Evidence of the seriousness of the moment, the top-secret Constitutional Council, Friday 14 April, summoned the press at the time of publication of its decisions on conformity with the Pension Reform Constitution and the Joint Initiative Referendum (RIP).
Under the gilding of the Royal Palace, which overlooks the Burren Columns, at six o’clock in the evening a dossier was distributed to the journalists present. Inside, the two resolutions are in extenso, as are the relevant press releases. Then came the time for textual explanations. Not by the Elders themselves, but by the services of the Constitutional Council.
sequel after announcement
The Constitutional Council ratifies the main part of the pension reform, including postponing the retirement age to 64
Why was RIP considered unconstitutional? “does not constitute reform within the meaning of Article 11 of the Constitution,” Najib inside the Rue Montpensier Foundation. The only article of the text stipulates that the legal retirement age may not exceed 62 years. However, this age was still 62 at the time of the RIP examination, and the government reform had not yet been announced. Therefore, the Constitutional Council considered that it does not entail any change in the current rule of law. »
A legal error clearly recognized by the Nupes Parliamentarians in the origin of this RIP, because they have already submitted a second one, this Thursday, April 13th. Which will be considered by the Constitutional Council on May 3.
“constitutional action”
On the other hand, the Elders rejected all criticism of the violation of the procedure followed for adopting the amendment to the Social Security Financing Law, which includes reforming the retirement system. Neither the abbreviated deadlines stipulated in Article 47-1 of the Constitution nor even the standard of urgency claimed by many jurists can justify censorship:
“The Constitutional Council decides (…) that these examination deadlines apply not only to the financing law of the year, but also to the amendment of financing laws, which amend the provisions of the latter during the year, and that urgency is not a condition for their implementation.”
Opposition parties also argued that the accumulation of constitutional processes aimed at shortening the examination time in Parliament undermined the sincerity of parliamentary debates. Again, not so in the eyes of the wise:
sequel after announcement
“While the joint use of the implemented measures was unusual in response to the circumstances of the debates, it did not have the effect of rendering the legislative measure unconstitutional. Accordingly, the impugned law was adopted according to a procedure consistent with the Constitution.”
An interpretation that does not fail to arouse controversy among law professors, as well as within the opposition, who will surely demand further justification. “The sincerity of parliamentary debates is a concept that is universally evaluated”, For the time being, we are content with defining that to the Constitutional Council.
Censorship of six “social contestants”
Lawyers have long declared censorship of some items. And this time, the Constitutional Council followed them, withholding six of them “social riders”measures it “It has had no effect or a very indirect effect on the revenues of compulsory basic schemes or the bodies that contribute to their financing”.
“The Constitutional Council has often been very satisfied with the political majority”
Among them are the Senior Personnel Index, the Senior Personnel Employment Contract, some amendments to the regulation of the collection of social security contributions, the provisions on the conditions for opening the right to early departure for some civil servants, and the provisions on specific individual monitoring of the benefit of some employees and the information system for policyholders of the pension system Pay as you go.
The government had already indicated that it would reinstate any controlled provisions in a future ordinary bill, which does not require direct fiscal implications.
sequel after announcement
So much for legal explanations. The only additional information provided: The deliberations lasted from 9 am to 4 pm, without a lunch break. To find out the content of this deliberation, the personal positions of the Elders or the internal discussions, you have to wait:
“The minutes will give an answer to these questions. But the archives of the Constitutional Council can only be accessed after twenty-five years…”
The secrecy of the deliberations still remains on the side of the avenue de Montpensier.
