Pension reform: “Constitutional justice is not a controversial issue, but the conditions under which it is implemented in France”

dFrom April 14, the words of the constitutionalists were harsh regarding the two decisions made by the Constitutional Council: ill-grounded law, dangerous for parliamentary democracy, complacent towards the government, etc. Undoubtedly, the Constitutional Council missed an opportunity to restore the confidence and hopes that could have been placed in constitutional law. The Constitutional Council is not a legal counterforce, it is “Against All Might”.

It is important to understand that the issue at stake is not necessarily constitutional justice, but the conditions under which it is practiced in France. In terms of the conditions for the administration of justice in a democratic state of law, the two decisions of the Constitutional Council of April 14 have several serious flaws: questionable ethics, lack of impartiality, lack of debate indeed. Lack of contradictory and finally reasoned and consistent argument.

The ethics of “judges”: understanding that the President of the Court has indicated what he could consider in a given case, even though it has not yet been referred to him, is contrary to the reserve to which he is subject. bound as a judge and also against the principle of collegiality of justice. However, according to A chained duckLaurent Fabius explained in January that certain provisions could be censored under “social riders”, even though the draft had not yet been tabled in the National Assembly. A clear sign of the lack of interest in the issues of constitutional justice is the fact that there was a desire to accompany the President of the Republic during his trip to China in early April.

legitimate suspicion

Manifestations of the impartiality of “judges”: In order for their decisions to be made in the conditions of peaceful and democratic justice, judges should not make them in conditions that would cause legitimate doubts about them. It is elementary. What’s important, first and foremost, is that they have to show it. This means that if judges have an objective conflict of interest with the case, know one of the parties, or have already been involved in the same type of case, they must step down, “step aside” so that the decision cannot be appealed. .

This is not the case with the decision on the pension reform, as far as Jacqueline Gurul supported the pension reform project in the government led by Edouard Philippe, under the presidency of Emmanuel Macron, nor Alain Juppé, who, although the case is more. Farangi also implemented an unpopular pension reform that caused social conflict. However, these two individuals took part in the deliberations before the decision was made and thus cast legitimate doubt on the decision.