change your coat YES. Clear past entries NO. [VIDEO et article]

In legality disputes, a defendant can turn his back on his defense… But not ask that his previous submissions be thrown out the window.

Let's see this through a very brief video and a short article.

I. Brief (47 seconds) video

https://youtube.com/shorts/9Bi1gYGQh70

II. Court article

In recourse for excess of power, it is not prohibited to contradict oneself. This can be stupid, it can also result from a change of strategy following for example (as in this case) a change of majority. BUT (unless the applicant withdraws) we cannot go back on what we have previously written in such litigation by asking the judge to erase, to forget, what was previously written.

There is no general principle (known as estoppel) in legality litigation under which one party cannot contradict itself in the litigation procedure to the detriment of another party. An objection of inadmissibility opposed on the basis of such a principle can therefore only be ruled out. In short, in REP, estoppel is unknown.

Source: CE, July 2, 2014, n°368590, at rec. ; see also in tax matters to the same effect: CE, April 1, 2010, SAS Marsadis, n° 334465, rec. p. 93.

As M. by Serge Braudo, Honorary Advisor to the Court of Appeal of Versailles, wrote:

« According to the principle of estoppel, a party cannot rely on a position contrary to that which it previously took when this change occurs to the detriment of a third party.
Source : https://www.dictionnaire-juridique.com/definition/principe-d-estoppel.php

In a case relating to a contract, the administrative court of Grenoble was seized of conclusions from a defendant party seeking to record its acquiescence in the conclusions and facts as presented by the applicant and, by way of Consequently, its previous statement of defense by which it had initially concluded that the request should be rejected and the documents produced be excluded from the procedure.

As our colleague Lucien Breteau wrote, a sort of “principle of reverse estoppel [qui] translates above all as a principle prohibiting the renunciation of the administration” to his previous submissions in defense.

And for good reason, the applicant was an opponent of the mayor of the commune, Bourg-Saint-Maurice… who became, over the course of the dispute… mayor of the commune.

This elected official thought it wise to now acquiesce to the means of the request. Logic.

Did the councilor have the right to change the defense of the municipality? YES… We will just assume that he had previously thought about having an elected official other than himself designated to defend on behalf of the municipality against the appeal he had made against the municipality, as required by the CGCT. But that's another story.

BUT… but the judge considered that no, this new elected mayor could not in passing ask the judge to act as if the previous municipal writings had been erased by the wave of a magic wand and that only his new acquiescence should be taken into consideration .

Especially since we will remember that the judge does his own work which is not limited only to means of public order, to schematize a complex question.

Hence the fact that the municipality's previous defense briefs could well be taken into account:

“5. In its latest writings, the commune of Bourg-Saint-Maurice requests that it acknowledge its acquiescence in the conclusions and facts as presented by MA and, consequently, exclude from the debates the defense statement as well as the documents that she produced and which were recorded on March 12, 2020, with the exception of the deliberation of the municipal council authorizing the mayor to take legal action.
“6. If there does not exist, in legality litigation, a general principle by virtue of which a party cannot contradict itself in the litigation procedure to the detriment of another party, conversely, no general principle imposes on the administrative judge, who is responsible for ruling on the legal grounds raised by the examination of a case, to exclude from the debates the briefs and documents produced by this party and validly submitted to the contradictory before it contradicts itself.
“7. Therefore, the municipality's first brief and the accompanying documents, recorded on March 12, 2020, can be taken into account by the court to assess the legality of the contested deliberations. Consequently, and without there being any need to examine the inadmissibility opposed by the Société d'Aménagement de la Savoie based on the fact that the mayor did not have regular authorization to produce this memorandum, the conclusions main points of the commune of Bourg-Saint-Maurice, presented in its memory recorded on March 5, 2021, can only be rejected »

And where it becomes funny is that the applicant, mayor of the municipality, lost his dispute and was ordered to pay irrecoverable costs to the municipality of which he is the councilor.

Source :

TA Grenoble, February 23, 2024, 2000370-2000372, C+

On Alyoda, see below: a summary, the conclusions of the public rapporteur Mr. Mathieu Heintz and an article (which I highly recommend reading) by our colleague Mr. Lucien Breteau. You must click on the link below then move from one item to another by clicking on the tabs: