Wade & Forsyth stated that in the law of a number of European countries there is a ‘principle proportionality’, which ordains that administrative measures must not be more drastic than it is necessary for attaining the desired result (The concept of proportionality has its origin in the civil law of continental Europe. A core role of the courts is to enforce legal rights and obligations, and judicial review specifically is a key way of making sure that government bodies and officials, like private citizens, act … The unreasonableness or irrationality of a decision may result from a decision that is induced by bad faith on the part of the decision maker. Thus, where the decision maker passes decisions on matters falling outside the boundary of his statutory powers, there comes what we call substantive ultra vires in the narrow sense of the term. As expounded by the 19Discretion may be structured by providing that it should be exercised ‘reasonably’ –this gives the decision-maker a degree of freedom because people may fairly disagree about what is reasonable, but it rules out certain results as unacceptable. This means, inter alia, that the judiciary should refrain from unduly interfering in matters that are exclusively entrusted to the other organs of the government. who can bring an action for judicial review, what the grounds of judicial review are, and the remedies that can be awarded by the court if an action for judicial review is successful. It is rather in proceedings to annul an administrative act that the rules governing the plaintiff’s Concerning application for judicial review by pressure groups, there is no consistent practice among jurisdictions. Decision-makers are not required to conduct comprehensive pre-decision inquiries or to justify the decision made in the light of the relevant and available material. The basic tenet behind this rule is that agencies must be given the opportunity to rectify their mistakes and resolve matters in light of their own policy objectives and priorities before judicial intervention. Discretion, as to procedure to be followed in making a decision, can also have an important impact on the decision itself, (The very concept of administrative discretion involves a right to choose between more than one possible course of action upon which there is room for reasonable people to hold different opinions as to which is to be preferred, (Lor Diplock cited in Wade and Forsyth, 365.) this means that for acts or decisions falling outside the purview of administrative law, the complainant cannot invoke judicial review.Do specific grounds for judicial review exist? This section shall further appreciate some of the most important procedural and substantive constraints of judicial review. For detail, refer to the discussion in the previous section.Another important question may be raised here. A standard document summary of grounds for a defendant to challenge a claim for permission to apply for judicial review. This was recognised by the House of Lords in Boddington v British Transport Police (1998).. 14.1.2 The way this book breaks down grounds of judicial review is to take them in three particular categories: Broadly speaking, errors of law can be classified into ‘errors going to jurisdiction’ (jurisdictional errors of law) and errors of law ‘within jurisdiction’. That, is quite right; but to prove a case of that kind would require something overwhelming…” (Id.
The person who made the decision based on the decision on the existence of a particular fact, and that fact did not exist andThe grounds of judicial review incorporated under the Australian Administrative Decision (Judicial Review), as listed above, have predominantly common law origin.
This attitude seems to be the result of viewing judicial review as chiefly designed to protect the rights of the individual from unlawful interference by government.” (p.81). Courts are expected to entertain only issues that can be legitimately judicialized (justiciable issue) – issues that can be conclusively resolved through the application or interpretation of laws in force.The classification of the disputed issues into justiciable and nonjusticiable has a far-reaching implication on the courts judicial power in general and reviewing power in particular. Cane, for example, write, “‘Irrationality’ is more often referred to as ‘unreasonableness’ So, for writers like are the expounding of what constitutes unreasonable decision is a manifestation of its irrationality and vice versa. Grounds. That means although the source of the reviewing power of the court is not statute, such power can be excluded by incorporating a finality clause in a statute (the Parent Act). In its reviewing capacity the court is essentially looking at whether a decision- making body has acted ‘ultra vires’or ‘intra vires’. The juristic basis of judicial review is the doctrine of ultra vires (Wade & Forsyth, p.35).
Dwelling upon this constitutional theory, one can say that French courts, be it administrative or civil court, cannot bypass the “sufficiently categorical words of exclusion in a statute” that excludes the jurisdiction of administrative courts to review some administrative decisions.