or the principle of non-retroactivity of administrative acts. It is in the field of the review of violation of law, and, more specifically, of the review of error in the assessment of facts by the official who made a decision, that appears most clearly the necessity to keep a balance between the specific requirements of administrative action and the protection of citizens' rights. As a matter of fact, the further the judge will go in verifying the absence of such an error of assessment, in the interest of citizens, the more limited the power of administration will be in terms of discretion it enjoys when making a decision. The degree of judicial review on this point will depend on the nature of discretion that is recognized to the administration by applicable law. There are some cases, although not very common, where the administration is in a situation of "competence lie" (literally, "bound authority"), which means that it has no discretion at all. This will happen, just to take a classic example of such a situation, if a citizen applies for a hunting licence, after having passed the examination entitling him to get it and having paid for the required duty : according to law, the administration is then bound to issue this licence and, as it has no choice to do otherwise, the judge will exercise a full review on its decision if it happens to reject the application. At the other end of the spectrum, the administration may have