Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

France

Implementation of International Human Rights Decisions in France

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Judging International Human Rights

  • 860 Accesses

Abstract

To analyze the reception of international judicial decisions by French domestic courts, as always, is no easy task. This is not because French courts completely ignore international decisions on human rights or refuse to recognize their reach and effects in the national legal order. The difficulty is threefold and lies in the way (1) French law defines the relationship between international law and the domestic legal system, (2) the French judicial system operates, and (3) the courts formulate and state the reasons on which they base their adjudicatory acts. The picture of the reception of international judicial decisions by French courts is furthermore “blurred” by the work division that the latter established between themselves. In that regard, the present report will analyze the case law of the Constitutional Council (Conseil constitutionnel), the Court of Cassation (Cour de cassation) as the supreme court of the judicial legal order, and the Council of State (Conseil d’Etat) as the supreme court of the administrative legal order. It shows that even though the tribunals hardly ever refer explicitly to the practice of international bodies, the latter are not totally absent from their reasoning. Thus, besides the explicit and obvious mentions of international practice in national judgments, one must look for indirect and implicit references by taking into consideration the influence that is exerted in an informal manner and that cannot be quantified otherwise than through knowledge of the national case law and of its evolution.

On n’exécute pas tout ce qui se propose; Et le chemin est long du projet à la chose (“Not all things proposed are turned into facts; the road is long, sometimes, from plans to acts”; trans. page, CH (1908), G.P. Putnam, New York, slightly modified.)—(Molière, Tartuffe, 1664, III, 1)

The authors would like to express their profound gratitude to Prof. Emmanuel Decaux who entrusted them with and reviewed an early draft of this report. They however bear sole responsibility for the final version.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    For a critical appraisal, see Pellet (2006).

  2. 2.

    For a general presentation of the status of international law within the French legal order see Decaux (2011).

  3. 3.

    Official translation. Available via http://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/conseil-constitutionnel/english/constitution/constitution-of-4-october-1958.25742.html. Accessed 11 Oct 2017.

  4. 4.

    Ibid.

  5. 5.

    CE, Sect Soc, Nachfolger Navigation Company, judgment of 23 Oct 1987, no 72951; CE, Aquarone, judgment of 6 June 1997, no 148683.

  6. 6.

    See Touze Introduction (2015a).

  7. 7.

    Cited by Genevois (2007). Our translation.

  8. 8.

    CC, Interruption volontaire de grossesse (Termination of Pregnancy case), judgment of 15 Jan 1975, 74-54 DC.

  9. 9.

    [T]he mouth that utters the words of the law. Our translation.

  10. 10.

    Cass, Ass Plén, judgment of 15 Apr 2011, no 10-17.049.

  11. 11.

    Cass, Soc, judgment of 21 Mar 2012, no 04-47.532 (notion of property according to Art 1 Protocol No 1 ECHR).

  12. 12.

    Cass, Ass Plén, judgment of 15 Apr 2011, no 10-17.049.

  13. 13.

    CE, judgment of 27 Oct 1978, no 07103.

  14. 14.

    For example CE, judgment of 25 May 2007, no 296327.

  15. 15.

    CE, judgment of 25 May 2007, no 296327 and judgment of 6 May 2015, no 377487.

  16. 16.

    CC, The Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, judgment of 19 Nov 2004, no 2004-505 DC.

  17. 17.

    CE, SNIP, judgment of 3 Dec 2001, no 226514.

  18. 18.

    Art 267 TFEU; ECJ, Da Costa en Schaake, judgment of 23 Mar 1963, ECLI:EU:C:1963:6.

  19. 19.

    Cass, 1ère Civ, judgment of 26 Sept 2012, no 11-17.034; CE, Section du contentieux, Baumet, judgment of 4 Oct 2012, no 328502.

  20. 20.

    Cass, Crim, judgment of 3 Feb 1993, no 92-83.443; CE, Section du contentieux, Baumet, judgment of 4 Oct 2012, no 328502; for a commentary of the latter decision cf Touze Les grandes décisions de la jurisprudence française de droit international public (2015b).

  21. 21.

    CE, Chevrol, judgment of 11 Feb 2004, no 257682; Cass, Soc, judgment of 30 Sept 2005, no 04-47.130.

  22. 22.

    ECtHR, Assanidze v Georgia, judgment of 8 Apr 2004, no 71503/01, para 202.

  23. 23.

    Ibid.

  24. 24.

    Art 626-1 Code of criminal procedure (Act No 2000-516 of 15 June 2000, Art 89 Official Journal of 16 June 2000): The reconsideration of a final criminal decision may be requested for the benefit of any person judged guilty of an offence, where this conviction is held, in a judgment given by the European Court of Human Rights, to have been declared in violation of the provisions of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, or its additional Protocols, and where the declared violation, by its nature or seriousness, has led to harmful repercussions for the convicted person, which the “just satisfaction” granted under Art 41 of the Convention cannot bring to an end (English translation provided by https://www.legifrance.gouvfr/Traductions/en-English/Legifrance-translations). Accessed 11 Oct 2017.

  25. 25.

    Act n° 2016-1547 of 18 Nov 2016 of Modernization of Justice in the twenty-first Century. The implementing Decree entered into force on 15 May 2017.

  26. 26.

    ECtHR, Foulon et Bouvet c. France, judgment of 21 July 2016, no 9063/14.

  27. 27.

    Court of reexamination, judgments of 17 Feb 2018, nos 17 RDH 001 and 002.

  28. 28.

    CE, Ass, Vernes, judgment of 30 July 2014, no 358564.

  29. 29.

    CE, judgment of 3 Nov 2003, no 239559; CE, Juge des référés, judgment of 11 Oct 2001, no 238849.

  30. 30.

    HRCtee, Bradshaw v Barbados, 19 July 1994, communication no 489/1992.

  31. 31.

    ICJ, Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v Democratic Republic of the Congo) (merits), judgment of 30 Nov 2010, ICJ Reports 2010, 639, para 66.

  32. 32.

    Decaux (2009), Sudre (2015), p. 606; Santulli (2005), p. 19.

  33. 33.

    Cf i.e. the country profile issued by the ECtHR, http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/CP_France_ENG.pdf. Accessed 11 Oct 2017.

  34. 34.

    Cass, Ass Plén, judgment of 15 Apr 2011, no 10-30.313.

  35. 35.

    Ibid.

  36. 36.

    Cass, 1e civ, judgment of 10 Jan 1984, no 82-16.968.

  37. 37.

    Cass, 2e civ, judgment of 23 Oct 2014, no 13-23.107.

  38. 38.

    Ibid. Other examples of direct references to ECtHR decisions on the right of property include: Cass, 1e civ, judgment of 17 Jan 2018, no 16-25.146; Cass 1e civ, judgment of 30 Nov 2016, no 15-21.946.

  39. 39.

    Cass, 1e civ, judgment of 1 Mar 2017, no 15-22.946.

  40. 40.

    Cass, 1e civ, judgment of 28 Mar 2013, no 11-10.450 citing ECtHR, Al-Adsani v United Kingdom, judgment of 21 Nov 2001, no 35763/97; ECtHR, Forgaty v United Kingdom, judgment of 21 Nov 2001, no 37112/97; ECtHR, McElhinney v Ireland, judgment of 21 Nov 2001, no 31253/96; ECtHR, Kalogeropoulou e.a. v Greece and Germany, judgment of 12 Dec 2002, no 59021/00; ECtHR, Cudak v Lithuania, judgment of 23 Mar 2010, no 15869/02; ECtHR, Sabeh El Leil/France, judgment of 29 June 2011, no 34869/05.

  41. 41.

    Cass, Crim, judgment of 22 Feb 2017, no 14-82.526; Cass, Crim, judgment of 6 Dec 2017, no 16-81.857.

  42. 42.

    ECtHR, Leyla Sahin v Turkey, judgment of 29 June 2004, no 4774/98. The decision of the Constitutional Council was delivered before the judgment of the chamber was confirmed by the Grand Chamber in the judgment of 10 Nov 2005.

  43. 43.

    “Visas” refers to the list of legal texts that the judicial body mentions before starting its reasoning.

  44. 44.

    CC, Traité établissant une Constitution pour l’Europe, 2004-505 DC, judgment of 19 Nov 2004.

  45. 45.

    Cass, Ass. plen., judgment of 16 Dec 2016, no 08-86.295.

  46. 46.

    Cass, Soc, judgment of 13 June 2007, no 05-43.225; CE, Section du contentieux, judgment of 4 Oct 2012, no 328502; CE, judgment of 1 Feb 2012, no 339388; CE, judgment of 1 Feb 2012, no 339387; CE, judgment of 15 Oct 2014, no 371538; CC, 2005-531 DC, 29 Dec 2005.

  47. 47.

    For instance Cass, Soc, judgment of 13 June 2007, no 05-43.225.

  48. 48.

    CE, judgment of 10 Apr 2008, no 296845; ECJ, Ordre des barreaux francophones and germanophone and Others, judgment of 26 June 2007, C-305/05, ECLI:EU:C:2007:383.

  49. 49.

    CE, judgment of 13 Mar 2013, no 352393; ECJ, Palacios de la Villa, judgment of 16 Oct 2007, C-411/05, ECLI:EU:C:2007:604; ECJ, Prigge and Others, judgment of 13 Sept 2011, C-447/09, ECLI:EU:C:2011:573.

  50. 50.

    Cass, Crim, judgment of 27 Nov 2013, no 12-86424; ECJ, Dow Chemical Ibéria, judgment of 17 Oct 1989, C-97/87, ECLI:EU:C:1989:380.

  51. 51.

    Few exceptions include: CE, Juge des référés, judgment of 6 Mar 2006, no 289947; CE, judgment of 30 Mar 2016, no 395119.

  52. 52.

    CA Nouméa, Chambre coutumière, judgment of 20 Mar 2014, no 13/00068.

  53. 53.

    Supra Sect. 1.

  54. 54.

    Dutheilleit de Lamothe (2009).

  55. 55.

    CE, Société KPMG et autres, judgment of 24 Mar 2006, no 288460.

  56. 56.

    CC, M. Xavier et autre, judgment of 1 Apr 2011, 2011-113/115 QPC.

  57. 57.

    ECtHR, Taxquet v Blegique, judgment of 16 Nov 2010, no 926/05, para 84.

  58. 58.

    Commentaire aux Cahiers sur la décision M. Xavier et autre, judgment of 1 Apr 2011, 2011-113/115 QPC.

  59. 59.

    Dutheilleit de Lamothe (2009).

  60. 60.

    CC, 93-325 DC, 13 Aug 1993.

  61. 61.

    For such a list, see Sauve (2010).

  62. 62.

    See in particular the judgments of the ECtHR, Kress v France, judgment of 7 June 2001, no 39594/98; Martinie v France, judgment 12 Apr 2006, no 58675/00; Union fédérale des consommateurs “Que choisir” de Côte d’Or v France, judgment 30 June 2009, no 39699/03; Marc-Antoine v France, judgment 4 June 2013, no 54984/09.

  63. 63.

    CE, Ass, GISTI, judgment of 29 June 1990, no 78519; Ass, Cheriet-Benseghir, judgment 9 July 2010, no 317747.

  64. 64.

    Sudre (2009).

  65. 65.

    Cass, judgment 2 July 2003, no 02-70.047.

  66. 66.

    No 44962/98.

  67. 67.

    ECtHR, Roux v France, judgment of 25 Apr 2006, no 16022/02, para 14.

  68. 68.

    Cass, judgment of 3 July 2015, no 14-21.323; CE, Association Juristes pour l’enfance et autres, judgment of 12 Dec 2014, nos 367324, 366989, 366710, 365779, 367317 and 368861.

  69. 69.

    ECtHR, Mennesson v France, judgment of 26 June 2014, no 65192/11 and Labassée v France, judgment of 26 June 2014, no 65941/11.

  70. 70.

    Judgments nos P 10- 17.049, F 10-30.313, J 10-30.316 and D 10-30.242.

  71. 71.

    See Sect. 1.

  72. 72.

    ECtHR, Waite and Kennedy v Germany, judgment of 18 Feb 1999, no 26083/94.

  73. 73.

    Cass, De Beaugrenier v Unesco, judgment of 11 Feb 2009, no 07-44240.

  74. 74.

    Laurent-Boutot (2006), p. 254, referring to the case of the Cour de cassation (criminal chamber), judgment of 17 Mar 1999, no 98-80413.

  75. 75.

    Five cases have been identified that were delivered by the criminal chamber of the Court of cassation: judgment of 7 Aug 2013, no 13-85.076; judgment of 23 Oct 2013, no 13-83.499; judgment of 20 May 2014, no 14-83.138; judgment of 4 Mar 2015, no 14-87.380; judgment of 8 Sept 2015, no 14-83.380.

  76. 76.

    Cass, Soc, judgment of 14 Apr 2010, no 09-60.426 and 09-60.429: the Court judged that Art 5 ESC is not incompatible with some form of trade union representation.

  77. 77.

    CE, judgment of 10 Feb 2014, no 358992.

  78. 78.

    Cass, Soc, judgment of 29 June 2011, no 09-71.107, see the more general study by Akandji-Kombe (2012).

  79. 79.

    European Committee of Social Rights, CGT v France, no 55/2009 and CGC v France, no 56/2009, 23 June 2010.

  80. 80.

    Art 151 of the TFEU states that “the Union and the Member States, having in mind fundamental social rights such as those set out in the European Social Charter signed at Turin on 18 October 1961…, shall have as their objectives the promotion of employment….”

  81. 81.

    Cass, Soc, Mrs Hille v société SVP Service, judgment of 9 Oct 2001, no 99-44.353.

  82. 82.

    Complaint no 14/2003.

  83. 83.

    CE, judgment of 7 June 2006, no 285576.

  84. 84.

    ESCR (2012), Conclusions 2011 (France).

  85. 85.

    No 97-16440.

  86. 86.

    CC, M. John L. et autres, judgment of 18 Mar 2015, 2014-453/454 QPC and 2015-462 QPC.

  87. 87.

    ECtHR, Sergueï Zolotoukhine v Russia, judgment of 10 Feb 2009, no 14939/03; see also ECtHR, Grande Stevens v Italy, judgment of 4 Mar 2014, nos 18640/10, 18647/10 and 18663/10.

  88. 88.

    “Commentaire,” in the Cahiers du Conseil constitutionnel, available via http://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/conseil-constitutionnel/root/bank/download/2014453_454QPCet2015462QPC2014453_454_462qpc_ccc.pdf. Accessed 2 Feb 2017.

  89. 89.

    HRCtee, Bikramjit Singh v France, communication no 1852/2008, UN Doc. CCPR/C/106/D/1852/2008 (2013).

  90. 90.

    See also the first case on the issue ECtHR, Dogru v France, judgment of 4 Dec 2008, no 27058/05.

References

  • Akandji-Kombe J-F (2012) De l’invocabilité des sources européennes et internationales du droit social devant le juge interne. Droit Social 2012:1014–1026

    Google Scholar 

  • Decaux E (2009) Que manque-t-il aux quasi-juridictions internationales pour dire le droit? In: Le dialogue des juges – Mélanges en l’honneur du président Bruno Genevois. Dalloz, Paris, pp 217–232

    Google Scholar 

  • Decaux E (2011) France. In: Shelton D (ed) International law and domestic legal systems. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 207–239

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dutheilleit de Lamothe O (2009) L’influence de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme sur le Conseil constitutionnel. Available via http://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/conseil-constitutionnel/root/bank_mm/pdf/Conseil/cedh_130209_odutheillet.pdf. Accessed 2 Feb 2017

  • Genevois B (2007) Le Conseil d’État et la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme. In: La Gazette du Palais, 10–12 June 2007, 1615

    Google Scholar 

  • Laurent-Boutot C (2006) La Cour de cassation face aux traités internationaux relatifs aux droits de l’homme. PhD thesis, Limoges

    Google Scholar 

  • Pellet A (2006) Vous avez dit “monisme” ? Quelques banalités de bon sens sur l’impossibilité du prétendu monisme constitutionnel à la française. In: L’architecture du droit. Mélanges en l’honneur du professeur Michel Troper. Economica, Paris, pp 827–857

    Google Scholar 

  • Santulli C (2005) Droit du contentieux international. Montchrestien, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Sauve J-M (2010) Le Conseil d’Etat et l’application de la Convention européenne de sauvegarde des droits de l’homme et des libertés fondamentales. Available via http://www.conseil-etat.fr/Actualites/Discours-Interventions/Le-Conseil-d-Etat-et-l-application-de-la-Convention-europeenne-de-sauvegarde-des-droits-de-l-homme-et-des-libertes-fondamentales. Accessed 2 Feb 2017

  • Sudre F (2009) Du “dialogue des juges” à l’euro-compatibilité. In: Le dialogue des juges. Mélanges en l’honneur du président Bruno Genevois. Dalloz, Paris, pp 1015–1032

    Google Scholar 

  • Sudre F (2015) Droit européen et international des droits de l’homme. PUF, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Touze S (2015a) Le droit international des droits de l’homme en droit interne. Introduction. In: Decaux E, de Frouville O (eds) La dynamique du système des traités de l’ONU en matière de droits de l’homme. Pedone, Paris, pp 23–35

    Google Scholar 

  • Touze S (2015b) Commentary on the Baumet Judgment. In: Pellet A, Miron A (eds) Les grandes décisions de la jurisprudence française de droit international public. Dalloz, Paris, pp 708–716

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Université de Valenciennes et du Hainaut-Cambrésis, Valenciennes, France

    Saïda El Boudouhi

  2. Université de Cergy-Pontoise, Cergy-Pontoise, France

    Gesa Dannenberg

Authors
  1. Saïda El Boudouhi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gesa Dannenberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany

    Stefan Kadelbach

  2. Faculty of Law, Augsburg University, Augsburg, Germany

    Thilo Rensmann

  3. Faculty of Law, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    Eva Rieter

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

El Boudouhi, S., Dannenberg, G. (2019). France. In: Kadelbach, S., Rensmann, T., Rieter, E. (eds) Judging International Human Rights. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94848-5_18

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94848-5_18

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-94847-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-94848-5

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation