These are two decisions that offer respite to the executive. The Constitutional Council has indeed validated, Friday, April 14, the essence of the pension reform, including the postponement of the legal age of departure to 64 years. He censors six “social riders”, that is to say, provisions that had no place in the law studied. The Council had been seized on the one hand by the Prime Minister, Elisabeth Borne, but also by deputies from the left and from the National Rally (in separate referrals) as well as by senators from the left.
Furthermore, the bill aimed at keeping the legal age at 62, submitted to the Council within the framework of the procedure known as the referendum of shared initiative (RIP), was rejected. Another bill within the framework of the RIP was tabled on Thursday 13 April. The nine constitutional advisers will deliver their decision on this subject on May 3.
“There are no surprises. This is what commentators expected, believes Cécile Guérin-Bargues, professor of public law, at Paris-II-Panthéon-Assas. This is a sign that the Constitutional Council is judging the constitutionality of the law and not its political expediency or with regard to what is happening outside the Council. »
Several eminent constitutionalists such as, for example, Dominique Rousseau, had underlined the high probability of censorship of the law, in particular on the abuse of procedure by passing the pension reform through a bill on the amending financing of Social Security (PLFSSR ) making it possible to use the mechanism provided for in the second paragraph of Article 47.1 of the Constitution and consequently, a compulsory examination by Parliament within a period of fifty days in total. Other measures were also pointed out such as the implementation of Article 49.3 of the Constitution, depriving the National Assembly of a vote on the text examined.
“Bypassing parliamentary deliberation”
Constitutional judges rejected these arguments. “The use of such a legislative vehicle [le PLFSSR] is not subject to urgency, exceptional circumstances or a major imbalance in the social accounts. […] The choice which was originally made by the government to include them in an amending financing law does not, in itself, disregard any constitutional requirement. explains the Council. Similarly, the latter considers that the application of the tight deadlines of article 47.1 can be done for a amending bill.
You have 58.82% of this article left to read. The following is for subscribers only.