13 May 1992
Given that (i) by an agreement signed on 21 November 1985 between the State, represented by the “Préfet” of Val de Marne, and the municipality of Ivry-sur-Seine, the State made available to the public primary schools of the municipality certain computer equipment; and (ii) by a decision dated 11 May 1987 made upon the proposal of the Inspector of the Academy the “Préfet” rejected the claim of the municipality that, pursuant to Article 4 of the said agreement,the State should meet the repair costs of that equipment;
Given that although the court seized of a contract has not, in principle, the power, at the request of one of the parties, to quash measures taken by the other party on the ground that these breach the terms of the contract, and although it is its role only to enquire whether such measures have been taken in circumstances which give rise to a right to be indemnified, it is different in the case of a contract entered into by two persons of public law with the objective of organising a public service;
Given that, pursuant to the provisions of Articles 3 and 4 of the said contract: “Article 3. – The State, owner of the equipment mentioned in Article 1, shall deliver, install, and replace it, and shall provide the software. Article 4.- The Municipality shall be responsible for the expenses which fall to the owners of premises: the works necessary for (i) the installation of the equipment, and (ii) security; the State, owner of the equipment, shall meet all the operatingexpenses: insurance, maintenance, replacement.”
Given that (i) it appears from the very terms of the decision under attack that the “Préfet” was led to refuse that the State should meet the expenses for repairing computer equipment made available to schools because of the lack of the necessary funds; (ii) such a reason not being sufficient to exonerate the State from the obligations it had undertaken towards the municipality of Ivry-sur-Seine pursuant to Article 4 of the said agreement, the decision of the “Préfet” of Val de Marne dated 11 May 1987 must be quashed; and (iii) consequently the municipality of Ivry-sur-Seine is well founded in claiming that the Administrative Court of Paris was wrong when,in its judgement under attack dated 15 June 1988, it rejected its petition;
Article 1: The judgement of the Administrative Court of Paris dated 15 June 1988, as well as the decision of the “Préfet” of Val de Marne dated 11 May 1988 are quashed;
Article 2: (…)
This page last updated Friday, 30-Sep-2005 17:17:06 CDT. Copyright 2007. All rights reserved.