The judge says the expert assessment was inadequate (« caractère insuffisant de l'expertise réalisée »).[1][2] The statute that the judge found was not followed says the examination of each application for a certificate is entrusted by the Minister of Culture to one or more individuals who assess the historical, artistic, or archaeological significance of the property.[3] The judge provides no further information about why they think that law was not followed.
France does have Télérecours for attorneys like the US CM/ECF, but they do not provide public access to the case docket like the US PACER system or the US Supreme Court. (To be fair, no other country has such a basic commitment to transparency for judicial dockets and filings.)
The judge says the expert assessment was inadequate (« caractère insuffisant de l'expertise réalisée »).[1][2] The statute that the judge found was not followed says the examination of each application for a certificate is entrusted by the Minister of Culture to one or more individuals who assess the historical, artistic, or archaeological significance of the property.[3] The judge provides no further information about why they think that law was not followed.
France does have Télérecours for attorneys like the US CM/ECF, but they do not provide public access to the case docket like the US PACER system or the US Supreme Court. (To be fair, no other country has such a basic commitment to transparency for judicial dockets and filings.)
[1] https://paris.tribunal-administratif.fr/decisions-de-justice...
[2] https://paris.tribunal-administratif.fr/Media/mediatheque-ta...
[3] https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/article_lc/LEGIARTI0000...
America is exceptional. PACER proves it.