A delegation of powers , is a legal Document by which a Autorité (the Délégant) is deprived of a fraction of the capacities which are conferred to him and transfers them to a subordinate Autorité (the Délégataire). The délégataire assumes then the obligation S and the Responsabilité S related to the powers which were delegated to him, also, in the event of failure with a obligation penally sanctioned, the délégataire will be Responsable with the place and place for délégant.

The delegation of powers defines a contractual relation between the Délégant (that which delegates) and the Délégataire (that to which one delegates the Responsabilité).

In administrative law

The State generally carries delegation of powers by Décret S or stopped S.

Examples of delegations

In law the labor

To include/understand the problems of the delegation of powers, in particular in the field of health and safety with work, it is initially necessary to be aware of extended from the responsibility for the head of undertaking. Although law No 76-1106 of December 6th, 1976 (7 Olympics Dec.) introduced, in the article L. 263-2 of the Labor regulation, a provision aiming so that only the “personal fault” of the head of undertaking can engage his responsibility. the jurisprudence of the Court of appeal persisted in since considering the head of undertaking as responsible even when the failure with the regulation is the fact of one of its employees. The physical absence (Case. crim., Oct. 2, 1979), technical incompetence (Case. plowshare, June 1st, 1983) of the head of undertaking are not enough to exonerate it this responsibility. Refusing to return on the rule of responsibility for principle of the head of undertaking, the Court of appeal, to maintain the same principles by integrating the rule stated since 1976 by the article L 263-2, regarded as a " fault personnelle" the fact for the head of undertaking of not having very implemented to take care of the compliance with the applicable rules, the need by a delegation of powers.

Jurisprudence, on the other hand, admitted the possibility for the head of undertaking of delegating whole or part of its capacities. The Court of appeal posed the principles of the delegation for a long time of powers. One can quote a stop of the court of criminal appeal of the Court of appeal of June 28th, 1902: “… The law can get along only like making weigh the criminal responsibility of each infringement to measurements which it prescribes on the immediate and effective chief service where it is produced; from where it follows that, if the chief of industry must, for this reason, being held for penally responsible, as being the author of the infringments made in the parts of the company which it manages directly, the criminal responsibility of those which occur in those of its services of which it delegated the direction weighs on the same basis on the director, manager or employee who represent it there as immediate chief, with competence and the authority necessary to take care of it effectively of the observation of the laws. ” (Case. crim., June 28th, 1902, Bull. crim., No 237, p. 425). The principles posed in this stop, since, are taken again with a great constancy. One can quote for example a stop of the court of criminal appeal of 1968: “The head of undertaking cannot be exonerated of his responsibility that if it shows that the infringement was made in a service of which it entrusted the direction and the monitoring to an employee appointed by him and provided with competence as well as authority necessary to take care effectively of the observation of the provisions in force. ” (Case. crim., Nov. 13, 1968, No 68-92.659, Bull. crim., No 297, p. 717)

It is advisable to take care not to reduce the delegation of powers to a delegation of responsibility. It is not possible to exonerate its criminal responsibility without delegating the powers which allow the respect of the Law. The transfer of responsibility is a consequence of the delegation of powers, the expression " delegation of responsabilité" often used is misleading because this concept does not have an autonomous existence. Also let us specify that if the delegation of powers valid, i.e. made by one délégant with a délégataire equipped with the authority and means necessary to the exercise of the capacity, produces a radical effect of transfer of responsibility, that does not mean inevitably that the délégant head of undertaking is safe from any continuation, responsabiltié of the délégataire not excluding necessarily the co-responsibility or the complicity of délégant.

See too

External bonds

  • Vade mecum on the delegation of powers on the site of the MEDEF

Random links:Montvendre | Pagny-the-castle | Strait of Florida | Automobile Grand Prix of Canada 1982 | Riđevštica