The obligation to act is the obligation to exercice a legal or material act, the foundation of which ensues from a unilateral source. Consequently, this notion is central for the constitutional state. In fact, the study shows that, although public figures symbolize power, they are nevertheless holders of a right and, on this account, they have to obey the law. Therefore, public figures are obliged to undertake actions such as the creation of certain public utilities, the passing of law enforcement, the decision enforcement, the repeal of illegal administrative acts. These actions all constitute possibilities that attest to the richness of this notion of “obligation to act”. Besides, the refusal to do such actions may be subjected to a dispute before the admnistrative judge. Consequently, the repeal of a refusal to take action and the involvement of public figures’ responsability often reassert the existence of an obligation to act and constitute penalties when they do not act in accordance with their obligation. However, since these penalties do not force public figures to take action as they should do, they prove to be ineffective. This disadvantage accounts for the will of the legislator who bas been trying -since 1980- to find a remedy for it, by investing the judge with important powers of order and penalty