A decision handed down on 4 May 2012 by the French Constitutional Council (Cons. Const. 4 May 2012, n°2012-241-QPC) ruled that the mandate of Judges of Commercial Courts was constitutional. Indeed, the constitutionality of their appointment process as well as their disciplinary regime, pursuant to Articles L. 722-6 to 722-16 and L. 724-1 to L. 724-6 of the French Commercial Code, had been challenged through a "Priority Preliminary Ruling on Constitutionality" (Question Prioritaire de Constitutionnalité). With respect to the mandate of Commercial Court Judges, the French Constitutional Council ruled that there were sufficient guarantees to avoid any conflicts of interests, even indirect. Furthermore, the claimants argued that the fact that citizens could not file a claim against these Judges before a disciplinary body breached the principle of equality with respect to the disciplinary regime applicable to ordinary Judges. The French Constitutional Council recalled that Commercial Court Judges are not subject to the ordinary regime applicable to judges in France. As a result, the Constitutional Council dismissed this argument.
Register Now As you are not an existing subscriber please register for your free daily legal newsfeed service.Register
If you have any questions about the service please contact email@example.com or call Lexology Customer Services on +44 20 7234 0606.
Constitutionality of the mandate of judges of commercial courts
If you are interested in submitting an article to Lexology, please contact Andrew Teague at firstname.lastname@example.org.
“The Lexology newsfeed is very relevant to my practice and I like that you can tailor the newsfeed to include specific practice areas. I enjoy seeing a variety of approaches and I will read multiple articles on the...
“The Lexology newsfeed is very relevant to my practice and I like that you can tailor the newsfeed to include specific practice areas. I enjoy seeing a variety of approaches and I will read multiple articles on the same topic for the purpose of getting the fullest understanding of a new law, a court case or other legal development.”
Audrey E Mross
Labor & Employment Attorney
Munck Carter LLP