The University of Texas at Austin   School of Law

Main menu:

Case:
CE, Ass., 22 décembre 1978, p. 524
Case Ministre de l’intérieur c. Cohn-Bendit
Date:
22 December 1978
Note:
Translated French Cases and Materials under the direction of Professor B. Markesinis and M. le Conseiller Dominique Hascher
Translated by:
Professor John Bell FBA
Copyright:
Professor B. S. Markesinis

Considering that the decision of 20 December 1978, withdrawing the expulsion order against M. Cohn-Bendit made on 24 May 1968 has not had the consequence of withdrawing the decision of the Minister of the Interior of 2 February 1976 by which he reused to terminate this measure and which M. Cohn-Bendit challenged before the tribunal administratif of Paris; as thus, neither the request made by M. Cohn-Bendit before the tribunal administratif of Paris, nor, in consequence, the appeal made by the Minister of the Interior against this judgement delivered on 21 December 1977 have become pointless; as thus the Conseil d’Etat must decide on the appeal of the Minister of the Interior;

Considering that the European Community Treaty of 25 March 1957, of which no provision empowers any organ of the European Communities to make regulations which are directly applicable to the Member States in the area of public order, provides in art. 56 that the co-ordination of legislative and regulatory measures “providing for special treatment of foreign nationals on grounds of public policy, public security or public health” shall be the subject of directives made by the Council on the proposal of the Commission after consulting the Parliament; as it is clear from art. 189 of the 1957 Treaty that, even if directives bind member states with regard to the “objective to be achieved” and, if to achieve the result they define national authorities are bound to adapt legislation and regulations of the member States to the directives which are addressed to them, these national authorities remain alone competent to decide the form to give to the implementing measures and to decide them for themselves the appropriate means to produce that effect in national law, subject to review in the national courts; as thus, whatever may be the specific terms which they contain for the attention of the member states, directives cannot be invoked by the citizens of these states in support of a challenge to an individual administrative measure; as it thus follows that, in support of his claim to annul the decision of the Minister of the Interior of 2 February 1976, M. Cohn-Bendit could not properly argue that the decision breached the provisions of the Directive of 25 February 1964 which the Council of the European Communities enacted under art. 56 of the Treaty of Rome to co-ordinate measures providing for special treatment of foreign nationals on grounds of public policy, public security or public health; as, therefore, in the absence of any challenge to the legality of the decrees made by the French Government to comply with the Directives enacted by the European Communities, the reply to the application made by M. Cohn-Bendit cannot be made to depend at all on the interpretation of the Directive of 25 February 1964; as, in consequence, without having to examine other grounds of the application for review, the Minister of the Interior is justified in arguing that the tribunal administratif of Paris wrongly made a reference to the European Court of Justice on questions of the interpretation of this Directive and in ordering the suspension [of the administrative decision] until a decision of that Court;

Considering that, in the circumstances, the case is remitted to the tribunal administratif of Paris to decide on the application.......