Decision

Decision no. 2020-810 DC of 21 December 2020

Research planning law for the years 2021 to 2030 and providing various provisions relating to research and higher education

On 27 November 2020, the Constitutional Council, in the conditions provided for in the second section of Article 61 of the Constitution, received a referral to review the research planning law for the years 2021 to 2030 and providing various provisions relating to research and higher education, under no 2020-810 DC, by Patrick KANNER, Viviane ARTIGALAS, David ASSOULINE, Joël BIGOT, Florence BLATRIX CONTAT, Hussein BOURGI, Isabelle BRIQUET, Rémi CARDON, Catherine CONCONNE, Hélène CONWAY-MOURET, Thierry COZIC, Marie-Pierre de la GONTRIE, Gilbert-Luc DEVINAZ, Jérôme DURAIN, Vincent ÉBLÉ, Rémi FÉRAUD, Corinne FÉRET, Jean-Luc FICHET, Martine FILLEUL, Hervé GILLÉ, Laurence HARRIBEY, Jean-Michel HOULLEGATTE, Olivier JACQUIN, Victoire JASMIN, Éric JEANSANNETAS, Patrice JOLY, Bernard JOMIER, Gisèle JOURDA, Annie LE HOUEROU, Jean-Yves LECONTE, Claudine LEPAGE, Monique LUBIN, Victorin LUREL, Didier MARIE, Serge MÉRILLOU, Michelle MEUNIER, Franck MONTAUGÉ, Émilienne POUMIROL, Angèle PRÉVILLE, Claude RAYNAL, Christian REDON-SARRAZY, Sylvie ROBERT, Gilbert ROGER, Laurence ROSSIGNOL, Lucien STANZIONE, Jean-Pierre SUEUR, Rachid TEMAL, Jean-Claude TISSOT, Mickaël VALLET, André VALLINI, Sabine VAN HEGHE, Yannick VAUGRENARD, Fabien GAY, Pierre OUZOULIAS, Éric BOCQUET, Éliane ASSASSI, Marie-Claude VARAILLAS, Gérard LAHELLEC, Cathy APOURCEAU-POLY, Pierre LAURENT, Pascal SAVOLDELLI, Laurence COHEN, Michelle GRÉAUME, Cécile CUKIERMAN, Céline BRULIN, Marie-Noëlle LIENEMANN, Jérémy BACCHI, Guy BENARROCHE, Esther BENBASSA, Ronan DANTEC, Thomas DOSSUS, Jacques FERNIQUE, Guillaume GONTARD, Joël LABBÉ, Monique de MARCO, Paul Toussaint PARIGI, Raymonde PONCET MONGE, Daniel SALMON, Sophie TAILLÉ-POLIAN and Éric KERROUCHE, Senators.

It also received a referral on 30 November 2020 by Valérie RABAULT, Jean-Luc MÉLENCHON, André CHASSAIGNE, Joël AVIRAGNET, Marie-Noëlle BATTISTEL, Gisèle BIÉMOURET, Jean-Louis BRICOUT, Alain DAVID, Laurence DUMONT, Olivier FAURE, Guillaume GAROT, David HABIB, Christian HUTIN, Chantal JOURDAN, Régis JUANICO, Marietta KARAMANLI, Jérôme LAMBERT, Serge LETCHIMY, Josette MANIN, Philippe NAILLET, Christine PIRES BEAUNE, Dominique POTIER, Claudia ROUAUX, Hervé SAULIGNAC, Sylvie TOLMONT, Cécile UNTERMAIER, Hélène VAINQUEUR-CHRISTOPHE, Boris VALLAUD, Michèle VICTORY, Gérard LESEUL, Isabelle SANTIAGO, Clémentine AUTAIN, Ugo BERNALICIS, Éric COQUEREL, Alexis CORBIÈRE, Caroline FIAT, Bastien LACHAUD, Michel LARIVE, Danièle OBONO, Mathilde PANOT, Loïc PRUD'HOMME, Adrien QUATENNENS, Jean-Hugues RATENON, Muriel RESSIGUIER, Sabine RUBIN, François RUFFIN, Bénédicte TAURINE, Alain BRUNEEL, Marie-George BUFFET, Pierre DHARRÉVILLE, Jean-Paul DUFRÈGNE, Elsa FAUCILLON, Sébastien JUMEL, Jean-Paul LECOQ, Stéphane PEU, Fabien ROUSSEL, Hubert WULFRANC, Jean-Philippe NILOR, Manuéla KÉCLARD-MONDÉSIR, Moetai BROTHERSON, Jean-Félix ACQUAVIVA, Michel CASTELLANI, Jean-Michel CLÉMENT, Paul-André COLOMBANI, Charles de COURSON, Jeanine DUBIÉ, Frédérique DUMAS, Martine WONNER, Jennifer De TEMMERMAN, Jean LASSALLE, Olivier FALORNI, François-Michel LAMBERT, Paul MOLAC, Bertrand PANCHER, Sylvia PINEL, Delphine BAGARRY, Paula FORTEZA, Émilie CARIOU, Aurélien TACHÉ, Sébastien NADOT, Hubert JULIEN-LAFERRIÈRE and Gabriel SERVILLE, Members of Parliament.

Having regard to the following texts:

  • the Constitution;
  • Ordinance No 58-1067 of 7 November 1958, constituting an institutional act on the Constitutional Council;
  • the Education Code;
  • the Research Code;
  • the Labour Code;
  • Act No 2018-727 of 10 August 2018 for a State at the service of a trust company;
  • Ordinance No 2018-1131 of 12 December 2018 relating to experimenting with new forms of alignment, reorganising or merging of higher education and research institutions;
  • Constitutional Council Decision No 2010-20/21 QPC of 6 August 2010;

Having regard to the observations of the Government, registered on 11 December 2020;

And after having heard the rapporteur;

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COUNCIL DECIDED THAT:

  1. The applicant Senators and Members of Parliament refer the research planning law for the years 2021 to 2030 and providing various provisions relating to research and higher education to the Constitutional Council. They oppose certain provisions of its Articles 4, and 5, and its Article 38. The Senators also oppose the procedure for adoption of its Article 5. The Members of Parliament also criticise the location of its Articles 18 and 45 and certain provisions of its Articles 10 and 43.
  • Concerning certain provisions of Article 4:
  1. Paragraph II of Article 4 of the law referred for review organises a new recruitment path for university professors.

  2. According to the applicant Senators and Members of Parliament, these provisions would violate the fundamental principles acknowledged in the laws of the Republic of the independence of teacher-researchers. On the one hand, the decision to award civil servant status (titularisation) would fall solely on the head of the institution, who may not take into account the opinion of the decision committee (commission de titularisation) made up of teacher-researchers. On the other hand, the legislator, who referred the determination of the conditions of appointment for the members of the recruiting and decision committees to a decree, would not have provided guarantees that would ensure the independence of these committees. The recruited candidates would find themselves dependent on the head of the institution due to the objectives that will be set for the purpose of the candidates receiving civil servant status (titularisation). As such, the Members of Parliament denounce the legislator violating their own jurisdiction.

  3. Furthermore, without an assessment of the skills of the candidate carried out by a national body, the legislator would not have provided for legal guarantees protecting the principle of equal access to public employment. Lastly, the applicant Senators and Members of Parliament esteem that the guarantee attached to such a national assessment of skills of candidates for the positions of teacher-researchers would serve a fundamental principle acknowledged in the laws of the Republic that would in this case be violated.

  4. By virtue of Article 6 of the Declaration of Human and Civic Rights of 1789, all citizens “shall be equally eligible to all high offices, public positions and employments, according to their ability, and without other distinction than that of their virtues and talents.” If the principle of equal access of citizens to public employment declared by this article requires that only the capacities, virtues and talents be taken into account when civil servants are appointed, it does not oppose the rules of recruitment being differentiated to take into account both the variety of merits to be considered and the needs of public service, intended to allow for the evaluation of aptitudes and qualities in candidates on their entry into a civil service entity.

  5. According to Article 34 of the Constitution: “Statutes shall also lay down the basic principles of... education.” The guarantee of the independence of teacher-researchers comes from a fundamental principle acknowledged in the laws of the Republic. This principle includes involving university professors and university lecturers in the selection of their peers.

  6. Paragraph II of Article 4 inserts Article L. 952-6-2 into the Education Code. This article allows the minister in charge of higher education to authorise a public research or teaching institution to recruit a person as a contract agent under public law with a view to their receiving civil servant status (titularisation) in the higher education staff of university professors, when such a recruitment responds to a specific need related to the scientific strategy of this staff, or its international appeal, in the domains of research for which this necessity is justified. This recruitment path cannot cover more than 15% of nationally authorised recruitments within the staff of university professors or more than 25% of the staff of university professors when their number is less than five. Within the institution itself, it cannot cover more than half of the recruitments in this same staff of university professors.

Concerning the recognition of a fundamental principle acknowledged in the laws of the Republic:

  1. If the rule according to which the merits of candidates for a position of university professor or university lecturer must be evaluated by a national body constitutes a possible legal guarantee of the principle of the independence of teacher-researchers, it cannot in and of itself be considered as part of the fundamental principles recognised by the laws of the Republic mentioned in the first section of the Preamble of the Constitution of 1946.

Regarding the other objections:

  1. Firstly, the recruitment provided for by the disputed provisions is preceded by a public call for candidates. In order to guarantee the quality of recruiting, only persons that have a doctoral degree or an equivalent degree are authorised to apply.

  2. Secondly, the assessment of the merits of the recruited candidates is carried out in three steps. Firstly, all of the applications are examined by a recruiting committee made up of persons of equal rank as the position being offered, and at least half of these persons being teacher-researchers and equivalent personnel or researchers external to the institution in which the recruitment is taking place. This committee designates the candidate called for recruitment. The contract that the candidate signs stipulates the commitments of the parties relative to the objectives that the candidate must meet, and to the resources provided by the candidate's employer to meet them, as well as the obligations relating to teaching and research. This second phase, contractual in nature, lasting from three to six years, must allow the candidate to acquire the requisite qualification for carrying out the function of university professor in which the candidate can be given civil servant status (titularisation). Lastly, once this contract is completed, a committee meets to assess the candidate's scientific value and ability to carry out the duties of teacher-researcher and to verify that the candidate fulfils the conditions to be given civil servant status (titularisation) in a staff of university professors. The assessment carried out is based on a report by the candidate on their activity as well as the work they have completed. This decision committee (commission de titularisation) is composed in the same manner as the recruitment committee. These three steps of the recruiting procedure and the procedure for awarding civil servant status (titularisation) guarantee an objective assessment of the merits of the applications for a position of university professor, with which peers are associated. In this regard, the legislator may refer the methods for applying the guarantees that they put in place to a decree, without violating their jurisdiction.

  3. Lastly, once this assessment procedure is completed, the candidate is awarded civil servant status (titularisation) by decree of the President of the Republic, on proposal of the head of the institution. However, the principle of independence of teacher-researchers is opposed to the head of the institution being able to refuse to offer civil servant status (titularisation) to a candidate having received a favourable opinion from the decision committee (commission de titularisation) for reasons other than the administration of the university, and in particular, reasons related to the scientific qualification of the candidate. The head of the institution also will not propose awarding civil servant status to a candidate that has received an unfavourable opinion from this committee, regardless of the reason.

  4. It follows from the foregoing that Article L. 952-6-2 of the Education Code does not violate the principle of equal access to public employment, nor does it violate the principle of independence of teacher-researchers, subject to the reservation noted in paragraph 11. This article, which does not violate any other constitutional requirement, and subject to the same reservation, conforms to the Constitution.

  • Concerning Article 5:

Regarding the procedure for adoption of Article 5:

  1. The applicant Senators state that Article 5 would have been adopted according to a procedure that would have denied both houses of parliament a clear and sincere dialogue on this article. They state that, despite its “substantial aim”, it was introduced by amendment during a review on first reading of the bill by the second assembly it was referred to. This was immediately prior to the joint committee composed of an equal number of members from each house of parliament receiving the referral, while the first assembly that received the referral had reached an agreement. This results in a violation of the constitutional requirements of clarity and sincerity of parliamentary debate.

  2. It follows from the combination of Article 6 of the Declaration of Human and Civic Rights of 1789, the first section of Articles 34 and 39 of the Constitution, as well as its Articles 40, 41, 44, 45, 47, and 47-1, that the right of amendment held by the members of the houses of Parliament and the Government must be able to be fully exercised during the first reading of bills and propositions of laws by each of the houses of Parliament. At this point in the procedure and subject to compliance with the obligations of clarity and sincerity of parliamentary debate, this right may only be limited by rules of admissibility. This includes that an amendment must present a link with the text that was submitted or communicated, even if that link is indirect.

  3. Neither the constitutional provisions nor any other provision impede the amendments from, as in this case, being referred to the second assembly, including just before the meeting of the joint committee composed of an equal number of members from each house of parliament, as long as they respect the aforementioned rules of admissibility.

  4. Consequently, Article 5, for which the conditions of adoption did not violate the obligation of clarity and sincerity of parliamentary debate, was adopted according to a procedure that conforms to the Constitution.

Regarding certain provisions of Article 5:

  1. Article 5 modifies Article L. 952-6, Article L. 952-6-1, and Article L. 962-1 of the Education Code, in order to eliminate the requirement of national qualification for recruiting university professors and professors in architecture schools. It also inserts Article L. 952-6-3 into this same code, which authorises public higher education institutions to have derogations to this requirement for recruitment of university lecturers, on an experimental basis.

  2. According to the applicant Senators, by replacing the requirement for national qualification of teacher-researchers with recruiting that is organised within each public higher education institution, these provisions would have the effect of reinforcing the risk of “localism” in the recruiting of university professors and university lecturers and to profoundly alter their independence, which is a measure of their scientific freedom, by making them dependent in relation to the persons that recruited them. On the one hand, this results in a violation of the principle of the independence of teacher-researchers and the principle of equal access to public employment. On the other hand, and for the same reasons, the applicant Senators, joined by the applicant Members of Parliament, contend that these provisions would violate the same fundamental principle acknowledged in the laws of the Republic as the one mentioned in paragraph 4.

  3. In application of Article L. 952-6-1 of the Education Code, candidates are required to have the qualification of teacher-researcher from the national council of universities to be able to apply to enter into the staff of university professors and university lecturers, subject to the statutory provisions relating to the first assignment of personnel recruited by the national higher education competitive examination for agrégation (civil service exam to enter into a career to teach in the French university system) and the derogations provided for by the specific statutes of the staff of teacher-researchers or by the statutes of institutions.

  4. The disputed provisions round out the first section of Articles L. 952-6 and L. 952-6-1 in order to waive qualification by the national council of universities for persons having the qualification of university lecturer titulaire (having a status of civil servant) as candidates for recruiting for a position as a university professor. The new Article L. 952-6-3 furthermore provides, by a derogation of these articles and on an experimental basis, for positions posted on 30 September 2024 at the latest, that public higher education institutions may be authorised by decree to recruit persons without a national qualification as university lecturers, “in order to widen the potential candidate pool and to make access to the staff more fluid”.

  5. Firstly, if Article L. 952-6-1 of the Education Code waives the prior national qualification requirement when recruiting for the staff of university professors, it maintains a recruiting procedure assigned to the selection committees. Yet, these committees are composed of teacher-researchers and equivalent staff, at least half of whom are external to the university, of a rank at least equal to that of the position to fill. The members of these committees, who assess the scientific merits of the candidates, are themselves chosen, on proposal of the head of the institution, because of their skills, most of them among specialists of the field concerned, by the academic council or, for institutions that do not have such a council, by the board of directors, meeting in formation restricted to elected representatives of teacher-researchers and equivalent staff. Following the selection procedure, the academic council or the board of directors transmits the name of the candidate whose nomination it proposes, or a list of candidates classified in order of preference. Even if the head of the institution can oppose this proposition, they cannot, as provided for in the reservation noted by the Constitutional Council in recital 16 of the aforementioned decision of 6 August 2010, base their assessment on reasons external to the administration of the institution and, in particular, on the scientific qualification of the candidates that are chosen after the selection procedure.

  6. Secondly, the possibility for the public higher education institutions to waive the requirement for qualification from the national body for recruiting university lecturers, in certain fields, is given by decree for the duration of the experimental period as requested by each institution. As part of this recruiting procedure, Article L. 952-6-3 of the Education Code provides that the titles and work of persons who do not have a national qualification are examined by the selection committee or the equivalent body provided for in the institution's statutes, prior to the examination of all of the applications, based on the report from two specialists in the field with a level that is at least equivalent to the position to be filled. The selection committee or the equivalent body, the composition of which follows the same rules as those for recruiting university professors, then proceeds, according to the same selection procedure as for the latter, to a joint examination of the applications from persons that it qualified and those that have a qualification that is recognised by the national council of universities.

  7. It follows from the foregoing that, despite the elimination of the requirement of prior qualification from the national council of universities for recruiting a university professor or a university lecturer, the disputed provisions guarantee that their peers are associated with the recruitment of candidates for these positions, and that these recruitments are founded on the evaluation of the merits of the different candidates. The objections for violation of the principle of the independence of teacher-researchers and the principle of equal access to public employment must therefore be dismissed.

  8. The disputed provisions of Articles L. 952-6 and L. 952-6-1 of the Education Code, as well as Article L. 952-6-3 of the same code, which do not violate any other constitutional requirement, conform to the Constitution.

  • Concerning certain provisions of Article 10:
  1. Article 10 modifies Article L. 431-4 of the Research Code, providing for public research institutions with an industrial and commercial purpose and certain foundations recognised as beneficial to the public to be able to conclude a contract for the duration of a project or an operation, under the conditions determined by a business agreement. It substitutes a decree in the Conseil d'État for this business agreement to define the conditions under which these contracts can be used.

  2. The applicant Members of Parliament contend that, by referring the determination of the methods for using such contracts to the regulatory power, Article 10 would violate the principle of the participation of workers guaranteed by the eighth section of the Preamble of the Constitution of 1946. They also state that, by not providing sufficient framework for the conditions of ending these contracts, the legislator violated their jurisdiction and placed those persons with such contracts in a position subordinate to the principle of independence of teacher-researchers.

  3. Firstly, Article 34 of the Constitution places the fundamental principles of labour rights in the domain of the law. According to the eighth section of the Preamble of the Constitution of 1946: “All workers shall, through the intermediary of their representatives, participate in the collective determination of their conditions of work and in the management of the work place.” Within their jurisdiction established in Article 34 of the Constitution, the legislator can refer the mission to specify the methods of applying the rules they established to a decree, or attribute this mission to collective bargaining, in order to collectively determine working conditions.

  4. Article 10 determines the persons who can use such project contracts or research operation contracts, the purpose of these contracts, their duration, and the reasons and methods for ending them. As such, the legislator sufficiently determined the rules applicable to contracts entered into to support a project or a research operation and was able to refer the conditions for the application of these rules to a decree in Conseil d'État instead of a business agreement. As such, they did not violate their jurisdiction or the principle of the participation of workers.

  5. Secondly, the disputed provisions of Article 10 do not call into question the principle of the independence of teacher-researchers since the provisions focus on providing for the possibility of employees being recruited by certain public research institutions, and foundations recognised as beneficial to the public, for the duration of a project or an operation.

  6. It follows from the foregoing that the words “an employee can be recruited to contribute to a project or a research operation through a contract whose term corresponds to the end of the project or the operation” in the first section and the words “A decree in Conseil d'État specifies the methods for applying this article” in the sixth section of Article L. 431-4 of the Research Code, which do not violate any other constitutional requirement, conform to the Constitution.

  • Concerning Article 38:
  1. Article 38 inserts provisions into the Education Code instituting a charge of délit (offence punishable by fine or imprisonment of no more than ten years) for intrusion into the premises of a higher education institution.

  2. The applicants denounce the irregularity of its procedure for adoption, in that it would have been introduced into the first reading without presenting a link to the original bill. In substance, they criticise its violation of the right of collective expression of ideas and opinions, as well as the principle that offences and penalties must be defined by law. The applicant Members of Parliament add that it would also violate the principles of necessity and proportionality of penalties.

  3. According to the last sentence of the first section of Article 45 of the Constitution: “Without prejudice to the application of Articles 40 and 41, all amendments which have a link, even an indirect one, with the text that was tabled or transmitted, shall be admissible on first reading.” It is the responsibility of the Constitutional Council to declare the provisions that are introduced in violation of this rule of procedure as unconstitutional. In this case, the Constitutional Council does not prejudge the conformity of the content of these provisions with the other constitutional requirements.

  4. The law referred for review has its origin in the bill submitted to the bureau of the National Assembly on 22 July 2020, the first assembly that received the referral. This bill had twenty-five articles divided into five titles. Title I had programming provisions defining the strategic orientations of research and establishing budget programming for the decade covered by the law. Title II had measures seeking to reinforce the attractiveness of careers for researchers and teacher-researchers. Title III modified the provisions relating to the evaluation of research and higher education, the research units, and the national research agency (Agence nationale de la récherche). Title IV sought to enhance the work of research by modifying the conditions of participation of public agents in businesses and the rules concerning the combination of part-time work and allowing for awarding bonuses, the creation of incentive plans, as well as attributing collective licences for the online use of certain protected works. Title V was devoted to measures to clarify and facilitate the functioning of public service of higher education and research.

  5. Article 38 of the law referred for review institutes a charge of délit (offence punishable by fine or imprisonment of no more than ten years) for persons intruding into the premises of a higher education institution with the intent to disturb the tranquillity or proper functioning of the institution without said persons having authorisation by virtue of legislative or regulatory provisions, or having been authorised by competent authorities.

  6. Introduced in the first reading, these provisions do not present a link, even an indirect one, with those of Article 17 of the initial bill which, in order to simplify the organisation and functioning of higher education institutions, modified the methods for designations and attributions carried out by university chairs. This was accomplished by requiring that they annually present a report on gender equality, and by simplifying the conditions under which they could delegate their signature authority. As well, the prerogatives of the research commission of the academic council of universities were adapted, making the organisation rules more flexible for partial elections in university councils. The system of partner foundations was simplified, as were the conditions of representation of the French State in the foundations for scientific cooperation, and the procedure for approving the valuation agreements concluded by certain public institutions.

They also do not present a link, even indirectly, with any of the other provisions that are in the bill submitted to the bureau of the National Assembly.

  1. Consequently, without having to rule on the other objections and without the Constitutional Council prejudging the conformity of the content of Article 38 with the other constitutional requirements, it is determined that, as it was adopted using a procedure that is unconstitutional, it is therefore unconstitutional.
  • Concerning certain provisions of Article 43 and the ordinance of 12 December 2018:
  1. Paragraph I of Article 43 ratifies the aforementioned ordinance of 12 December 2018 relating to experimenting with new forms of alignment, reorganising or merging of higher education and research institutions.

  2. The applicant Members of Parliament firstly contend that this ratification would be unconstitutional, since the bill that is the source of the law referred for review was not submitted before Parliament in the time frame established by the law for authorisation of submission of an enabling bill.

The legislator would have also violated Article 37-1 of the Constitution by ratifying this ordinance while no review of “all national experiments” that it authorised has been completed. Furthermore, Article 1 of this ordinance would violate the constitutional requirement of specification of the purpose of an experiment when it applies indistinctly to all higher education and research institutions. The applicant Members of Parliament also criticise Article 10 of the ordinance, relating to the composition of the board of directors of an experimental public institution, as violating the principle of the independence of teacher-researchers when this board is not required to be composed in its majority of representatives elected by the users and personnel of the institution, and that it does not have a minimal portion made up of teacher-researchers. Lastly, Article 20 of the ordinance would be judged as not acting fully within the competence of jurisdiction in that it would refer the duty of determining the rules for the creation of a category of public institutions to the regulatory power, in this case those concerning the creation of a “grand établissement”.

Concerning paragraph I of Article 43:

  1. Firstly, according to the second section of Article 38 of the Constitution, ordinances shall lapse in the event of failure to submit the bill to ratify them to Parliament by the date set by the enabling act.

  2. The ordinance for which ratification is disputed, and which was taken based on Article 52 of the aforementioned law of 10 August 2018 was published in the Journal Officiel of the French Republic on 13 December 2018. A bill to ratify was submitted to the bureau of the National Assembly on 30 January 2019, or prior to the expiry of the three-month delay set by this Article 52. Consequently, the objection that a bill to ratify would not have been submitted within the time span that is set by the enabling act is in fact lacking.

  3. Secondly, no constitutional requirement requires the legislator, when they ratify an ordinance authorising an experiment, to have an evaluation of this experiment.

  4. It follows from the foregoing that the objections to paragraph I of Article 43 as violating Articles 37-1 and 38 of the Constitution must be dismissed. This paragraph, which does not violate any other constitutional requirement, conforms to the Constitution. This ruling as to constitutionality does not prevent the Constitutional Council from reviewing the provisions of the ordinance ratified in order to examine if they comply with the Constitution.

Regarding certain provisions of the ordinance of 12 December 2018:

  1. Firstly, based on Article 37-1 of the Constitution, when Parliament authorises experiments that derogate from the principle of equality before the law, for a specific purpose and duration, and with a view to eventually broadening the distribution of said experiments, it must define the purpose and the conditions in a sufficiently precise manner, and it must not violate the other requirements of constitutional value.

  2. According to the terms of Article 1 of the ordinance of 12 December 2018, on an experimental basis, a “public institution of a scientific, cultural and professional nature can reorganise or merge public or private higher education and research institutions, contributing to the public service missions of higher education or research. This institution experiments with new methods of organisation and functioning under the conditions specified in this chapter, in order to complete a shared project of higher education and research defined by the institutions that it contains, conforming to the higher education objectives and missions mentioned in Chapters I and III of Title II of Book I of the Education Code”. The notion of a public institution with a scientific, cultural and professional character and the regime of these institutions are defined in Articles L. 711-1 et seq. of the Education Code. The legislator has thus defined the purpose of the experimentation that they have put in place in sufficient detail. The first section of Article 1 of the ordinance of 12 December 2018, which therefore violates neither Article 37-1 of the Constitution, nor any other constitutional requirement, conforms to the Constitution.

  3. Secondly, the first sentence of the second section of Article 10 of the ordinance of 12 December 2018, which provides that the board of directors of the experimental public institution, whose powers are defined by the statutes of the institution, be made up of at least 40% of elected employee and user representatives, does not violate, by itself, the principle of the independence of teacher-researchers. This sentence, which does not violate any other constitutional requirement, conforms to the Constitution.

  4. Lastly, Article 34 of the Constitution states: “Statutes shall determine... the setting up of categories of public legal entities.” In paragraph III of Article 20 of the ordinance of 12 December 2018, the legislator, by providing that the provisions giving the statute of “grand établissement” to an experimental institution created in application of this same ordinance be approved by decree, simply provided that a decree was necessary to recognise such an institution as having this status, as provided for in the rules relating to the creation of such an institution determined by other legislative provisions. The first sentence of this paragraph III, which therefore violates neither Article 34 of the Constitution, nor any other constitutional requirement, conforms to the Constitution.

  • Concerning the provisions whose place in the law referred for review is disputed:
  1. The applicant Members of Parliament contend that Articles 18 and 45 have no place in the law referred for review, on the grounds that they were introduced in the first reading according to a procedure contrary to the first paragraph of Article 45 of the Constitution.

  2. Firstly, Article 18 modifies Article L. 612-7 of the Education Code in order to provide for the obligation of the candidate for a doctoral degree, at the end of the defence of their thesis, to take an oath committing to respecting the principles and requirements of scientific integrity. Introduced in the first reading, these provisions cannot be regarded as not having any connection, at least indirectly, with the bill submitted to the bureau of the National Assembly which, on the one hand, created in its Article 4 a doctoral contract allowing an employer to entrust research activities to an employee enrolled in a higher education institution with a view to obtaining the doctoral degree provided for in Article L. 612-7 of the Education Code, and on the other hand, in its Article 5, it introduced “post-doctoral” contracts allowing the recruitment, by certain public institutions and foundations, of researchers holding this same diploma.

  3. Secondly, Article 45 reforms veterinary education, in particular by allowing private non-profit higher education institutions to provide training for the state diploma of veterinary doctor. Introduced in the first reading, these provisions cannot be regarded as not having any connection, at least indirectly, with the initial text, which included, in paragraph II of Article 22, an authorisation to modify by ordinance certain provisions relating to private higher education and provided, in Article 23, for the dissolution of the Institut agronomique, vétérinaire et forestier de France.

  4. The objection to the violation of the first section of Article 45 of the Constitution must therefore be dismissed.

  • Concerning the place of other provisions in the law referred for review:
  1. Article 42 relates to the import and export, for research purposes, of human remains. Introduced in the first reading, these provisions have no connection, even indirect, with those of Article 24 of the initial bill, which created, in each hospital and university centre, a territorial committee responsible for coordinating the implementation of health research by the competent actors in this field.

  2. Nor are these provisions connected, even indirectly, to any of the other provisions that were included in the bill submitted to the bureau of the National Assembly.

  3. Without the Constitutional Council prejudging if the content of these provisions conforms with other constitutional requirements, it should be noted that, since they were adopted according to a procedure contrary to the Constitution, they are therefore unconstitutional.

  • Concerning the other provisions:
  1. The Constitutional Council has not systematically raised any other question of constitutionality and has therefore not ruled on the constitutionality of provisions other than those examined in this decision.

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COUNCIL DECIDES:

Article 1. The following provisions of the research planning law for the years 2021 to 2030 and providing various provisions relating to research and higher education are unconstitutional:

  • Article 38;
  • Article 42.

Article 2. - Subject to the reservation stated in paragraph 11, Article L. 952-6-2 of the Education Code, in its formulation resulting from the law referred for review, conforms to the Constitution.

Article 3. - The following provisions conform to the Constitution:

  • the words “and except when the candidate is a university lecturer titulaire” (titulaire indicating their having the status of civil servant) appearing in the first paragraph of Article L. 952-6 of the Education Code, in its formulation resulting from Article 5 of the law referred for review;
  • the words “and those of persons exempted from qualification under the same Article L. 952-6” appearing in the first section of Article L. 952-6-1 of the same code, in the formulation resulting from the same Article 5;
  • Article L. 952-6-3 of the same code, in its formulation resulting from the same Article 5;
  • the words “an employee may be recruited to contribute to a project or research operation by means of a contract whose term is the completion of the project or operation” appearing in the first section of Article L. 431-4 of the Research Code, in the formulation resulting from Article 10 of the law referred for review;
  • the words “A decree in Conseil d'État specifies the methods of application of the present article” in the sixth section of Article L. 431-4 of the same code, in its wording resulting from Article 10 of the law referred for review;
  • paragraph I of Article 43 of the same law;
  • the first section of Article 1, the first sentence of the second section of Article 10 and the first sentence of paragraph III of Article 20 of Ordinance No 2018-1131 of 12 December 2018 relating to experimenting with new forms of alignment, reorganising or merging of higher education and research institutions.

Article 4. - This decision shall be published in the Journal Officiel of the French Republic.

Ruled by the Constitutional Council in its 21 December 2020 session, with the following members present: Laurent FABIUS, President, Claire BAZY MALAURIE, Alain JUPPÉ, Dominique LOTTIN, Corinne LUQUIENS, Nicole MAESTRACCI, Jacques MÉZARD, François PILLET and Michel PINAULT.

Published on 21 December 2020.

Les abstracts

  • 1. NORMES CONSTITUTIONNELLES
  • 1.4. PRINCIPES FONDAMENTAUX RECONNUS PAR LES LOIS DE LA RÉPUBLIQUE
  • 1.4.4. Principes non retenus
  • 1.4.4.18. Evaluation par une instance nationale, avant leur recrutement, des candidats à un poste de professeur d'université ou de maître des conférences

Si la règle selon laquelle les mérites des candidats à un poste de professeur ou de maître de conférences doivent être évalués par une instance nationale constitue une garantie légale possible du principe d'indépendance des enseignants-chercheurs, elle ne peut en elle-même être regardée comme figurant au nombre des principes fondamentaux reconnus par les lois de la République mentionnés par le premier alinéa du Préambule de la Constitution de 1946.

(2020-810 DC, 21 December 2020, cons. 8, JORF n°0312 du 26 décembre 2020, texte n° 8)
  • 1. NORMES CONSTITUTIONNELLES
  • 1.5. CONSTITUTION DU 4 OCTOBRE 1958
  • 1.5.6. Titre V - Des rapports entre le Gouvernement et le Parlement
  • 1.5.6.7. Dispositions à caractère expérimental (article 37-1)

Aucune exigence constitutionnelle n'impose au législateur, lorsqu'il ratifie une ordonnance autorisant une expérimentation, de disposer d'une évaluation de celle-ci.

(2020-810 DC, 21 December 2020, cons. 42, JORF n°0312 du 26 décembre 2020, texte n° 8)
  • 3. NORMES LÉGISLATIVES ET RÉGLEMENTAIRES
  • 3.2. CONDITIONS DE RECOURS À LA LOI
  • 3.2.3. Catégories de lois
  • 3.2.3.2. Lois spécifiques
  • 3.2.3.2.5. Lois expérimentales (article 37-1 de la Constitution)
  • 3.2.3.2.5.3. Enseignement

L'ordonnance contestée prévoit, à titre expérimental, qu'un « établissement public à caractère scientifique, culturel et professionnel peut regrouper ou fusionner des établissements d'enseignement supérieur et de recherche publics et privés, concourant aux missions du service public de l'enseignement supérieur ou de la recherche. Cet établissement expérimente de nouveaux modes d'organisation et de fonctionnement dans les conditions prévues au présent chapitre, afin de réaliser un projet partagé d'enseignement supérieur et de recherche défini par les établissements qu'il regroupe, dans le respect des objectifs et missions de l'enseignement supérieur mentionnés aux chapitres Ier et III du titre II du livre Ier du code de l'éducation ». La notion d'établissement public à caractère scientifique, culturel et professionnel et le régime de ces établissements sont définis aux articles L. 711-1 et suivants du code de l'éducation. Le législateur a ainsi défini de manière suffisamment précise l'objet de l'expérimentation qu'il a instituée.

(2020-810 DC, 21 December 2020, cons. 45, JORF n°0312 du 26 décembre 2020, texte n° 8)
  • 3. NORMES LÉGISLATIVES ET RÉGLEMENTAIRES
  • 3.3. ÉTENDUE ET LIMITES DE LA COMPÉTENCE LÉGISLATIVE
  • 3.3.4. Incompétence négative
  • 3.3.4.2. Absence d'incompétence négative
  • 3.3.4.2.1. Le législateur a épuisé sa compétence

En prévoyant que les dispositions conférant à un établissement le statut de « grand établissement » sont approuvées par décret, le législateur a simplement prévu qu'un décret était nécessaire pour reconnaître à un tel établissement ce statut, conformément aux règles relatives à la création d'un tel établissement déterminées par d'autres dispositions législatives. Absence de méconnaissance de l'article 34 de la Constitution.

(2020-810 DC, 21 December 2020, cons. 47, JORF n°0312 du 26 décembre 2020, texte n° 8)
  • 3. NORMES LÉGISLATIVES ET RÉGLEMENTAIRES
  • 3.3. ÉTENDUE ET LIMITES DE LA COMPÉTENCE LÉGISLATIVE
  • 3.3.4. Incompétence négative
  • 3.3.4.2. Absence d'incompétence négative
  • 3.3.4.2.2. Renvoi au règlement d'application

L'article contesté détermine les personnes qui peuvent recourir à des contrats de chantier ou d'opération de recherche, l'objet de ces contrats, leur durée ainsi que les motifs et les modalités de leur rupture. Ainsi, le législateur a suffisamment déterminé les règles applicables aux contrats conclus pour contribuer à un projet ou une opération de recherche et a pu, sans méconnaître ni sa compétence ni le principe de participation des travailleurs, renvoyer à un décret en Conseil d'État plutôt qu'à un accord d'entreprise les modalités d'application de ces règles.

(2020-810 DC, 21 December 2020, cons. 27, 28, JORF n°0312 du 26 décembre 2020, texte n° 8)
  • 3. NORMES LÉGISLATIVES ET RÉGLEMENTAIRES
  • 3.4. POUVOIR LÉGISLATIF DÉLÉGUÉ
  • 3.4.1. Ordonnances de l'article 38
  • 3.4.1.6. Ratification des ordonnances

Aucune exigence constitutionnelle n'impose au législateur, lorsqu'il ratifie une ordonnance autorisant une expérimentation, de disposer d'une évaluation de celle-ci.

(2020-810 DC, 21 December 2020, cons. 42, JORF n°0312 du 26 décembre 2020, texte n° 8)
  • 3. NORMES LÉGISLATIVES ET RÉGLEMENTAIRES
  • 3.7. RÉPARTITION DES COMPÉTENCES PAR MATIÈRES
  • 3.7.15. Droit du travail et droit de la sécurité sociale
  • 3.7.15.1. Droit du travail
  • 3.7.15.1.1. Principes fondamentaux du droit du travail
  • 3.7.15.1.1.2. Compétence réglementaire

L'article 34 de la Constitution range dans le domaine de la loi les principes fondamentaux du droit du travail.  Aux termes du huitième alinéa du Préambule de la Constitution de 1946 : « Tout travailleur participe, par l'intermédiaire de ses délégués, à la détermination collective des conditions de travail ainsi qu'à la gestion des entreprises ». Il est loisible au législateur, dans le cadre des compétences qu'il tient de l'article 34 de la Constitution, de renvoyer au décret ou de confier à la négociation collective le soin de préciser, en matière de détermination collective des conditions de travail, les modalités d'application des règles qu'il a fixées.

(2020-810 DC, 21 December 2020, cons. 27, JORF n°0312 du 26 décembre 2020, texte n° 8)
  • 4. DROITS ET LIBERTÉS
  • 4.9. DROITS CONSTITUTIONNELS DES TRAVAILLEURS
  • 4.9.1. Droits collectifs des travailleurs
  • 4.9.1.2. Liberté de négociation collective (alinéa 8 du Préambule de la Constitution de 1946)
  • 4.9.1.2.1. Détermination des modalités concrètes de mise en œuvre de la loi

Il est loisible au législateur, dans le cadre des compétences qu'il tient de l'article 34 de la Constitution, de renvoyer au décret ou de confier à la négociation collective le soin de préciser, en matière de détermination collective des conditions de travail, les modalités d'application des règles qu'il a fixées. L'article contesté détermine les personnes qui peuvent recourir à des contrats de chantier ou d'opération de recherche, l'objet de ces contrats, leur durée ainsi que les motifs et les modalités de leur rupture. Ainsi, le législateur a suffisamment déterminé les règles applicables aux contrats conclus pour contribuer à un projet ou une opération de recherche et a pu, sans méconnaître ni sa compétence ni le principe de participation des travailleurs, renvoyer à un décret en Conseil d'État plutôt qu'à un accord d'entreprise les modalités d'application de ces règles.

(2020-810 DC, 21 December 2020, cons. 27, 28, JORF n°0312 du 26 décembre 2020, texte n° 8)
  • 4. DROITS ET LIBERTÉS
  • 4.20. LIBERTÉ ET DROIT DE L'ENSEIGNEMENT
  • 4.20.2. Universités
  • 4.20.2.1. Indépendance des enseignants-chercheurs

Des dispositions qui se bornent à prévoir que des salariés peuvent être recrutés par certains établissements publics de recherche et fondations reconnues d'utilité publique pour la durée d'un projet ou d'une opération ne mettent pas en cause le principe d'indépendance des enseignants-chercheurs.

(2020-810 DC, 21 December 2020, cons. 29, JORF n°0312 du 26 décembre 2020, texte n° 8)
  • 5. ÉGALITÉ
  • 5.5. ÉGALITÉ DANS LES EMPLOIS PUBLICS
  • 5.5.2. Égale admissibilité aux emplois publics
  • 5.5.2.2. Règles de recrutement dans les emplois publics
  • 5.5.2.2.8. Respect de l'exigence de capacité des candidats

Dispense de qualification nationale pour le recrutement des professeurs des universités et des maîtres de conférences. En premier lieu, si l'article L. 952-6-1 du code de l'éducation dispense les recrutements dans le corps des professeurs des universités de l'exigence d'une qualification nationale préalable, il maintient une procédure de recrutement confiée aux comités de sélection. Or, ces comités sont composés d'enseignants-chercheurs et de personnels assimilés, pour moitié au moins extérieurs à l'université, d'un rang au moins égal à celui de l'emploi à pourvoir. Les membres de ces comités, qui apprécient les mérites scientifiques des candidats, sont eux-mêmes choisis, sur proposition du chef d'établissement, en raison de leurs compétences, en majorité parmi les spécialistes de la discipline en cause, par le conseil académique ou, pour les établissements qui ne disposent pas d'un tel conseil, par le conseil d'administration, siégeant en formation restreinte aux représentants élus des enseignants-chercheurs et personnels assimilés. À l'issue de la procédure de sélection, le conseil académique ou le conseil d'administration transmet au ministre chargé de l'enseignement supérieur le nom du candidat dont il propose la nomination ou une liste de candidats classés par ordre de préférence. Si le chef d'établissement peut s'opposer à cette proposition, il ne peut, conformément à la réserve énoncée par le Conseil constitutionnel au considérant 16 de la décision n° 10-20/21 QPC du 6 août 2010, fonder son appréciation sur des motifs étrangers à l'administration de l'établissement et, en particulier, sur la qualification scientifique des candidats retenus à l'issue de la procédure de sélection. En second lieu, la possibilité pour les établissements publics d'enseignement supérieur de déroger à l'exigence de qualification par l'instance nationale pour le recrutement de maîtres de conférences, dans certaines disciplines, est accordée par décret pour la durée de l'expérimentation à la demande de chaque établissement. Dans le cadre de cette procédure de recrutement, l'article L. 952-6-3 du code de l'éducation prévoit que les titres et travaux des personnes qui ne disposent pas d'une qualification nationale sont examinés par le comité de sélection ou l'instance équivalente prévue par les statuts de l'établissement, préalablement à l'examen de l'ensemble des candidatures, sur la base du rapport de deux spécialistes de la discipline de niveau au moins équivalent à celui de l'emploi à pourvoir. Le comité de sélection ou l'instance équivalente, dont la composition obéit aux mêmes règles que pour le recrutement des professeurs des universités, procède ensuite, selon la même procédure de sélection que pour ces derniers, à un examen conjoint des candidatures émanant des personnes qu'il a qualifiées et de celles qui disposent d'une qualification reconnue par le conseil national des universités. Il résulte de ce qui précède que, en dépit de la suppression de l'exigence de qualification préalable par le conseil national des universités pour le recrutement en qualité de professeur ou de maître de conférences, les dispositions contestées garantissent que leurs pairs soient associés au recrutement des candidats à ces postes et que ces recrutements soient fondés sur l'appréciation des mérites des différents candidats. Le grief tiré de la méconnaissance du principe d'égal accès aux emplois publics doit donc être écarté.

(2020-810 DC, 21 December 2020, cons. 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, JORF n°0312 du 26 décembre 2020, texte n° 8)
  • 10. PARLEMENT
  • 10.3. FONCTION LEGISLATIVE
  • 10.3.5. Droit d'amendement
  • 10.3.5.1. Exercice du droit d'amendement
  • 10.3.5.1.2. Droit d'amendement des parlementaires

Saisi d'un grief de procédure à propos de dispositions nouvelles introduites au Sénat par voie d'amendement parlementaire, le Conseil constitutionnel juge que les conditions d'adoption de ces dispositions n'ont pas méconnu les exigences de clarté et de sincérité du débat parlementaire.

(2020-810 DC, 21 December 2020, cons. 15, 16, JORF n°0312 du 26 décembre 2020, texte n° 8)
  • 10. PARLEMENT
  • 10.3. FONCTION LEGISLATIVE
  • 10.3.5. Droit d'amendement
  • 10.3.5.2. Recevabilité
  • 10.3.5.2.5. Recevabilité en première lecture
  • 10.3.5.2.5.2. Existence d'un lien indirect avec le texte en discussion

L'article 18 de programmation de la recherche pour les années 2021 à 2030 et portant diverses dispositions relatives à la recherche et à l'enseignement supérieur modifie l'article L. 612-7 du code de l'éducation afin de prévoir l'obligation pour le candidat au diplôme de doctorat, à l'issue de la soutenance de sa thèse, de prêter serment en s'engageant à respecter les principes et les exigences de l'intégrité scientifique. Introduites en première lecture, ces dispositions ne peuvent être regardées comme dépourvues de lien, au moins indirect, avec le projet de loi déposé sur le bureau de l'Assemblée nationale qui, d'une part, créait à son article 4 un contrat doctoral permettant à un employeur de confier des activités de recherche à un salarié inscrit dans un établissement d'enseignement supérieur en vue d'obtenir le diplôme de doctorat prévu à l'article L. 612-7 du code de l'éducation et, d'autre part, instaurait à son article 5 des contrats « post-doctoraux » permettant le recrutement, par certains établissements publics et certaines fondations, de chercheurs titulaires de ce même diplôme.
L'article 45 de la même loi procède à une réforme de la formation vétérinaire, en permettant notamment à des établissements d'enseignement supérieur privés à but non lucratif d'assurer une formation préparant au diplôme d'État de docteur vétérinaire. Introduites en première lecture, ces dispositions ne peuvent être regardées comme dépourvues de lien, au moins indirect, avec le texte initial, qui comportait, au paragraphe II de son article 22, une habilitation à modifier par ordonnances certaines dispositions relatives à l'enseignement supérieur privé et prévoyait, à son article 23, la dissolution de l'Institut agronomique, vétérinaire et forestier de France.
Rejet des griefs tirés de la méconnaissance du premier alinéa de l'article 45 de la Constitution.

(2020-810 DC, 21 December 2020, cons. 48, 49, 50, 51, JORF n°0312 du 26 décembre 2020, texte n° 8)
  • 10. PARLEMENT
  • 10.3. FONCTION LEGISLATIVE
  • 10.3.5. Droit d'amendement
  • 10.3.5.2. Recevabilité
  • 10.3.5.2.5. Recevabilité en première lecture
  • 10.3.5.2.5.4. Absence de lien indirect

La loi de programmation de la recherche pour les années 2021 à 2030 et portant diverses dispositions relatives à la recherche et à l'enseignement supérieur a pour origine le projet de loi déposé le 22 juillet 2020 sur le bureau de l'Assemblée nationale, première assemblée saisie. Ce projet de loi comportait vingt-cinq articles répartis en cinq titres. Son titre Ier comportait des dispositions programmatiques définissant les orientations stratégiques de la recherche et établissant une programmation budgétaire pour la décennie couverte par la loi. Son titre II contenait des mesures visant à renforcer l'attractivité des carrières pour les chercheurs et les enseignants-chercheurs. Son titre III modifiait des dispositions relatives à l'évaluation de la recherche et de l'enseignement supérieur, aux unités de recherche et à l'Agence nationale de la recherche. Son titre IV visait à valoriser les travaux de recherche, en modifiant les conditions de participation des agents publics dans les entreprises et les règles du cumul d'activités à temps partiel et en permettant l'attribution de primes, la création de dispositifs d'intéressement ainsi que l'octroi de licences collectives pour l'utilisation en ligne de certaines œuvres protégées. Son titre V était consacré à des mesures tendant à clarifier et à faciliter le fonctionnement du service public de l'enseignement supérieur et de la recherche.
L'article 38 de la loi déférée instaure un délit réprimant le fait de pénétrer ou de se maintenir dans l'enceinte d'un établissement d'enseignement supérieur sans y être habilité en vertu de dispositions législatives ou réglementaires ou y avoir été autorisé par les autorités compétentes, dans le but de troubler la tranquillité ou le bon ordre de l'établissement. Introduites en première lecture, ces dispositions ne présentent pas de lien, même indirect, avec celles de l'article 17 du projet de loi initial qui, afin de simplifier l'organisation et le fonctionnement des établissements d'enseignement supérieur, modifiaient les modalités de désignation et les attributions des présidents d'université, en leur imposant de présenter chaque année un rapport relatif à l'égalité entre les femmes et les hommes et en simplifiant les conditions de délégation de leur signature, aménageaient les prérogatives de la commission de la recherche du conseil académique des universités, assouplissaient les règles d'organisation des élections partielles dans les conseils universitaires et simplifiaient le régime des fondations partenariales, les conditions de représentation de l'État dans les fondations de coopération scientifique ainsi que la procédure d'approbation des conventions de valorisation conclues par certains établissements publics. Elles ne présentent pas non plus de lien, même indirect, avec aucune autre des dispositions qui figuraient dans le projet de loi déposé sur le bureau de l'Assemblée nationale.
L'article 42 est relatif à l'importation et à l'exportation, à des fins de recherche, de restes du corps humain. Introduites en première lecture, ces dispositions ne présentent pas de lien, même indirect, avec celles de l'article 24 du projet de loi initial, qui créait, auprès de chaque centre hospitalier et universitaire, un comité territorial chargé de coordonner la mise en œuvre de la recherche en santé par les acteurs compétents en ce domaine. Ces dispositions ne présentent pas non plus de lien, même indirect, avec aucune autre des dispositions qui figuraient dans le projet de loi déposé sur le bureau de l'Assemblée nationale.
Censure des articles 38 et 42.

(2020-810 DC, 21 December 2020, cons. 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 52, 53, 54, JORF n°0312 du 26 décembre 2020, texte n° 8)
  • 10. PARLEMENT
  • 10.3. FONCTION LEGISLATIVE
  • 10.3.10. Qualité de la loi
  • 10.3.10.2. Principe de clarté et de sincérité des débats parlementaires

Saisi d'un grief de procédure à propos de dispositions nouvelles introduites au Sénat par voie d'amendement parlementaire, le Conseil constitutionnel juge que les conditions d'adoption de ces dispositions n'ont pas méconnu les exigences de clarté et de sincérité du débat parlementaire.

(2020-810 DC, 21 December 2020, cons. 15, 16, JORF n°0312 du 26 décembre 2020, texte n° 8)
  • 11. CONSEIL CONSTITUTIONNEL ET CONTENTIEUX DES NORMES
  • 11.4. RECEVABILITÉ DES SAISINES (article 61 de la Constitution)
  • 11.4.4. Effets de la saisine
  • 11.4.4.2. Applications

Censure d'office de cavaliers législatifs (exemples).

(2020-810 DC, 21 December 2020, cons. 52, 53, 54, JORF n°0312 du 26 décembre 2020, texte n° 8)
  • 11. CONSEIL CONSTITUTIONNEL ET CONTENTIEUX DES NORMES
  • 11.5. GRIEFS (contrôle a priori des lois - article 61 de la Constitution)
  • 11.5.2. Griefs inopérants, manquant en fait, surabondants ou mal dirigés
  • 11.5.2.2. Griefs manquant en fait (exemples)

L'ordonnance dont la ratification est contestée a été publiée au Journal officiel le 13 décembre 2018. Un projet de loi de ratification a été déposé sur le bureau de l'Assemblée nationale le 30 janvier 2019, soit avant l'expiration du délai de trois mois fixé par la loi d'habilitation. Dès lors, le grief tiré de ce qu'un projet de loi de ratification n'aurait pas été déposé dans le délai prévu par loi d'habilitation manque en fait.

(2020-810 DC, 21 December 2020, cons. 41, JORF n°0312 du 26 décembre 2020, texte n° 8)
  • 11. CONSEIL CONSTITUTIONNEL ET CONTENTIEUX DES NORMES
  • 11.8. SENS ET PORTÉE DE LA DÉCISION
  • 11.8.7. Autorité des décisions du Conseil constitutionnel
  • 11.8.7.3. Portée des précédentes décisions
  • 11.8.7.3.2. Autorité de la chose jugée

Lorsque le Conseil constitutionnel déclare conforme la disposition ratifiant une ordonnance, cette déclaration de conformité ne s'oppose pas à ce que le Conseil constitutionnel connaisse des dispositions de l'ordonnance ratifiée pour examiner leur conformité à la Constitution.

(2020-810 DC, 21 December 2020, cons. 47, JORF n°0312 du 26 décembre 2020, texte n° 8)
  • 11. CONSEIL CONSTITUTIONNEL ET CONTENTIEUX DES NORMES
  • 11.8. SENS ET PORTÉE DE LA DÉCISION
  • 11.8.9. Absence de décision sur la conformité à la Constitution

Lorsque le Conseil constitutionnel déclare conforme la disposition ratifiant une ordonnance, cette déclaration de conformité ne s'oppose pas à ce que le Conseil constitutionnel connaisse des dispositions de l'ordonnance ratifiée pour examiner leur conformité à la Constitution.

(2020-810 DC, 21 December 2020, cons. 43, JORF n°0312 du 26 décembre 2020, texte n° 8)
  • 16. RÉSERVES D'INTERPRÉTATION
  • 16.11. DROIT DE L'ÉDUCATION
  • 16.11.7. Code de l'éducation

Article L. 952-6-2 du code de l'éducation (titularisation d'un professeur d'université après un premier recrutement contractuel). L'intéressé est titularisé par décret du Président de la République, sur proposition du chef d'établissement. Toutefois, le principe d'indépendance des enseignants-chercheurs s'oppose à ce que le chef d'établissement puisse refuser, pour des motifs étrangers à l'administration de l'université et, en particulier, des motifs liés à la qualification scientifique de l'intéressé, de proposer à la titularisation un candidat ayant reçu un avis favorable de la commission de titularisation. Le chef d'établissement ne saurait, non plus, quel qu'en soit le motif, proposer à la titularisation un candidat ayant fait l'objet d'un avis défavorable de cette commission.

(2020-810 DC, 21 December 2020, cons. 11, JORF n°0312 du 26 décembre 2020, texte n° 8)
À voir aussi sur le site : Communiqué de presse, Commentaire, Dossier documentaire, Texte adopté, Saisine par 60 sénateurs, Saisine par 60 députés, Observations du Gouvernement, Contributions extérieures, Dossier législatif AN, Dossier législatif Sénat, Références doctrinales.