Administrative Law - Legality, Annulment Grounds and State Liability
Administrative law questions test legality review of individual decisions: can you identify the competent authority, the required procedure, and the correct remedy within the time limit? Examiners expect you to separate legality from the merits of the decision.
Core rules
- Every administrative decision needs competence, proper form and procedure, a lawful purpose, and a lawful cause (accurate facts and legal basis).
- Grounds of annulment: lack of competence; defect of form or procedure (no hearing, no reasons); misuse of power; violation of law; error of fact.
- The right to be heard applies to sanctions and adverse individual decisions; reasons must state the facts and the legal basis relied on.
- The judge reviews legality, not expediency, and does not substitute discretion except for manifest error.
- Annulment actions are subject to short limitation periods running from notification or publication; annulment operates retroactively (ex tunc).
- State liability requires fault, damage, and causation; lawful acts create liability only for special and abnormal sacrifice.
- In administrative contracts the administration may vary or terminate for public need, subject to compensation.
Worked example
A mayor orders a restaurant closed "for hygiene risk" without notice, hearing, or reasons, and without an inspection report. Competence exists, but the procedure is defective (no hearing, no reasons) and the factual cause is unsupported (no inspection). Closure is also disproportionate where a fine or warning would suffice. Remedy: annulment of the decision, an application to suspend execution, and damages if the loss is proved. If the administration stays silent on a request, treat the silence as a deemed refusal and count the time limit from that point.
Traps
Arguing the merits instead of the grounds of legality; missing the limitation period or the exhaustion requirement; conflating annulment with compensation; ignoring that procedural nullity generally requires proof of prejudice.