the Union’s main institutions are to function smoothly.

March 2024 has been the apex of a sort of race as to which international organisation would be the first to adopt an instrument trying to regulate the development, production, and use of artificial intelligence. The paper highlights the advantages and disadvantages of a Council of Europe treaty, such as the Draft Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence, Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law, as opposed to an EU regulation, such as the so-called “Artificial Intelligence Act”. The content of Draft Framework Convention is presented only briefly, before explaining why there is a case for a Council of Europe Treaty on Artificial Intelligence. The instrument of a Council of Europe Convention is then compared to the instrument of an EU Regulation, especially in terms of the limits resulting from the respective competences of the Council of Europe and the European Union, as well as the consequences of the need for ratification of the Council of Europe treaty as opposed to the direct applicability of the EU regulation.

SOLVIT is an on-line, free-of-charge service operating in all EU countries (and in Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway), which officially started its activity in July 2002. It was born as a network of national SOLVIT Centres, connected via an internet-based, multilingual network, with the aim of getting the national Centres to work together to reach the goal of helping businesses and citizens to overcome cross-border issues. Over time, and not without possible weaknesses in both practical and legal terms, it has developed to a multi-faceted single market tool, which also serves the purpose of identifying and try to overcome incorrect application of EU rules by national and local authorities.

The institutional system and decision-making procedures of the EU are based on role splitting (Georges Scelles’ dédoublement fonctionnel) by political holders of executive power and their administrations in the member states, who act as organs of the state and, at the same time, of the EU. The Union embodies a form of executive federalism similar to that of Germany, with all the problems of an interlocked political system (Politkverflechtung) e.g., the so-called joint decision trap (Fritz W. Scharpf’s Politkverflechtungsfalle). The development of European integration has strengthened member states’ executives at the expense of parliaments, and central executives in relation to local and regional authorities. However, this strengthening has been accompanied by a blurring of the lines of accountability.

The French Conseil d'Etat categorically rejected the thesis that the courts of the Member States, in particular their supreme (or constitutional) courts, are authorised to review any "ultra vires" of the European institutions. The wording of the judgment is an implicit way of recognising the CJEU's monopoly on the authentic interpretation of the Treaty, unlike the German constitutional court in the Weiss case and scholarship regarding the notions of constitutional identity and the protection of national security. It also recalls that traditional case law of the Conseil d'Etat, which can be considered as a French version of the doctrine of counter-limits, i.e. that only if there is a fundamental right in Union law that corresponds to that guaranteed by French constitutional law, EU law and the CJEU’s jurisprudence apply.

The EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement published on 26 December maintains access to the EU market from the UK and vice-versa, but to a quite lesser extent than EU law did. The approach of the Johnson government to the negotiations have led to a treaty that lacks the main guarantees of legal certainty that EU law was offering with the concepts of uniform application direct effect, primacy and consistent interpretation. Brexit is creating far more losers than winners.

The Withdrawal agreement, which regulates the status of citizens settled before 1 February 2020 is ensuring the continuation of EU citizen’s rights to free movement and residence in the UK ad vitam and vice-versa for the UK citizens settled in the EU. Whether there will be one or more other binding agreements on free trade and other issues between the UK and the EU to enter into force on 1 January 2021 so as to avoid a very damageable “hard Brexit” depends on variables that escape rationality and are therefore unpredictable.