Indirect claims in spanish and french administrative litigation: Between rule of law and security

This paper aims to compare how indirect claims have articulated the principles of legal security and the rule of law in French and Spanish administrative law, through the dogmatic method. The first part of this research analyzes the control perspective. By not conditioning the claim to an existing regulation and adopting a broader understanding of the in curred defects, this research concludes that French Law prioritizes legal control. In contrast, Spain emphasizes security due to a more rigorous examination of the acts and their irregularities. The second part of this article studies the sanction applicable once the illegality is verified. By extending the jurisdictional competence (which would encompass non-specialised tribunals) and establishing mechanisms to annul the disregarded acts, it is plausible to assert that Spain prioritises legality. In France, this perspective is reversed in favour of security because of a strict understanding of that competence and the absence of nullifying mechanisms. These differences allow us to conclude the existence of different variants of indirect claims, a useful circumstance at a comparative level, especially in regulations lacking a consolidated interpretation in the exercise of these claims.