Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-5lx2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-30T17:46:35.978Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Discretionary Power, Scientific Uncertainty and Right to Life in the Context of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Lessons Learnt from the Administrative Tribunal of Guadeloupe and the French Council of State

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 July 2020

Alessandra DONATI Open the ORCID record for Alessandra DONATI [Opens in a new window]
Alessandra DONATI*
Affiliation:
Senior Research Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for procedural law in Luxembourg. She holds a PhD in law at the University Paris 1 – Panthéon Sorbonne (with a thesis on the precautionary principle under European Union law) and is an Attorney in Law in Italy and France, email: alessandra.donati@mpi.lu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Administrative Tribunal of Guadeloupe 28 March 2020, case n° 2000295 (Judge for interim relief); French Council of State 4 April 2020, cases n° 439904, 439905 (Judge for interim relief)

Based on the precautionary principle and to protect the right to life under Article L. 521-2 of the French Code of Administrative Justice, the Administrative Tribunal of Guadeloupe (Judge for interim relief) ordered the Regional Health Agency of Guadeloupe and the University Hospital Centre of Guadeloupe to procure 200,000 COVID-19 screening tests corresponding to half of the population of Guadeloupe and to buy the doses necessary for the treatment of the COVID-19 epidemic with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin for 20,000 patients. On appeal, the French Council of State, by disregarding the application of the precautionary principle and with controversial reasoning concerning the relationship between discretionary power and scientific uncertainty, annulled the decision of the Administrative Tribunal of Guadeloupe.

Type
Case Annotations
Information
European Journal of Risk Regulation , Volume 11 , Issue 3 , September 2020 , pp. 698 - 708
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The Lancet Public Health, Editorial, “COVID-19 puts societies to the test” (2020) 5 <https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2667(20)30097-9/fulltext?dgcid=raven_jbs_etoc_email> (last accessed 12 May 2020).

2 A Donati, “The coronavirus crisis in Europe – is this the time of the precautionary principle?” EU Law live, Weekend Edition (27 March 2020) <https://eulawlive.com/weekend-edition/weekend-edition-no11/> (last accessed 12 May 2020).

3 ES Nicolas, “EU countries unable to follow WHO’s call for mass testing” EUObserver (20 March 2020) <https://euobserver.com/coronavirus/147830> (last accessed 12 May 2020).

4 M Morvillo, “I Just Can’t Get Enough (of Experts): The Numbers of COVID-19 and the Need for a European Approach to Testing” (2020) 11(2) European Journal of Risk Regulation 366.

5 Discovery is a French clinical trial that started in March 2020 and aims to test antivirals against coronavirus. The Discovery clinical trial is led by the French National Institute for Health and Medical Research (INSERM) as part of the European programme REACTing. The clinical trial is being conducted on approximately 3000 patients in France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, the UK, Germany and Spain. Each of the examined groups will receive for testing the following drugs: remdesivir, an injectable antiviral used in clinical research against Ebola, but has no marketing authorisation; lopinavir/ritonavir (distributed under the brand name Kaletra), an anti-HIV treatment; lopinavir/ritonavir and interferon-β, a molecule naturally produced by the immune system; and hydroxychloroquine. With regards to this clinical trial, see LCI, “Coronavirus: pourquoi l’essai européen Discovery ne donne toujours rien” (11 May 2020) <https://www.lci.fr/sante/covid-19-traitement-contre-le-coronavirus-hydroxychloroquine-pourquoi-l-essai-europeen-discovery-ne-donne-toujours-rien-2153475.html> (last accessed 12 May 2020).

6 Franceinfo, “Coronavirus: ce que l’on sait de la seconde étude du professeur Raoult, qui conclut à nouveau que la chloroquine est efficace contre le Covid-19” (28 March 2020) <https://www.francetvinfo.fr/sante/maladie/coronavirus/coronavirus-ce-que-l-on-sait-de-la-seconde-etude-du-professeur-raoult-qui-conclut-a-nouveau-que-la-chloroquine-est-efficace-contre-le-covid-19_3889183.html> (last accessed 12 May 2020).

7 Haut Conseil de la santé publique, “Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2: recommandations thérapeutiques” (2020) <https://www.hcsp.fr/Explore.cgi/avisrapportsdomaine?clefr=785> (last accessed 12 May 2020).

8 Décret n° 2020-314 du 25 mars 2020 complétant le décret n° 2020-293 du 23 mars 2020 prescrivant les mesures générales nécessaires pour faire face à l’épidémie de covid-19 dans le cadre de l’état d’urgence sanitaire [2020] JORF n°0074 du 26 mars 2020.

9 European Medicines Agency, “COVID-19: reminder of risk of serious side effects with chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine” (23 April 2020) <https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/covid-19-reminder-risk-serious-side-effects-chloroquine-hydroxychloroquine> (last accessed 12 May 2020).

10 The Lancet, “Chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19: why might they be hazardous?” (22 May 2020) <https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31174-0/fulltext> (last accessed 16 June 2020).

11 Article 4, LOI n° 2020-290 du 23 mars 2020 d’urgence pour faire face à l’épidémie de covid-19 [2020] JORF n° 0072 du 24 mars 2020.

12 Administrative Tribunal of Guadeloupe (Tribunal administrative de la Guadeloupe) 28 March 2020, n° 2000295, para 8.

13 ibid, para 12.

14 Council of State (Conseil d’État) 4 April 2020, n° 439904, para 4.

15 ibid, para 16.

16 ibid, para 14.

17 Council of State (Conseil d’État), 26 July 2017, n° 412618.

18 Council of State (Conseil d’État), 16 November 2011, n° 353172, para 4.

19 JM Pastor, “L’épidémie de coronavirus dope l’activité du Conseil d’État, ou plus exactement celle du juge des référés surtout, qui vient de rendre des ordonnances dans des domaines très divers”, Dalloz Actualité (9 April 2020) <https://www.dalloz-actualite.fr/flash/des-referes-liberte-tous-azimuts#.XrPXw5rgpE5; https://www.dalloz-actualite.fr/flash/juge-des-referes-du-conseil-d-etat-sur-front-du-coronavirus#.XrPZJJrgpE5> (last accessed 12 May 2020).

20 Council of State (Conseil d’État), 22 March 2020, n° 439674.

21 Council of State (Conseil d’État), 27 March 2020, n° 439720.

22 Council of State (Conseil d’État), 28 March 2020, n° 439693.

23 Council of State (Conseil d’État), 28 March 2020, n° 439726.

24 Council of State (Conseil d’État), 28 March 2020, n° 439765.

25 On the precautionary principle as a principle of anticipated action in the context of the coronavirus crisis, see Donati, supra, note 2.

26 G Brücker, “Réflexions sur l’application du principe de précaution au domaine de la santé” (2007) Dalloz 1546; C Noiville, “Principe de précaution et santé. Le point sur quinze années de jurisprudence” (2009) 1/3.

27 E Gaillard, “Principe de precaution – droit interne” (2019) JurisClasseur Environnement et Développement durable, Fasc. 2410.

28 Council of State (Conseil d’État), 8 October 2012, n° 342423.

29 Court of Appeal (Cour d’appel) Nantes, 3 February 2012, n° 10NT01244.

30 Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal administratif) Amiens, 23 April 2007, n° 0601149.

31 Council of State (Conseil d’État), 26 February 2014, n° 351514; Council of State (Conseil d’État), 21 March 2007, n° 284951.

32 On the progression of the precautionary principle in the case law of the ECtHR, see E Gaillard, “Principe de precaution – Systèmes juridiques internationaux et européens” (2017) JurisClasseur Environnement et Développement durable, Fasc. 2415.

33 European Court of Human Rights, Tatar vs Roumanie (2009) n° 67021/21, para 87.

34 N de Sadeleer, “Quand la science climatique s’invite au prétoire, Décryptage de l’affaire Urgenda, Nicolas de Sadeleer”, blogdroiteuropéen (7 May 2020) <https://blogdroiteuropeen.com/2020/05/08/quand-la-science-climatique-sinvite-au-pretoire-decryptage-de-laffaire-urgenda-nicolas-de-sadeleer/amp/?__twitter_impression=true> (last accessed 25 June 2020).

35 Council of State (Conseil d’État), 22 March 2020, n° 439674; Council of State (Conseil d’État), 28 March 2020, n° 439765, n° 439693 and n° 439726; Council of State (Conseil d’État), 29 March 2020, n° 439798.

36 Council of State (Conseil d’État), 4 April 2020, n° 439904, 439905, para 4: if the administrative authority is entitled, where there is uncertainty as to the existence or extent of risks to human health, to take protective measures without having to wait for the reality and seriousness of those risks to be fully demonstrated, the existence of such uncertainty is, in principle, an obstacle to the recognition of a serious and manifestly unlawful infringement of fundamental freedom, justifying the interim relief judge’s use of the powers conferred on them by Article L. 521-2 of the Code of Administrative Justice.

37 ibid, paras 14 and 16.

38 ibid, para 4.

39 C Saunier, “La position délicate du juge des référés face à la crise sanitaire: entre interventionnisme ambigu et déférence nécessaire”, Jus Politicum blog (11 April 2020) <http://blog.juspoliticum.com/2020/04/11/la-position-delicate-du-juge-des-referes-face-a-la-crise-sanitaire-entre-interventionnisme-ambigu-et-deference-necessaire-par-claire-saunier/> (last accessed 12 May 2020).

40 Council of State (Conseil d’État), 28 July 2017, n° 410677; Council of State (Conseil d’État), 26 July 2018, n° 422237.

41 P Wachsmann, Libertés publiques (8th edn, Paris, Dalloz 2017) p 256.

42 XD de Boulois, “On nous change notre … référé-liberté” (2020) 12 RDLF <http://www.revuedlf.com/droit-administratif/on-nous-change-notre-refere-liberte-obs-sous-ce-ord-22-mars-2020-n439674/> (last accessed 25 June 2020).