Emmanuel Macron confirmed during his interview on Wednesday that pension reform would be adopted “by the end of the year”. Before selecting: But now, as I am speaking to you, we have to wait for the decision of the Constitutional Council. »
Indeed, the Prime Minister, the left and the far right seized the nine wise men of the institution to judge the constitutionality of the reform, which was adopted with a blow of 49.3. And the Council can censor, at least in part, the text, explains to Opus Constitutionalist Anne-Charlene Pezzina, lecturer at the University of Rouen.
sequel after announcement
Is it possible to control the text of reforming the pension system?
It is possible that the Constitutional Council will partially censor the text. The government chose as a legislative tool to pass its Social Security Budget Funding Amendment (PLFRSS) reform bill, which builds on Section 47-1 of the Constitution. Therefore, this text should relate to the economic and social balance of the current year. However, some provisions concern balances through 2030.
Nicolas Roeslier: “49.3, 47.1, 44.3… Macron in ‘excessive speed’
This is called the “budget link”. [des dispositions qui n’ont rien à voir avec une loi de finance]. This is particularly the case for the higher index and the experience of a large permanent contract that could be cancelled. In the event of censorship, pension reform will be promoted without the revised articles. And if the government wants to vote on the amputated parts, it will have to introduce a new law in parliament.
Is it possible to imagine complete control over the text?
sequel after announcement
Based on the consistent case law of this institution [ses décisions habituelles]And This possibility is almost nil. Only two bills, in 1979 and 2012, are completely banned under the VH Republic and for procedural reasons. There was no one to problem legislative mechanism. At best, the assembly could write its wish that the government should not use the process in this way.
The Council of State, which has already ruled on the text, indicated that if it goes beyond the current general reform, some provisions are nevertheless related to the 2023 budget. They are not unconstitutional in principle. The council is careful and makes careful decisions, and it will certainly follow that logic.
Some constitutionalists cite the failure to respect “the principle of clarity and honesty in parliamentary debate” to justify this total oversight.
This principle appeared in case law in 2005. With regard to pension reform, the fact of using Article 47-1 of the Constitution which limited debate to fifty days, non-voting in the National Assembly or filibuster voting used in the Senate was highlighted. In spite of everything, the constitution was respected in its text.
sequel after announcement
Pension reform: 13 measures hidden behind 64
In addition, the principle of “clarity and truth” never made it possible to censure a statute, or even an amendment. We should also think about what it means to be clear and honest in discussions. Therefore, it seems a bit bold to me that the Constitutional Council is launching it on this text of the law. Unless he wants to celebrate this occasion by strengthening his jurisprudence. But again, prudence in enterprise is more appropriate than daring.
The Constitutional Council convened on March 21 and should rule within a month, ie by April 21. But in practice, that rarely happens. We can hope to make a decision within three weeks.
Can a large mobilization affect the selection of constitutional judges?
The Constitutional Council considers itself a judge and, in this context, must insist on its independence to avoid the usual criticism of the “government of judges”. Unless the Constitutional Council is sensitive to the street, we feel that it entered the political game.
