The illegality thereof has already been shown (in the Gracious Request as well as in the pleadings filed with the Conseil d'Etat).
2.
It is very frequent that administrative decisions be withdrawn in the course contentious proceedings. Actually, the administration is bound to withdraw its illegal decisions upon the (justified) request of an individual made in the above-mentioned period of time. A refusal to accept such a request constitutes an abuse of authority (excès de pouvoir) (CE 23 February 1979 Maia, Rec p. 597).
Such decisions are therefore very frequent. (See the cases quoted by Dutheillet de Lamothe et Robineau. The non lieu by reason of the suppression of the subject matter of the recourse, AJDA 1979 no. 3 p. 561).
There are many examples - one can mention:
the delivery of a construction permit, the refusal of which had been challenged (CE 21 May 1953 Bernabé, Rec. p. 244);
the delivery of an authorisation for the opening of a pharmacy, the refusal of which had been challenged (CE 16 June 1967 Tasseel Rec. p. 262):
the communication of a document, the refusal of communication of which was challenged (Minister of Economy and Budget against SA DUMONS RDFA 1987 p. 81 pleadings Dael):
as a very significant example in the context of the Saniman case, the withdrawal of an arrêté of deportation in the course of the proceedings (CE General Assembly, 22 December 1978. Minister of the Interior against Cohn Bendit Rec. p. 524).
There is also the material number of cases regarding civil servants,
The above refers only to individual decisions, the withdrawing of regulatory decisions (affecting whole categories of individuals) is even more frequent.
It is thus very clear that referring the matter to the Conseil d'Etat, not only does not prevent, but in fact permits the taking of a new decision as it deprives the previous decision of any final character.
3.
In any event, a new decision to extradite Mr Saniman could itself be referred to the Conseil d'Etat which would asses its validity in view of the above principles, and in particular its legality on
the merits.
These are my conclusions.
Yours faithfully