The suspense is almost over. After twelve major days of mobilization, a 49.3 in the Assembly and a filing before the Constitutional Council, the pension reform has just passed a new stage with its passage before the nine wise men. The controversial bill, as well as the validity of the popular initiative referendum (RIP) tabled by the left, was studied at length by the institution rue de Montpensier, before being partially validated. Here’s what to take away from their decision.
Well validated legal age
This was the scenario presented as the most probable. The Elders, who looked into appeals filed by the opposition and the government itself, partially challenged the text, but without touching the legal age of departure. Article 7, symbolic point of the conflict with the inter-union, is therefore in accordance with the law according to the Constitutional Council.
In their appeals against the 64-year-olds, the opposition parliamentarians had notably attacked the “legislative vehicle” chosen by the government: an amending budget for Social Security, which imposes time limits for review by parliament, “unsuited” to a reform on the scale of that of pensions. They had also pointed out the tools mobilized by the government to “muzzle” parliament: vote blocked in the Senate, 49.3 in the Assembly…
A choice which “does not disregard, in itself, any constitutional requirement”, according to the Council, which however evokes the “unusual nature” of the accumulation of procedures aimed at restricting the debates.
Senior index, senior CDI… The provisions challenged
If the famous article 7 was not censored, the Constitutional Council nevertheless considered that certain measures – the “social riders”, which have no link with the financial situation – had “no place” in the text. In total, six sets of provisions in the entire reform are rejected.
This is for example the case of the senior index, an “indicator relating to the employment of older employees”, mandatory for companies with more than 1,000 employees, present in article 2. “Its rejection does not prevent not the implementation of the reform”, specifies for Le Parisien the professor of public law at Sciences-po Guillaume Tusseau.
Five other sets of provisions, including the senior CDI, a contract reserved for those over 60 for an end-of-career mission present in article 3, were also challenged by the Constitutional Council.
The government is now free to decide to integrate these six provisions into another law to have them passed. Or simply forget about them. Another possibility also exists for Emmanuel Macron: that of requesting a new deliberation in Parliament, calling on it to modify the censored provisions.
The rejected RIP… Waiting for a second?
It was not necessarily the most anticipated decision, but it was still important for the opposition. The Constitutional Council has decided to prevent the launch of the referendum of shared initiative tabled by the left. The RIP was deemed admissible in form – it was signed by at least a fifth of the members of Parliament – but not in substance. The biggest problem is in the writing. The text proposed to include in the legislation the prohibition to go beyond 62 years on the starting age of the pension reforms. According to the Council, this proposal “does not relate to a reform relating to the social policy of the nation”, as required by a RIP.
The nine wise men will study a second RIP in a very short time, to avoid getting bogged down. A new decision will be made on May 3. Anticipating a “no”, the deputies of the left had, in fact, submitted a second RIP this Thursday. “It is the same text” as the first RIP, supplemented by a second article “which creates an element of reform: tax revenue linked to capital resources to secure the financing of pay-as-you-go pensions”. The idea? Overcome “the possible weakness” of the first request, explained the president of the socialist group Patrick Kanner. Verdict within a month.