Limits of administrative control powers according to the principle of legality

Abstract

The limits of administrative police powers represent a key constitutional and administrative issue, embodying the challenge of balancing the requirements of maintaining public order—in its three dimensions of security, public health, and public tranquility—with the protection of public rights and freedoms. In accordance with the principle of legality, these powers are not absolute; rather, under normal circumstances, they are governed by strict constraints. These include the necessity of serving the public interest and adherence to the principles of proportionality and appropriateness—ensuring risks are averted with the least possible restriction—as well as a prohibition against taking measures of a penal or punitive nature. However, under exceptional circumstances, these powers shift in accordance with the "doctrine of unforeseen circumstances" (*théorie des circonstances exceptionnelles*); the scope of administrative authority temporarily expands to address severe crises with flexibility—conditioned by the degree of necessity and an objective assessment of the risk—while remaining entirely subject to rigorous judicial oversight that ensures the supremacy of the law and prevents any abuse of power. This study analyzes legal texts related to administrative control authorities and examines their adherence to the principle of legality, while interpreting the legal rules governing these authorities. A descriptive approach is employed to present the concepts of administrative control and the principle of legality, outlining the characteristics of each, and clarifying the relationship between them within the framework of administrative law.

To what extent do administrative control authorities adhere to the principle of legality when exercising their powers, and how can a balance be achieved between protecting public order and guaranteeing public rights and freedoms?