Tarn Senator Philippe Folliot, along with other officials, is advocating for a validation bill to restart construction of the A69 highway, which has been halted by a court ruling. The bill aims to confirm environmental authorization despite the court’s decision. Elected officials believe the project serves public interest, but legal experts express concerns about overriding court decisions. If passed, the bill will still require approval from the Constitutional Council before construction can resume.
Common sense dictates that we should move forward. This sentiment was echoed by Tarn Senator Philippe Folliot (Union Centriste) as he introduced a new bill on Friday, alongside fellow elected officials: Senator Marie-Lise Housseau (Union Centriste) and deputies Philippe Bonnecarrère (non-affiliated) and Jean Terlier (Together for the Republic). Their primary aim is to reignite the construction of the A69 highway, linking Castres and Toulouse, which has been stalled since the Toulouse administrative court’s ruling on February 27.
The state has filed an appeal and requested a stay on the court’s decision, but the administrative appeal court will not render a verdict for at least a year. We want construction to restart this summer, insists the centrist senator, following a recent demonstration that attracted 5,000 participants in Tarn.
The Purpose of the Validation Bill
The focus of this proposed validation bill is to confirm the environmental authorization for the A69, thereby paving the way for construction to resume. This is necessary even though the administrative court nullified the authorization, claiming that the highway project did not meet a vital public interest requirement (RIIPM), which is the only basis for permitting the destruction of protected species.
This kind of procedure is not common but does occur, typically addressing less significant issues. A validation law is historically designed to avert the annulment of particular administrative decisions by an administrative judge, explains lawyer Arnaud Gossement, citing instances of decisions that may have been deemed illegal for minor reasons.
For example, consider a public service access competition hindered by a slight procedural error: a validation law might step in, as it would be unreasonable to compel all candidates to retake the competition. However, such a law is not intended to undermine the principle of separation of powers or interfere with ongoing judicial processes before its passage, insists the expert.
Political Perspectives on Public Interest
To be legitimate, a validation law must fulfill several criteria. The elected officials from Tarn emphasize that the A69 meets the general interest criterion, as it has received a public utility declaration from the state, irrespective of the Toulouse administrative court’s ruling.
Will the Bill be Passed Before Summer?
The lawmakers are eager to see the bill included in the agendas of both legislative chambers by May, either during parliamentary sessions or government time, without waiting for the administrative appeal court’s judgment (which may take between a year to 18 months). On Thursday, Minister for Relations with Parliament, Patrick Mignola, reassured that the government would not shy away from its responsibilities regarding this matter, making an effort to prioritize it despite a packed schedule.
What kind of majority are they expecting? I am confident we will secure a substantial majority in the Senate, states Philippe Folliot, also noting that colleagues in the Assembly believe a majority in the Palais Bourbon is achievable. The discussions are likely to be contentious, as this approach seeks to prioritize political interests over legal considerations, warns an expert, who fears this may set a dangerous precedent for the rule of law.
We are not opposing a court decision, defends Philippe Folliot. We merely assert that the A69 is a significant public interest project. However, he still maintains that the administrative judge has erred.
Parliament cannot override a court decision.
Parliament cannot override a court decision.
Arnaud Gossement, lawyer.
If the law is passed, would construction commence? Not immediately, as it would still need to be evaluated by the Constitutional Council. This body must determine whether the validation law is warranted by an imperative reason of general interest.
Many environmental law specialists express skepticism regarding this outcome. For a law to influence a judicial procedure, there needs to be a compelling interest that justifies such an interference, points out Arnaud Gossement. Parliament cannot override a court decision. It would be unprecedented for the Constitutional Council to identify a compelling reason of general interest where none exists, adds Dorian Guinard, a public law professor.
What happens next? If the bill successfully navigates the challenging evaluation of the Constitutional Council, the government would then approach the administrative appeal court to, under the auspices of this validation law, reinstate the environmental authorization initially granted to the project.
If the administrative appeal court agrees and declares no jurisdiction, the procedure halts, the environmental authorization is reinstated, and the Toulouse administrative court’s ruling becomes void, explains Arnaud Gossement. However, the judge might also choose to reject this validation law, particularly if it is found to conflict with European law by infringing on the right to appeal.
This remains a significant possibility: jurisprudence from the Council of State indicates that a financial interest aimed at validating an administrative decision does not equate to an imperative reason of general interest that would justify infringing on the right to appeal. The situation is far from settled.