The peculiarity of French law in relation to administrative agreements is that individual entities can be classified as administrative agreements based on the qualification (permission) of the law or on the principles established by judicial practice. At the same time, a specific French characteristic is the primacy of public interest and the effort to provide public services.4 A legal regime different from private law contracts has developed for contracts concluded in the organisation of public services, which was placed in administrative law by French scholars5

The Blanco judgment (Fr. cas Blanco) of 1873 (the earliest decision still cited in French administrative law literature) held that public utilities are part of the administrative system and that the adjudication of claims for compensation for non-contractual damage brought against them falls within the jurisdiction of administrative court. Other case law decisions in individual disputes have strengthened the jurisdiction of the administrative courts with additional elements, thus refining the concept of an administrative agreement.6

The Terrier judgment (Fr. cas Terrier) of 1903 qualified the organisation of public services as an administrative activity, regardless of whether the administrative body has chosen a public authority or a contractual solution.7

In the Thérond judgment (Fr. cas Thérond) of 1910, it was stated that any contract that served the interest of the public service qualifies as an administrative agreement.8

The 1910 Compagnie générale Français des Tramways judgment (Fr. cas Compagnie générale Français des Tramways) referred to the possibility of amending public service contracts in the public interest, within which the necessary additions and modifications can be made. The following types of administrative agreements (public administrative contracts) are known in French law: public procurement contracts (Fr. les marchés publics); competition contracts (Fr. les offres de concours); public loan contracts (Fr. les contrats d’emprunt publics); public service delegation contracts (fr. les contrats des délégation des services publiques); employment contracts relating to public property (Fr. les contrats d’occupation des domains publiques); public-private partnership contracts/PPP contracts (Fr. les contrats de partenariat public-privés); integrated or ‘in-house’ service contracts (Fr. les contrats de prestations integrées ou ‘in-house’).9

The existence of contractual provisions that are not typical of civil law contracts or that deviate from general contract rules (fr. clauses exorbitantes des droits commun). Since the Époux Bertin [Spouse Bertin] judgment (Fr. cas Époux Bertin) of 1956, the above content criteria have been applied, with regard to jurisdiction, contractual liability, and public works issues. An authority may contract with an authority or with a private person, with the framework of ideas emphasising public interest and asserting the supremacy of private interest.10

The Code of Public Order (Fr. Code de la commande public) international private law, i.e. not in the sense of law enforcement that came into force in 2019 codified, in addition to a number of contractual arrangements (public procurement, concessions, defense procurement, public service delegation contracts), the general principles developed in judicial practice relating to public administration contracts. If a public service delegation contract is concluded by local government bodies in the context of the implementation of a public service, the rules of the Local Government Act must also be taken into account. The specific rules of PPP contracts have also been placed within the scope of public procurement regulations, integrating French national regulations into the scope of various relevant EU directives.11

The specific regulation of German law, and within it of German administrative procedural law, is implemented by the German Administrative Procedure Act (Ger. Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz, abbr. VwVfG), which was adopted on May 25, 1976, and entered into force on January 1, 1977. Before the regulation of the VwVfG, it was controversial in German law whether the public administration could conclude a contract or whether express authorisation was required for this. The law stated the fundamental acceptability of the contractual form. (German law of the 19th century was more inclined to treat the contract as a private law [property law] institution, which was alien to public law, since public law embodied the exercise of state power, the imperium: it commanded, not negotiated). This specific type of contract is called a public law contract (Ger. Öffentlicher-rechtlicher Vertrag), which is narrower than French law and can only be concluded in public law relations, for example in the tax law, construction law, social or environmental (professional) administration sectors. If the law excludes it, then a public law contract cannot be created. (In Central and Eastern European states, a public law contract can only be concluded if the law expressly allows it, as a remnant of post-socialist legal thinking). A special type of public law contract is a contract in which the (private) party contracting with the authority undertakes to provide consideration. In certain cases, the authority may also conclude a contract with the person to whom the administrative act would contain a provision instead of issuing the administrative act (this probably partly inspired the Hungarian administrative contract, but in German law this case is not a separate type of contract, nor is it a general rule). In explicit administrative contracts (Ger. Verwaltungsvertrag), the legal relationship is more regulated, but the scope of movement is wider compared to other public law contracts, allowing the interests of the parties concerned to be better taken into account. Compared to unilateral administrative acts, the citizen can also significantly influence the content of administrative contracts. The rules of the German Civil Code (Ger. Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, abbr. BGB) apply to the nullity of public law and administrative contracts. A contract is also null and void if it suffers from an error on the basis of which an administrative act with the same content would also be null and void. German judicial practice sometimes faces a challenge in determining the exclusivity of public or private law, especially with regard to newer types of legal relationships. A contract of public-administrative nature is one in which public administration undertakes to provide a service that, by its nature, a private party would not be able to provide.12

Spanish law is similar to French law. Accordingly, in the case of a public contract (Sp. el contrato público), at least one of the parties is an administrative actor who acts in an administrative capacity with regard to the subject matter of the contract. The State or the State’s administrative body is therefore one of the parties. The specific feature of an administrative contract (Sp. el contrato administrativo) is that during the interpretation, execution (as well as perfecting) or termination of the contract, the public administration exercises certain prerogatives, but this exercise of rights cannot mean that the budget balance of the public administration body ‘turns negative.’ The subject matter of the contract falls under the scope of public law. The public party participating in an administrative contract may be the State, a state body, an administrative body, a public body, and in certain special cases, other non-state bodies under internal public law that perform administrative tasks. The general issues discussed above are covered by a significant piece of legislation, Act 30/2007 on Public Sector Contracts. It is regulated by the Act of 2001 (Sp. Ley de Contratos del Sector Público). The following types of public administrative contracts are known in Spanish law: construction contracts (Sp. los contratos de obras); public works and concession contracts (Sp. los contratos de concesión de obras públicas); supply contracts (Sp. los contratos de suministro); service/public service contracts (Sp. los contratos de servicios); public-private partnership/PPP contract (Sp. los contratos de colaboración entre el sector público y el sector privado).13

Anglo-Saxon law has implemented several specific solutions to this issue. One of the main forms of the model English law - common law - is both private law and public law, so one of the main features is that the contract exists simultaneously in the sense of public law and private law. In terms of private law, the contract is therefore the intermediary of a given transaction, while in terms of public law, it is a technique of governance or regulation, satisfying existing needs, and at the same time, is related to the operation of the state in both senses. In English law, the contract (in contrast to French or German law, the ‘Civilian tradition,’ i.e. the ius civile, i.e. the way of thinking of the two major legal systems following the Roman legal traditions) is not a civil law concept. (Obviously, from the point of view of administrative law, the Roman legal traditions were less effective due to their predominance in private law). There is no civil code in English law, so it does not even occur to us that the contract should be derived from civil law. Common law does not distinguish between private individuals and public entities in terms of rights and obligations, while the French approach is based on a sharp separation between public and private interests.14

Although the distinction between branches of law is more present in English and other Anglo-Saxon laws today, its explanatory power is still small and less significant. Judicial modification of a contract is not possible in English law. At the same time, the outsourcing of public tasks by public administration is still a significant topic among both British and American authors. Legal remedies against public administration are, however, limited in Anglo-Saxon law.15

Common law does not explicitly recognise the concepts of public law contract, public contract, public administration contract, or authority contract, and at most only recognises them in the case of foreign laws.16 In addition to common law and judicial practice represented by precedents, statute law based on written law or equity further colour the picture.17

Among public law contracts used in the continental (civilian) sense, PPP contracts are at the same time an explicit construct of common law, just like in-house contracts, but the role of public service contracts is also significant.18