Proof of the gravity of the moment, this Friday, April 14, the so secret Constitutional Council had summoned the press at the time of the publication of its decisions on the conformity with the Constitution of the pension reform and the Referendum of shared initiative (RIP) .
Under the gilding of the Palais-Royal, with a view of the columns of Buren, at 6 p.m. sharp, a file was thus distributed to the journalists present. Inside, the two decisions in extenso, as well as the two related press releases. Then came the time for text explanations. Not by the Elders themselves, but by the services of the Constitutional Council.
The sequel after the ad
The Constitutional Council validates the main part of the pension reform, including the postponement of the retirement age to 64
Why was the RIP deemed unconstitutional? “It does not constitute a reform within the meaning of Article 11 of the Constitution”, we answer within the institution of the rue Montpensier. The single article of the text provided that the legal retirement age could not exceed 62 years. However, this age was still 62 at the time of the examination of the RIP, the reform of the government having not yet been proclaimed. “The Constitutional Council therefore considered that it did not entail any change in the current rule of law. »
A legal error which the parliamentarians of the Nupes at the origin of this RIP had obviously realized, since they had already filed a second, this Thursday, April 13. Which will be examined by the Constitutional Council on May 3.
“A procedure in accordance with the Constitution”
On the other hand, the Elders dismissed all criticism of the irregularity of the procedure used to have the amending Social Security finance law adopted, carrying the pension reform. Neither the shortened deadlines provided for in Article 47-1 of the Constitution and even less the criterion of urgency alleged by many jurists can justify censorship:
“The Constitutional Council judges (…) that these examination deadlines are applicable not only to the financing law of the year, but also to the rectifying financing laws, which modify the provisions of the latter during the year, and that urgency is not a condition for their implementation. »
It was also advanced by the opposition parties that the accumulation of constitutional processes intended to shorten the time for examination in Parliament undermined the sincerity of parliamentary debates. There again, it is not so, in the eyes of the Sages:
The sequel after the ad
“While the combined use of the procedures implemented was unusual in response to the conditions of the debates, it did not have the effect of rendering the legislative procedure unconstitutional. Consequently, the challenged law was adopted according to a procedure in conformity with the Constitution. »
An interpretation that will not fail to cause debate among law professors, as well as within the opposition, who will certainly demand more justification. “The sincerity of parliamentary debates is a concept that is assessed globally”, we are content for the moment to specify to the Constitutional Council.
Censorship of six “social riders”
Lawyers had also long announced the censorship of certain provisions. And this time, the Constitutional Council followed them, censuring six “social riders”measures that “had no effect or an effect that was too indirect on the revenue of the compulsory basic schemes or the bodies contributing to their financing”.
“The Constitutional Council has often been very complacent with political majorities”
Among which, the senior index, the senior employment contract, certain modifications to the organization of the collection of social security contributions, provisions relating to the conditions for opening the right to early departure for certain civil servants, provisions concerning specific individual monitoring for the benefit of certain employees, and an information system for policyholders on the pay-as-you-go pension system.
The government had already indicated that it would reinstate any censored provisions in a future ordinary bill, which does not require direct effects on public finances.
The sequel after the ad
So much for the legal explanations. The only additional information provided: the deliberation lasted from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., without a lunch break. To know the content of this deliberation, the personal positions of the Elders or the internal debates, you will have to wait:
“The minutes will give the answer to these questions. But the archives of the Constitutional Council are only accessible after twenty-five years…”
The secrecy of the deliberations remains in place on the side of the rue Montpensier.
