The miracle hoped for by the opposition did not take place. After seven hours of non-stop work – without a lunch break! -, the Constitutional Council validated this Friday, April 14 the essence of the pension reform, including the postponement of the legal age from 62 to 64 years. Six provisions of the text, on the other hand, were censored by the wise men of rue Montpensier, including the “senior index”. The executive hopes to reap the political fruits of this legal success: to leave behind this major social crisis and open a new page of the five-year term. On the other hand, rebellious France does not intend to give up and continue the dispute.
The battle before the institution was procedural. More than substance, opposition deputies and senators denounced the government method. The authors of the referral challenged the use of an amending social security financing bill (PLFSSR) to reform pensions. In their eyes, the use of this budget text was for the sole reason of limiting the duration of parliamentary debates under Article 47.1 of the Constitution. A reprehensible “misuse of power”: a PLFSSR would be “reserved for certain emergency situations, exceptional circumstances or the correction of major financial imbalances”, which is not the case here.
No “misuse of power”
The Sages did not follow this reasoning. No “misuse of power”: the Constitutional Council dismisses the “conditions” mentioned by the applicants. He believes that the choice of the legislative vehicle for a pension reform – PLFSSR or ordinary law – is at the discretion of the legislator. “It is not for the Constitutional Council to substitute its assessment” for that of Parliament, believe the Elders in their decision. Anxious not to encroach on political power, the court did not accept the applicants’ arguments.
In the alternative, the opponents considered that the time limits for examination provided for in Article 47.1 (20 days before the National Assembly then 15 days before the Senate, at first reading, and 50 days in total) could not apply. to this PLFSSR, for lack of urgency to “correct a risk of imbalance in the social security accounts”.
In their viewfinder: the transmission of the text to the Senate by the executive as soon as 20 days have passed in the Assembly. Failed again. The Council considers that the government has literally applied the Constitution, and notes: “In view of the state of progress of the examination of the bill by the National Assembly at the end of this period, the extension debates before this chamber would not have allowed the adoption of this text.” An allusion to the thousands of amendments tabled by the oppositions in the Lower House.
The “social riders” sanctioned
Another grievance: the attack on the “clarity” and the “sincerity” of parliamentary debates. The authors of the referral challenged the cumulative use of a series of provisions – article 49.3, article 47.1, article 44.3 on blocked voting. Their use, intended to speed up the adoption of the law, would have had the effect of infringing parliamentarians’ right of amendment, in violation of “the requirements of clarity and sincerity of the debate”. Here again, the Council does not follow. If this combined use of the procedures “has taken on an unusual character”, it is not in itself “likely to render unconstitutional the whole of the legislative procedure which led to the adoption of this law”.
The rue de Montpensier institution, on the other hand, censured several “social riders” who “had no place in the referred law”, which is of a financial nature. Among these: the index on the employment of seniors, which was to be compulsory from this year for companies with more than 1,000 employees, and whose non-publication was to be punishable. Also censored, the “CDI seniors”, an addition by right-wing senators, which was to facilitate the hiring of long-term job seekers over 60.
The heart of the reform validated, additional measures censored: the majority was betting on such a verdict. But this legal victory does not put an end to the dispute. “The struggle continues,” said Jean-Luc Mélenchon after the Council’s decision, while several Nupes officials called on Emmanuel Macron not to enact this “illegitimate” law. “The decision of the Constitutional Council shows that it is more attentive to the needs of the presidential monarchy than to those of the sovereign people”, tweeted the leader of LFI. It was expected: the legal demonstration of the Elders does not please everyone.