The Constitutional Council has validated most of the pension reform, including the gradual postponement of the legal retirement age from 62 to 64 years. The nine judges certainly underlined the unusual nature of the accumulation of procedures aimed at restricting debates in Parliament (Article 47-1, which limited the duration of day-to-day debates to twenty days in the Assembly and fifteen in the Senate , 49.3, or even 44.3, the blocked vote procedure), but they considered that this had not hindered the legislative procedure. They also censored six provisions of the text.
- What consequences for the bill?
The president, in accordance with article 10 of the Constitution, had fifteen days to promulgate the law but he did so that night. He could also have asked Parliament, within the same period, for a new deliberation on the text of the law. But this possibility did not find favor with the executive, which therefore decided to promulgate the text very quickly.
- What will become of the measures rejected by the Elders?
The Constitutional Council rejected six measures, “social riders”, such as the senior index, the senior employment contract, or even the opening of the right to early departure for certain civil servants. Reason given: these provisions have no place in a budgetary text. They could be taken up and deepened in a future Labor law, which could be passed before the summer.
- What about the shared initiative referendum?
The Elders dismissed the first shared initiative referendum proposal (RIP) tabled by 182 left-wing parliamentarians. They argued that a RIP could only concern “a reform”. However, the elected representatives of the left wanted the referendum to focus on maintaining the retirement age at 62, and therefore on the existing situation. A second, more “legally sound” RIP was sent on Thursday, April 13. The council will make its decision on May 3.