Decision

Decision no. 2021-824 DC of 5 August 2021

Law on managing the public health

On 26 July 2021, the Constitutional Council, in the conditions provided for in subparagraph 2 of Article 61 of the Constitution, received a referral to review the law on managing the public health state of emergency, under number 2021-824 DC, from the Prime Minister.
It also received a referral on the same day from Bruno RETAILLEAU, Pascal ALLIZARD, Jean-Michel ARNAUD, Serge BABARY, Philippe BAS, Jérôme BASCHER, Arnaud de BELENET, Bruno BELIN, Nadine BELLUROT, Martine BERTHET, Annick BILLON, Jean-Baptiste BLANC, Christine BONFANTI-DOSSAT, François BONHOMME, Bernard BONNE, François BONNEAU, Philippe BONNECARRÈRE, Alexandra BORCHIO FONTIMP, Gilbert BOUCHET, Céline BOULAY-ESPÉRONNIER, Yves BOULOUX, Toine BOURRAT, Jean-Marc BOYER, Valérie BOYER, Max BRISSON, François-Noël BUFFET, Laurent BURGOA, François CALVET, Christian CAMBON, Agnès CANAYER, Patrick CHAIZE, Pierre CHARON, Alain CHATILLON, Marie-Christine CHAUVIN, Laure DARCOS, Annie DELMONT-KOROPOULIS, Catherine DEROCHE, Jacky DEROMEDI, Brigitte DEVÉSA, Catherine DI FOLCO, Nassimah DINDAR, Sabine DREXLER, Alain DUFFOURG, Catherine DUMAS, Françoise DUMONT, Laurent DUPLOMB, Dominique ESTROSI SASSONE, Jacqueline EUSTACHE-BRINIO, Gilbert FAVREAU, Françoise FÉRAT, Bernard FOURNIER, Christophe-André FRASSA, Laurence GARNIER, Françoise GATEL, Fabien GENET, Frédérique GERBAUD, Daniel GREMILLET, Jacques GROSPERRIN, Pascale GRUNY, Daniel GUERET, Jocelyne GUIDEZ, Olivier HENNO, Loïc HERVÉ, Christine HERZOG, Alain HOUPERT, Jean-Raymond HUGONET, Annick JACQUEMET, Else JOSEPH, Muriel JOURDA, Claude KERN, Christian KLINGER, Laurent LAFON, Marc LAMÉNIE, Sonia de la PROVÔTÉ, Florence LASSARADE, Michel LAUGIER, Daniel LAURENT, Christine LAVARDE, Antoine LEFÈVRE, Ronan LE GLEUT, Henri LEROY, Stéphane LE RUDULIER, Valérie LÉTARD, Pierre-Antoine LEVI, Anne-Catherine LOISIER, Viviane MALET, Hervé MARSEILLE, Pascal MARTIN, Hervé MAUREY, Marie MERCIER, Sébastien MEURANT, Brigitte MICOULEAU, Jean-Marie MIZZON, Catherine MORIN-DESAILLY, Philippe MOUILLER, Laurence MULLER-BRONN, Philippe NACHBAR, Sylviane NOËL, Claude NOUGEIN, Philippe PAUL, Cyril PELLEVAT, Philippe PEMEZEC, Cédric PERRIN, Stéphane PIEDNOIR, Kristina PLUCHET, Rémy POINTEREAU, Frédérique PUISSAT, Isabelle RAIMOND-PAVERO, Jean-François RAPIN, Damien REGNARD, Olivier RIETMANN, Bruno ROJOUAN, Hugues SAURY, René-Paul SAVARY, Michel SAVIN, Elsa SCHALCK, Jean SOL, Nadia SOLLOGOUB, Philippe TABAROT, Dominique VÉRIEN, Sylvie VERMEILLET, Cédric VIAL and Jean-Pierre VOGEL, Senators.
Moreover, it received a referral on the same date from Valérie RABAULT, Jean-Luc MÉLENCHON, André CHASSAIGNE, Joël AVIRAGNET, Marie-Noëlle BATTISTEL, Gisèle BIÉMOURET, Alain DAVID, Laurence DUMONT, Olivier FAURE, Guillaume GAROT, Christian HUTIN, Chantal JOURDAN, Régis JUANICO, Marietta KARAMANLI, Jérôme LAMBERT, Josette MANIN, Philippe NAILLET, Lamia EL AARAJE, Christine PIRES BEAUNE, Claudia ROUAUX, Hervé SAULIGNAC, Sylvie TOLMONT, 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, Manuéla KÉCLARD-MONDÉSIR, Moetaï BROTHERSON, Jean-Philippe NILOR, Gabriel SERVILLE, Karine LEBON, Jean-Félix ACQUAVIVA, Michel CASTELLANI, Jean-Michel CLÉMENT, Paul-André COLOMBANI, Charles de COURSON, Frédérique DUMAS, François-Michel LAMBERT, Jean LASSALLE, Paul MOLAC, Bertrand PANCHER, Jennifer de TEMMERMAN, Sébastien NADOT, Aurélien TACHÉ, Guillaume CHICHE, Emilie CARIOU and Delphine BAGARRY, Members of Parliament.
Lastly it received a referral on the same date from Patrick KANNER, Eliane ASSASSI, Guillaume GONTARD, Viviane ARTIGALAS, David ASSOULINE, Joël BIGOT, Florence BLATRIX CONTAT, Nicole BONNEFOY, Denis BOUAD, Hussein BOURGI, Isabelle BRIQUET, Rémi CARDON, Marie-Arlette CARLOTTI, Catherine CONCONNE, Hélène CONWAY-MOURET, Thierry COZIC, Michel DAGBERT, Marie-Pierre de la GONTRIE, Gilbert-Luc DEVINAZ, Jérôme DURAIN, Frédérique ESPAGNAC, Rémi FÉRAUD, Jean-Luc FICHET, Martine FILLEUL, Hervé GILLÉ, Laurence HARRIBEY, Jean-Michel HOULLEGATTE, Olivier JACQUIN, Bernard JOMIER, Gisèle JOURDA, Éric KERROUCHE, Annie LE HOUEROU, Jean-Yves LECONTE, Claudine LEPAGE, Jean-Jacques LOZACH, Monique LUBIN, Victorin LUREL, Jacques-Bernard MAGNER, Didier MARIE, Serge MÉRILLOU, Michelle MEUNIER, Jean-Jacques MICHAU, Marie-Pierre MONIER, Franck MONTAUGÉ, Sébastien PLA, 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, Jean-Marc TODESCHINI, Mickaël VALLET, André VALLINI, Sabine VAN HEGHE, Yannick VAUGRENARD, Éric BOCQUET, Cécile CUKIERMAN, Céline BRULIN, Cathy APOURCEAU-POLY, Michelle GRÉAUME, Laurence COHEN, Fabien GAY, Gérard LAHELLEC, Pierre OUZOULIAS, Pascal SAVOLDELLI, Pierre LAURENT, Jérémy BACCHI, Marie-Claude VARAILLAS and Marie-Noëlle LIENEMANN, Senators.
Having regard to the following texts:

  • the Constitution;
  • Ordinance No 58-1067 of 7 November 1958, constituting an institutional act on the Constitutional Council;
  • Institutional Act No 2009-403 of 15 April 2009 relating to the application of Articles 34-1, 39, and 44 of the Constitution;
  • the Code for Entry and Residence of Foreigners and Right of Asylum (CESEDA);
  • the Public Health Code;
  • the Labour Code;
  • Act No 2020-546 of 11 May 2020 extending the public health state of emergency and rounding out its provisions;
  • Act No 2021-689 of 31 May 2021 on the management of the end of the public health state of emergency;
  • Decree of 14 June 2021 constituting calling Parliament for an extraordinary session;
  • Decree No 2021-931 of 13 July 2021 declaring a public health state of emergency in certain areas of the Republic;
  • Decree of 19 July 2021 rounding out the Decree of 14 June 2021 constituting calling Parliament for an extraordinary session;
  • Decree No 2021-990 of 28 July 2021 declaring a public health state of emergency in certain areas of the Republic;
  • Constitutional Council decision nos 2020-800 DC of 11 May 2020, 2020-808 DC of 13 November 2020 and 2021-819 DC of 31 May 2021;
  • Opinion of the Conseil d'État of 19 July 2021;
    Having regard to the observations of the Government, registered on 29 July 2021;
    Having regard to the observations in response presented by the Senators who drafted the fourth referral, registered on 2 August 2021;
    And after having heard the rapporteur;
    THE CONSTITUTIONAL COUNCIL DECIDED THAT:
  1. The Prime Minister, the applicant Senators and Members of Parliament refer the law on managing the public health state of emergency to the Constitutional Council. The Prime Minister asks the Constitutional Council to rule on the conformity of its Articles 1, 9 and 12 with the Constitution, without raising any objections against them. The Members of Parliament and Senators challenge the conformity of certain provisions of Article 1 with the Constitution. The Members of Parliament and Senators who drafted the fourth referral challenge the conformity of its Article 2 with the Constitution. The Members of Parliament and Senators who drafted the second referral also challenge the conformity of its Article 9 with the Constitution. Moreover, the Senators who drafted the second referral challenge the conformity of certain provisions of its Article 7 with the Constitution. Furthermore, the Members of Parliament challenge the procedure for adoption of the law, as well as its Article 8. Lastly, the Senators who drafted the fourth referral challenge the procedure for adoption of its Article 1, and certain provisions of its Article 14.
  • Concerning the procedure:
    . Regarding the procedure for adoption of the whole law:
  1. The applicant Members of Parliament maintain that the conditions for the adoption of the law referred for review had infringed the requirements of clarity and sincerity of parliamentary debate and the right of amendment guaranteed by Article 44 of the Constitution. In this regard, they first state that the impact study attached to the bill does not meet the requirements of Article 8 of the above-mentioned Institutional Act of 15 April 2009, due to its shortcomings concerning the evolution of the public health situation in certain overseas departments and communities. They then point out that this bill was not among the texts whose examination had been provided for by the decree of the President of the Republic calling Parliament for an extraordinary session, and argue that the decree adding this text to the agenda of the extraordinary session was only published in the Journal officiel of the French Republic on the same day as the examination of the text by the law commission of the National Assembly, the first assembly receiving a referral. Finally, they criticise the time limits given to the Members of Parliament and then to the Senators to examine and amend the text.
  2. According to subparagraphs 3 and 4 of Article 39 of the Constitution: "The tabling of Government Bills before the National Assembly or the Senate, shall comply with the conditions determined by an Institutional Act. - Government Bills may not be included on the agenda if the Conference of Presidents of the first House to which the Bill has been referred, declares that the rules determined by the Institutional Act have not been complied with. In the case of disagreement between the Conference of Presidents and the Government, the President of the relevant House or the Prime Minister may refer the matter to the Constitutional Council, which shall rule within a period of eight days." According to subparagraph 1 of Article 8 of the Institutional Act of 15 April 2009: "Bills are subject to an impact study. The documents providing the results of this impact study are to be attached to bills when they are transmitted to the Conseil d'État. They are submitted to the bureau of the first assembly called at the same time as the bills to which they apply." According to subparagraph 1 of Article 9 of the same institutional act, the Conference of Presidents of the assembly that received the bill has ten days following the submission to acknowledge that the rules relating to the impact studies have been infringed.
  3. The bill was submitted on 19 July 2021 to the bureau of the National Assembly. The Conference of Presidents of the National Assembly received no request noting that the rules relating to impact studies were infringed. Consequently, the objection that the impact study attached to the bill did not comply with Article 8 of the Institutional Act of 15 April 2009 can only be dismissed.
  4. Secondly, according to subparagraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution, Parliament is convened in extraordinary session at the request of the Prime Minister "to debate a specific agenda". Article 30 of the Constitution provides that "extraordinary sessions shall be opened and closed by a Decree of the President of the Republic". As a result, although Parliament thus called for an extraordinary session can only deliberate on matters placed on the agenda by the President of the Republic, the latter can modify, at the request of the Prime Minister, an agenda that he had previously determined.
  5. By the above-mentioned decree of 19 July 2021, the President of the Republic completed the agenda of the extraordinary session of Parliament initially convened by the above-mentioned decree of 14 June 2021, in order to add, in particular, the examination of the bill relating to the management of the public health state of emergency. The objection to the violation of Article 29 of the Constitution must therefore be dismissed.
  6. Thirdly, as stated in Article 6 of the Declaration of Human and Civic Rights of 1789: "The Law is the expression of the general will." According to subparagraph 1 of Article 3 of the Constitution: "National sovereignty shall vest in the people, who shall exercise it through their representatives..." These provisions impose an obligation of clarity and sincerity of parliamentary debate.
  7. According to subparagraph 1 of Article 44 of the Constitution: "Members of Parliament and the Government shall have the right of amendment. This right may be used in plenary sitting or in committee under the conditions set down by the Rules of Procedure of the Houses, according to the framework determined by an Institutional Act."
  8. The bill was submitted to the National Assembly on 19 July 2021. At the first reading, the deadline for submitting amendments in committee was set at 20 July at the opening of the meeting and then 21 July at the opening of the general debate in public session. After the adoption of the text by the National Assembly on the morning of 23 July, the deadline for submitting amendments before the Senate was set, in committee, on the same day as its meeting and on 24 July, at the opening of the general debate in public session. After the joint committee composed of an equal number of members from each house of Parliament receiving the referral reached an agreement on 25 July, the text was definitively adopted on the same day.
  9. Despite their particular brevity, the deadlines set in the National Assembly and then in the Senate for submitting amendments to bills in committee and in public session did not hinder the effective exercise by Members of Parliament of their right to amend, nor did they deprive the requirements of clarity and sincerity of parliamentary debate of effect.
  10. It follows from the foregoing that the objections to the violation of the requirements of clarity and sincerity of parliamentary debate must be dismissed.
    . Regarding the procedure for adoption of subparagraph 13 of Article 1:
  11. The Senators who drafted the second referral contend that subparagraph 13 of Article 1 had been adopted according to a procedure contrary to Article 39 of the Constitution, on the grounds that these provisions, appearing in the bill deliberated in the Council of Ministers, posed a question that had not been previously submitted to the Conseil d'État for an opinion.
  12. According to the first sentence of subparagraph 2 of Article 39 of the Constitution: "Government Bills shall be discussed in the Council of Ministers after consultation with the Conseil d'État and shall be tabled in one or other of the two Houses". Although the Council of Ministers examines bills and it is possible for it to modify their content, it is, as the constituent powers intended, on condition that it is informed by the opinion of the Conseil d'État. Consequently, all the questions raised by the text examined in the Council of Ministers must have been submitted to the Conseil d'État during its consultation.
  13. The bill examined on 19 July 2021 in the Council of Ministers amended Article 1 of the Act of 31 May 2021 to allow the Prime Minister, by decree, to impose certain conditions on people's access to "department stores and shopping centres, above a threshold defined by decree and making it possible to guarantee people's access to goods and products of first necessity in the territory concerned".
  14. Although the bill submitted to the Conseil d'État referred in this respect to all "large establishments and shopping centres" and did not include a reference to "a threshold defined by decree", it is clear from the opinion issued by the Conseil d'État that the questions of the scope of the measure and people's access to essential goods and products were raised during its consultation.
  15. Consequently, the objection due to the infringement of Article 39 of the Constitution must be dismissed.
  16. It follows from the foregoing that the referred law was adopted according to a procedure that conforms to the Constitution.
  • Concerning certain provisions of Article 1:
    . Regarding the extension of the public health state of emergency in certain overseas territories:
  1. Paragraph I of Article 1 of the law extends until 30 September 2021 the public health state of emergency declared, on the one hand, in the territories of La Réunion and Martinique by the above-mentioned decree of 13 July 2021 and, on the other hand, in the territories of Guadeloupe, Saint-Barthélemy and Saint-Martin by the above-mentioned decree of 28 July 2021.
  2. According to the applicant Members of Parliament, by extending this regime to these territories, these provisions would allow the implementation of measures which, in view of the public health situation in these territories, would disproportionately infringe the constitutionally guaranteed rights and freedoms of their residents.
  3. According to subparagraph 11 of the Preamble of the Constitution of 1946, the Nation "shall guarantee to all... protection of their health". From this comes an objective of constitutional value of the protection of health.
  4. The Constitution does not exclude the possibility for the legislator to provide for a governmental system of a public health state of emergency. In this situation, the legislator must ensure the reconciliation between this objective of constitutional value and the respect of the rights and freedoms recognised for all persons who live in the territory of the French Republic.
  5. Firstly, the public health state of emergency seeks to allow the public powers to take action in order to control a serious public health state of emergency. The legislator considered, in the light of the scientific data available on the public health situation in the territories of La Réunion, Martinique, Guadeloupe, Saint-Barthélemy and Saint-Martin, that the Covid-19 epidemic was progressing in such a way as to contribute, in view of the hospital capacities of these territories and the vaccination coverage of their populations, to a public health state of disaster which, by its nature and seriousness, endangers the health of the population. Furthermore, the legislator, concerning the dynamics of the epidemic, considered that this public health state of emergency should continue at least for the two coming months. This evaluation is substantiated by the opinion issued on 16 July 2021 from the committee of scientific experts provided for in Article L. 3131-19 of the Public Health Code. As the Constitutional Council does not have a general mandate for judgements that is similar to that of Parliament, it cannot call into question the legislator's evaluation of the existence of a public health catastrophe and of the risk that it could continue over the next two months, when, as in this case, this evaluation is not, to current knowledge, clearly inadequate concerning the current situation of these territories.
  6. Secondly, under the terms of subparagraph 1 of paragraph I of Article L. 3131-15 of the Public Health Code, the measures provided for in the framework of the public health state of emergency, in any case, can only be taken in order to preserve public health. According to paragraph III of the same article, they must be strictly proportionate to the public health risks faced, and appropriate for the circumstances of time and place. The state of emergency is ended without delay when the measures are no longer necessary. The court is responsible for ensuring that such measures are appropriate, necessary, and proportionate to the result they are pursuing.
  7. Lastly, when the public health situation allows, the public health state of emergency must be ended by decree in the Council of Ministers prior to the expiry of the delay set by the law that extended it.
  8. It follows from the foregoing that the legislator was able, without infringing any constitutional requirement, to extend the public health state of emergency in the territories of La Réunion, Martinique, Guadeloupe, Saint-Barthélemy and Saint-Martin until 30 September 2021. Consequently, paragraphs III and IV of Article 3 of the Act of 31 May 2021 conform to the Constitution.
    . Regarding the extension of the system for managing the end of the public health state of emergency:
  9. Paragraph I of Article 1 of the law extends until 15 November 2021 the system for managing the end of the public health state of emergency provided for in Article 1 of the Act of 31 May 2021.
  10. According to the applicant Members of Parliament, despite the absence of objective elements making it possible to anticipate the public health situation in France up to that date, by providing for an extension of its application for a period of four months, without it being necessary for Parliament to intervene again within that period, the legislature had not achieved a balanced reconciliation between the objective of constitutional value of the protection of health and the rights and freedoms that might be affected.
  11. In this situation, the legislator must ensure the reconciliation between the objective of constitutional value of the protection of health and the respect of the rights and freedoms recognised for all persons who live in the territory of the French Republic.
  12. Firstly, by providing for the extension of the system for managing the end of the public health state of emergency, the legislator sought to allow public powers to take measures to limit the spread of the Covid-19 epidemic. Given the dynamics of the epidemic, the expected pace of the vaccination campaign and the emergence of new, more contagious variants of the virus, the legislator considered that a significant risk of the spread of the epidemic would persist until 15 November 2021. This evaluation is substantiated by the opinions issued on 6 and 16 July 2021 from the committee of scientific experts provided for in Article L. 3131-19 of the Public Health Code. As the Constitutional Council does not have a general mandate for judgements that is similar to that of Parliament, it cannot call into question the legislator's evaluation of this risk, when, as in this case, this evaluation is not, to current knowledge, clearly inadequate concerning the current situation.
  13. Secondly, under the terms of subparagraph 1 of paragraphs I and II of Article 1 of the Act of 31 May 2021, the measures that are likely to be announced as part of the system for managing the end of the public health state of emergency can only be implemented in the interest of public health, and for the sole reason of limiting the propagation of the Covid-19 epidemic. According to paragraph IV of this same article, they must be strictly proportionate to the public health risks faced, and appropriate for the circumstances of time and place. The state of emergency is ended without delay when the measures are no longer necessary. The court is responsible for ensuring that such measures are appropriate, necessary, and proportionate to the result they are pursuing.
  14. It follows from the foregoing that the legislator, without infringing any constitutional requirements, was able to extend the system for managing the end of the public health state of emergency until 15 November 2021. Consequently, the words "15 November 2021" in subparagraph 1 of paragraph I of Article 1 of the Act of 31 May 2021 conform to the Constitution.
    . Regarding the provisions making access to certain places, establishments, services or events subject to the presentation of a "health pass":
  15. Paragraph I of Article 1 amends A of paragraph II of Article 1 of the Act of 31 May 2021 in order, in particular, to broaden the cases in which the Prime Minister may make access to certain places, establishments, services or events conditional on the presentation of a "health pass", which may take the form of either the results of a viral screening test not concluding that a person has been infected with Covid-19, or proof of vaccination status, or a certificate of recovery following an infection.
  16. Firstly, the applicant Senators and Members of Parliament consider that the scope of application of these provisions is too broad. In particular, the Senators who drafted the second referral consider that making access to department stores and shopping centres subject to the presentation of a "health pass" would be of no use in combating the epidemic. The Members of Parliament state that, by applying to all leisure and dining activities, without distinction according to the conditions under which they are carried out, and to any person over the age of twelve, these provisions would have disproportionate effects in relation to the pursued objective. The Senators who drafted the fourth referral criticise the application of such measures to mass transit for the same reason. This would result in an infringement of the freedom of movement and, for the applicant Members of Parliament, an infringement of the right to personal privacy.
  17. Secondly, the applicant Senators and Members of Parliament state that these provisions infringe the principle of equality before the law in several respects. The Senators who drafted the fourth referral state that, by applying to shopping centres, these provisions would create an unjustified difference in treatment between businesses and their employees depending on whether their activity is carried out within or outside such shopping centres. This would result in an unjustified difference in treatment between large shopping centres and other businesses. The Members of Parliament also argue that these provisions would create an unjustified difference in treatment between people depending on whether or not they had been able to receive a vaccine by the date of entry into force of these measures. They also believe that they would create an unjustified difference in treatment with regard to French people living abroad who have been vaccinated with a vaccine not recognised by the French authorities.
  • With regard to the infringement of the freedom of movement, the right to personal privacy and the right of collective expression of ideas and opinions:
  1. The legislator's responsibility is to ensure that the objective of constitutional value of the protection of health is reconciled with respect for constitutionally guaranteed rights and freedoms. These rights and freedoms include the freedom of movement, a part of individual freedom protected by Articles 2 and 4 of the Declaration of Human and Civic Rights of 1789, the right to personal privacy guaranteed by this Article 2, as well as the right of collective expression of ideas and opinions that comes from Article 11 of this Declaration.
  2. The disputed provisions provide that the Prime Minister may make public access to certain places, establishments, services or events where certain activities take place subject to the presentation of either the results of a viral screening test that do not conclude that a person is infected with Covid-19, proof of vaccination status with regard to Covid-19, or a certificate of recovery following infection with Covid-19. They also provide that, from 30 August 2021, such a measure may be made applicable to persons who intervene in such places, establishments, services or events.
  3. These provisions, which are likely to restrict access to certain places, infringe the freedom of movement and they are likely to restrict the freedom of assembly, and the right of collective expression of ideas and opinions.
  4. However, firstly, the legislator considered that, in the light of the scientific knowledge available to them, the risks of circulation of the Covid-19 virus are greatly reduced between people who have been vaccinated, recovered or who have just undergone a screening test with negative results. By adopting the disputed provisions, the legislator sought to allow public powers to take measures to limit the spread of the Covid-19 epidemic. As such, the legislator has pursued the objective of constitutional value of the protection of health.
  5. Secondly, these measures can only be imposed for the period from the entry into force of the law referred for review until 15 November 2021, a period during which the legislator considered that there was a significant risk of the epidemic spreading because of the appearance of new variants of the virus that were more contagious. For the reasons mentioned in paragraph 29, this assessment is not, to current knowledge, clearly inadequate concerning the current context.
  6. Thirdly, the disputed measures may apply in certain places, establishments, services or events where leisure, commercial dining or drinking activities are carried out. They may also apply to trade fairs, seminars and trade shows, health, social and medico-social services and establishments, long-distance travel by inter-regional public transport and certain department stores and shopping centres.
  7. On the one hand, by providing for the application of these measures to trade fairs, seminars and trade shows, to long-distance travel by inter-regional public transport and to department stores and shopping centres, the legislator has reserved their application to activities which bring together a large number of people in the same place and thus present an increased risk of transmission of the virus. Similarly, by providing for the application of these same measures to health, social and medico-social services and establishments, as well as to leisure, catering and drinking establishments, with the exception of collective dining, take-away sales of prepared meals and professional catering on roads and railways, the legislator has limited their application to places where the activity carried out presents, by its very nature, a particular risk of spreading the virus.
  8. On the other hand, the legislator has provided several guarantees for the application of these measures. With regard to their application to health, social and medico-social services and establishments, the legislator reserved the requirement to present a "health pass" solely for persons accompanying or visiting persons admitted to these services and establishments, as well as for those admitted for scheduled care. Thus, this measure, which applies to emergency situations, does not have the effect of limiting access to care. With regard to their application to department stores and shopping centres, the legislator stipulated that they should guarantee people's access to essential goods and services as well as to accessible means of transport within these shops and centres. The legislator also provided that they could only be decided above a certain threshold defined by decree and by a reasoned decision of the representative of the State in the department when the characteristics of these places and the seriousness of the risks of infection justify it. With regard to long-distance travel by inter-regional public transport, the legislator has excluded the application of these measures "in cases of emergency that prevent the required proof from being obtained". Moreover, as the Constitutional Council ruled in its decision of 31 May 2021 mentioned above, the notion of "leisure activity" excludes, inter alia, political, trade union or religious activity.
  9. Finally, as stated above, the regulatory measures taken on the basis of the disputed provisions can, under a judge's supervision, only be taken in the interest of public health and for the sole purpose of combating the spread of the Covid-19 epidemic. They must be strictly proportionate to the public health risks faced, and appropriate for the circumstances of time and place. The state of emergency is ended without delay when the measures are no longer necessary.
  10. Fourthly, the disputed provisions provide that the obligations imposed on the public may be fulfilled by the presentation of proof of vaccination status, the results of a viral screening test that do not show infection or a certificate of recovery from infection. Thus, these provisions do not, in any case, introduce either an obligation to provide care or an obligation to vaccinate. In addition, the legislator provided for the determination by decree, issued after the opinion of the French high authority for health (Haute Autorité de Santé), of the cases of medical contraindication preventing vaccination and issuing a document to the persons concerned that can be presented in places, services or establishments where the presentation of a "health pass" is required.
  11. Fifthly, verifying the possession of one of the documents necessary for access to a place, establishment, service or event can only be carried out by law enforcement officials or by the operators of such places, establishments, services or events. Furthermore, the presentation of these documents is carried out in a form that does not allow the "nature of the documents to be known" and is only accompanied by the presentation of identity documents when these are required by law enforcement officials.
  12. Lastly, on the one hand, these measures are only applicable to the public and, from 30 August 2021, to persons who intervene in places, establishments, services or events when the seriousness of the risks of contamination in connection with the exercise of the activities which are practised there justifies it, in particular with regard to the observed or expected population density.
  13. On the other hand, the legislator was able to consider, in the light of the scientific knowledge available to them, that minors over the age of twelve are, like adults, vectors for the dissemination of the virus, and to stipulate that the obligation to present a "health pass" would apply to them from 30 September 2021.
  14. It follows from the foregoing that the disputed provisions form a balanced reconciliation between the above-mentioned constitutional requirements.
  • With regard to the objection that the principle of equality had been infringed:
  1. According to Article 6 of the Declaration of Human and Civic Rights of 1789, the law "must be the same for all, whether it protects or punishes." The principle of equality does not preclude the legislator from regulating different situations differently, or from derogating from equality on grounds of public interest, provided that, in either case, the resulting difference in treatment is directly related to the purpose of the law establishing it.
  2. Firstly, department stores and shopping centres bring together a large number of people at the same time in one place for an extended period. They thus present a significant risk of spreading the virus. Businesses located within these establishments are therefore in a different situation from those located outside these establishments. Therefore, by providing that the disputed provisions may apply only to department stores and shopping centres, these provisions introduce a difference in treatment which is based on a difference in circumstances and is directly related to the purpose of the law.
  3. Secondly, by providing that the Prime Minister may make access to department stores and shopping centres subject to the presentation of one of the three health documents listed in the disputed provisions, above a threshold defined by decree, and on the basis of a reasoned decision taken by the representative of the State in the department, under a judge's supervision, when their characteristics and the seriousness of the risks of infection justify it, the disputed provisions do not in themselves create any difference in treatment between these establishments.
  4. Thirdly, the disputed provisions, which do not require proof of vaccination status but provide that the "health pass" may also consist of a certificate of recovery from the virus or negative viral screening results, do not introduce any difference in treatment with regard to persons who could not have benefited from the administration of a vaccine before the entry into force of the law or who received a vaccine not approved by the European Medicines Agency.
  5. Fourthly, the disputed provisions do not relate to the conditions for obtaining documents allowing access to places, establishments or events, nor to whether or not a fee is charged for the acts giving rise to the issue of these documents.
  6. Finally, the verification of the possession of any of the documents necessary for access to places, establishments, services or events can only be carried out by law enforcement officials or the operators of these places, establishments, services or events. It can only be implemented on the basis of criteria that exclude discrimination of any kind between people.
  7. It follows from the foregoing that, subject to the reservation stated in the previous paragraph, the objection related to the violation of the principle of equality must be dismissed.
  8. It follows from all of the foregoing that, subject to the same reservation, the provisions of 2° of A and B of paragraph II of Article 1 of the Act of 31 May 2021, which do not infringe any other constitutional requirement, conform to the Constitution.
    . With regard to the obligations of verification imposed on operators and professionals:
  9. Paragraph I of Article 1 amends D of paragraph II of Article 1 of the Act of 31 May 2021 in order, in particular, to provide that, under threat of a penalty, the operator of a place or establishment or the professional responsible for an event is obliged to check that persons wishing to access it hold a "health pass".
  10. The applicant Senators and Members of Parliament maintain that these provisions infringe freedom of enterprise on the grounds that they impose on economic actors the obligation to control access to the premises they operate, which would require the mobilisation of significant human and material resources.
  11. The Senators who drafted the second referral criticise these provisions for providing for penalties that are disproportionate to the infringements for which these professionals are liable.
  • With regard to the objection that the right of free enterprise had been infringed:
  1. The legislator has the liberty to limit the freedom of enterprise, which derives from Article 4 of the Declaration of Human and Civic Rights of 1789, related to the constitutional requirements or requirements that are justified by the public interest, on condition that this does not result in disproportionate infringements in relation to the pursued objective.
  2. Firstly, by authorising the Prime Minister to make access to certain places, establishments, services or events subject to the presentation of a "health pass", the legislator intended to enable the public authorities to take measures to limit the spread of the Covid-19 epidemic and to ensure effective control of compliance. As such, the legislator has pursued the objective of constitutional value of the protection of health.
  3. Secondly, the disputed provisions are limited to requiring the operator of a place or establishment or the professional responsible for an event to verify that their clients hold a "health pass", in paper or digital form. While this may result in an additional burden on operators, the verification of each client's situation can be implemented in a short time.
  4. Therefore, by imposing such an obligation, the disputed provisions do not disproportionately infringe the freedom of enterprise.
  • With regard to the objection that the principle of proportionality of penalties had been infringed:
  1. According to Article 8 of the Declaration of Human and Civic Rights of 1789: "The Law must prescribe only the punishments that are strictly and evidently necessary; and no one may be punished except by virtue of a Law drawn up and promulgated before the offense is committed, and legally applied."
  2. Article 61 of the Constitution does not confer a general mandate for judgements to the Constitutional Council in a manner similar to that of Parliament. If the need for penalties attached to offences is within the legislator's judgement, it is up to the Constitutional Council to ensure that the penalty incurred is not manifestly disproportionate to the offence.
  3. Pursuant to subparagraph 3 of D of paragraph II of Article 1 of the Act of 31 May 2021, the operator of a place or establishment or the professional responsible for an event who does not verify the possession of a "health pass" by persons wishing to access it shall be given formal notice by the administrative authority, except in the case of an emergency or a one-off event, to comply with this obligation. This formal notice shall indicate the shortcomings observed and set a deadline, which may not exceed 24 (twenty-four) working hours, for the operator or professional to comply. If the formal notice is unsuccessful, the administrative authority may then order the administrative closure of the place, establishment or event for a maximum period of 7 (seven) days. However, the administrative closure measure is lifted if the operator or professional provides evidence of compliance with their obligations.
  4. The disputed provisions provide that, where a breach of duty, which has been the subject of a formal notice, is found on more than three occasions during a period of 45 (forty-five) days, the operator or professional may be sentenced to one year's imprisonment and to a fine of €9,000.
  5. Concerning the type of behaviour that is punished, the penalties instituted are not disproportionate to the offence.
  6. Consequently, the objection to the infringement of the principle of proportionality of penalties must be dismissed.
  7. Consequently, the last sentence of subparagraph 3 of D of paragraph II of Article 1 of the Act of 31 May 2021, which does not infringe any other constitutional requirements, conforms to the Constitution.
    . With regard to the obligations imposed on certain employees and public officials under the "health pass":
  8. Paragraph I of Article 1 rewrites the C of paragraph II of Article 1 of the Act of 31 May 2021 in order to determine the consequences for the employment relationship of the failure to present a "health pass" by an employee or public official required to do so in order to gain access to the place where he or she performs his or her duties.
  9. The applicant Members of Parliament criticise the legislator for having provided that failure to comply with this obligation would result in the suspension of the employment relationship, which would deprive the employee or public official of all income, without any time limit. They also criticise these provisions for providing a new ground for early termination applicable only to fixed-term contracts and assignment contracts. These provisions would thus infringe the right to employment, the principle of equality before the law and the principle of equal access to public employment.
  10. The Senators who drafted the fourth referral consider that these provisions, by not providing for compensation for the interruption of remuneration resulting from the suspension of the employment contract, would be judged as not acting fully within the competence of jurisdiction. They would also excessively and unjustifiably undermine the subparagraphs 5, 10, and 11 of the Preamble to the Constitution of 27 October 1946.
  11. Firstly, subparagraph 3 of 1 of C provides that the fixed-term or assignment contract of an employee who does not present the document, certificate or results required to obtain the "health pass" may be terminated before the contract's expiration, at the initiative of the employer, under the conditions provided for in Article L. 1232-1 of the Labour Code.
  12. It follows from the preparatory work that the legislator intended to exclude that failure to comply with the obligation to present the above-mentioned documents, certificates or results could constitute a true and genuine reason for dismissal of an employee with an open-ended contract.
  13. Employees on open-ended contracts and those on fixed-term or assignment contracts are in different situations.
  14. However, by introducing an obligation to present a "health pass" for employees working in certain places and establishments, the legislator intended to limit the spread of the Covid-19 epidemic. However, employees, whether they are on open-ended contracts, fixed-term contracts or assignment contracts, are all exposed to the same risk of infection with or transmission of the virus.
  15. Therefore, by providing that the failure to present a "health pass" constitutes a reason for the termination of fixed-term or assignment contracts only, the legislator has instituted a difference in treatment between employees according to the nature of their employment contract which is unrelated to the pursued objective.
  16. Consequently, and without needing to examine the other objections, subparagraph 19 of b of 1° of paragraph I of Article 1, which infringes the principle of equality before the law, is unconstitutional.
  17. According to subparagraph 5 of the Preamble of the Constitution of 1946: "Each person has the duty to work and the right to employment. No person may suffer prejudice in his work or employment by virtue of his origins, opinions or beliefs". According to subparagraph 11 of that same preamble, the Nation "shall guarantee to all, notably to children, mothers and elderly workers, protection of their health, material security, rest and leisure. All people who, by virtue of their age, physical or mental condition, or economic situation, are incapable of working, shall have to the right to receive suitable means of existence from society".
  18. Subparagraphs 1 and 2 of 1 of C, and 2 of the same C provide that when an employee or public official, who is obliged to do so, does not present a "health pass" and does not choose to use, with the agreement of his or her employer, conventional rest days or paid holidays, the latter shall notify him or her by any means, on the same day, as the case may be, of the suspension of his or her contract of employment or duties.
  19. As stated in paragraph 77, by adopting these provisions, the legislator intended to limit the spread of the Covid-19 epidemic. As such, the legislator has pursued the objective of constitutional value of the protection of health.
  20. On the one hand, the obligation to present a "health pass" is only imposed for the period between 30 August and 15 November 2021 and only for employees and public officials working in places, establishments, services or events to which access is subject to this obligation, when the seriousness of the risks of infection in connection with the exercise of the activities carried out there justifies it, in particular with regard to the observed or forecast population density.
  21. On the other hand, the suspension of the employment contract can only take place if the employee or public official does not present the results of a negative viral test, proof of vaccination status, or a certificate of recovery. If this suspension is accompanied by the interruption of the payment of remuneration, it ends as soon as the employee or public official produces the required documents.
  22. Lastly, when the suspension of the employment contract extends beyond a period equivalent to three days worked, the employer must summon the employee or public official to an interview in order to examine with him or her the means of regularising his or her situation, in particular the possibilities of assigning him or her, if necessary temporarily, to another position not subject to this obligation. If the person is an employee, this alternative position must be offered within the company.
  23. Consequently, the complaints alleging infringement of the aforementioned constitutional requirements must be dismissed.
  24. It follows from the foregoing that subparagraphs 1 and 2 of 1, and 2 of C of Article 1 of the Act of 31 May 2021, which are not judged as not acting fully within the competence of jurisdiction and which do not infringe either the principle of equality or the principle of equal access to public employment, or any other constitutional requirement, conform to the Constitution.
  • Concerning Article 2:
  1. Article 2 amends Article L. 824-9 of the Code for Entry and Residence of Foreigners and Right of Asylum (CESEDA), which makes it an offence for a foreigner to evade the enforcement of a removal order.
  2. The applicant Members of Parliament contend that this article has no place in the law referred for review, on the grounds that it was introduced in the first reading according to a procedure contrary to Article 45 of the Constitution.
  3. The Senators who drafted the second referral contend that these provisions infringe the right to health and the principle of human dignity. In their view, by providing for a prison sentence in the event of a foreigner's refusal to comply with the "health obligations necessary for the automatic execution of the measure", these provisions, which they criticise for being imprecise, could impose an obligation to be vaccinated, without taking into account any possible contraindications, or an obligation to have certain testing performed, even if painful or invasive. The applicant Members of Parliament also criticised these provisions for infringing the inviolability of the human body and introducing a disproportionate penalty, infringing Article 8 of the Declaration of Human and Civic Rights of 1789.
    . With regard to the place of Article 2 in the law referred for review:
  4. According to the last sentence of subparagraph 1 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 that infringe this rule of procedure as unconstitutional.
  5. The law referred for review has its origin in the bill submitted to the bureau of the National Assembly on 19 July 2021, the first assembly that received the referral. This bill had eleven articles divided into two chapters. Its first chapter contained general provisions designed to combat the Covid-19 epidemic, which extended the public health state of emergency declared in certain overseas territories and the system for managing the end of the public health state of emergency, modified the regulatory measures that could be taken under the latter system, as well as the provisions relating to the isolation of infected persons and adapted certain information systems accordingly. The second chapter contained provisions for mandatory vaccination against Covid-19 for certain professionals.
  6. Article 2 amends Article L. 824-9 of the Code for Entry and Residence of Foreigners and Right of Asylum (CESEDA) in order to make it an offence for a foreigner to refuse to comply with the health requirements necessary for the automatic enforcement of the removal order to which he or she is subject.
  7. Introduced at first reading, these provisions are not unrelated, at least indirectly, to Article 1 of the bill submitted to the bureau of the National Assembly, which modified certain obligations imposed on persons wishing to travel from France, Corsica or one of the communities mentioned in Article 72-3 of the Constitution. The objection to the infringement of subparagraph 1 of Article 45 of the Constitution must therefore be dismissed.
    . Regarding the merits:
  8. Firstly, the contested provisions punish with three years' imprisonment the refusal by a foreigner to comply with the health requirements necessary for the automatic enforcement of the removal order to which he or she is subject. The expression "health requirements", further detailed by the parliamentary proceedings, should be understood as tests for Covid-19. It is also up to the criminal court, when hearing proceedings ordered on the basis of these provisions, to verify the reality of the refusal of the foreigner being prosecuted and the intention of the person concerned to evade the automatic enforcement of the removal order. Subject to this reservation, these provisions do not infringe the principle of proportionality of penalties.
  9. Secondly, the Preamble of the Constitution of 1946 reaffirmed that all human beings, without distinction as to race, religion or belief, have inalienable and sacred rights. Safeguarding the dignity of the individual from all forms of servitude and degradation is one of these rights, and constitutes a principle with constitutional value.
  10. The obligation to submit to a Covid-19 test under the disputed provisions does not involve any procedure that infringes the physical integrity and dignity of persons. Consequently, they lack the characteristics of the objections made concerning the principle of safeguarding the dignity of the individual, and the inviolability of the human body.
  11. It follows from the foregoing that, subject to the reservation set out in paragraph 95, subparagraph 3 of Article L. 824-9 of the Code for Entry and Residence of Foreigners and Right of Asylum (CESEDA), which does not infringe any other constitutional requirement, conforms to the Constitution.
  • Concerning Article 8:
  1. Article 8 amends paragraph I of Article 11 of the above-mentioned Act of 11 May 2020 to extend the maximum retention period for certain health-related data processed and shared within the information systems implemented for the purpose of combating the Covid-19 epidemic.
  2. The applicant Members of Parliament consider that these provisions infringe the right to personal privacy, in that they allow an excessive period of time for the retention of health data of persons who have contracted the Covid-19 virus.
  3. The freedom declared by Article 2 of the Declaration of Human and Civic Rights of 1789 presupposes the right to personal privacy. As a result, the collection, recording, storage, consultation, and communication of personal data must be justified by a motive of public interest, and put in place in a manner that is appropriate and proportionate to this objective. When this concerns personal medical information, particular vigilance should be observed in carrying out these operations and the determination of the methods used for them.
  4. Article 11 of the Act of 11 May 2020 provides that, by way of derogation from the requirement set out in Article L. 1110-4 of the Public Health Code, and for the sole purpose of combating the spread of the Covid-19 epidemic, personal data relating to the health of people affected by this virus may be processed and shared within information systems.
  5. The disputed provisions extend from three to six months after collection the maximum retention period for health data relating to persons who have undergone a viral or serological test concluding that they are infected, in order to allow them to have viral proof of recent infection.
  6. Firstly, the Constitutional Council ruled that the provisions of Article 11 of the Act of 11 May 2020 establishing these information systems conformed to the Constitution, on the one hand, by the above-mentioned decision of 11 May 2020, for the reasons set out in its paragraphs 63 to 75 and subject to the reservations set out in its paragraphs 67, 73 and 74, and, on the other hand, by the above-mentioned decision of 13 November 2020, for the reasons set out in its paragraphs 21 and 22.
  7. Secondly, the information systems authorised by this same Article 11 may not be implemented beyond the time strictly necessary to combat the spread of the Covid-19 epidemic or, at the latest, until 31 December 2021.
  8. It follows from the foregoing that, subject to the same reservations noted for paragraphs 73 and 74 of the decision of 11 May 2020, the disputed provisions do not violate the right to personal privacy.
  9. Consequently, with these reservations, the second sentence of subparagraph 3 of paragraph I of Article 11 of the Act of 11 May 2020, which does not infringe any other constitutional requirements, conforms to the Constitution.
  • Concerning Article 9:
  1. Article 9 creates an isolation measure applicable as of right to persons testing positive for Covid-19.
  2. The Senators who drafted the first appeal ask the Constitutional Council to rule on the conformity of these provisions with the freedom of movement and the right to personal privacy.
  3. According to the applicant Members of Parliament, by providing that persons testing positive for Covid-19 are "obliged to place themselves" in isolation and that they may be subject to controls in the event of "suspicion of non-compliance with the measure", these provisions fail, firstly, to comply with the objective of constitutional value of the intelligibility and clarity of the law, because of their ambiguity. They contend, on the same grounds, that the legislator has disregarded the scope of their competence. Lastly, they contend that these provisions would infringe the right to effective legal protection guaranteed by Article 16 of the Declaration of Human and Civic Rights of 1789 because of the material impossibility for the judges for liberty and detention to examine the numerous appeals that might be brought before them.
  4. According to Article 66 of the Constitution: "No one shall be arbitrarily detained. - The Judicial Authority, guardian of the freedom of the individual, shall ensure compliance with this principle in the conditions laid down by statute." Individual freedom, which the judicial authority is charged with protecting, should not be impeded by unnecessary rigour. The infringement to the exercise of this freedom must be appropriate, necessary, and proportional to the pursued objectives.
  5. The contested provisions provide that, until 15 November 2021 and for the sole purpose of combating the spread of the Covid-19 epidemic, any person testing positive for Covid-19 is required to isolate themselves for a non-renewable period of ten days. In this context, the person is forbidden to leave their accommodation, under penalty of criminal sanction.
  6. This placement in isolation applies, except between 10 a.m. and 12 p.m., in case of emergency or for strictly necessary travel, and constitutes a deprivation of liberty.
  7. By adopting these provisions, the legislator has pursued the objective of constitutional value of the protection of health.
  8. However, the disputed provisions provide that any person who is notified of positive Covid-19 test results must, under threat of a criminal penalty, isolate themselves for a period of ten days, without any assessment being made of his or her personal situation.
  9. However, on the one hand, this obligation is only made known to him or her by means of the information communicated to him or her at the time of the test. On the other hand, the objective pursued by the disputed provisions is not such as to justify the application of such a custodial measure without an individual decision based on an assessment by the administrative or judicial authority.
  10. Therefore, although the person isolating themselves can request an adjustment of the conditions of their self-isolation a posteriori from the representative of the State in the department or request its release before the judge for liberties and detention, the disputed provisions do not guarantee that the custodial measure they institute is necessary, appropriate and proportionate.
  11. Consequently, without having to examine the other objections, Article 9 is unconstitutional.
  12. The same applies, by way of consequence, to 1° of Article 7 of the law referred for review, which completes paragraph II of Article 11 of the Act of 11 May 2020 with a 6°, which is inseparable from it.
  • Concerning certain provisions of Article 14:
  1. A of paragraph I of Article 14 determines the conditions under which persons subject to a vaccination obligation pursuant to Article 12 may continue to exercise their activity from the day after the publication of the Act until 14 September 2021.
  2. The Senators who submitted the fourth referral, who do not dispute the vaccination requirement, argue that these provisions would constitute a manifestly excessive infringement of personal freedom of movement, right of free enterprise and the right to employment.
  3. It follows from the very terms of these provisions, which provide for a gradual entry into force of the vaccination obligation, that professionals subject to this obligation may, until 14 September 2021, continue to exercise their activity subject to presenting either a certificate of vaccination status, or a certificate of recovery, or a medical certificate of contraindication to vaccination, or failing that, proof of the administration of the doses of vaccine required by regulation or negative viral screening test results.
  4. Consequently, by adopting the disputed provisions, the legislator, who pursued the objective of constitutional value of the protection of health, did not infringe the right to employment or the right of free enterprise.
  5. It follows from the foregoing that A of paragraph I of Article 14, which does not infringe the freedom of movement or any other constitutional requirement, conforms to the Constitution.
  • Concerning the other provisions:
  1. The Constitutional Council has not systematically raised any 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 law on the management of the public health state of emergency are unconstitutional:
  • subparagraph 19 of b of 1° of paragraph I of Article 1;
  • 1° of Article 7;
  • Article 9.
    Article 2. - Subject to the reservations specified below, the following provisions conform to the Constitution:
  • subject to the reservation set out in paragraph 54, 2° of A and B of paragraph II of Article 1 of Act No 2021-689 of 31 May 2021 on the management of the end of the public health state of emergency, in its formulation resulting from Article 1 of the law referred for review;
  • subject to the reservation set out in paragraph 95, subparagraph 3 of Article L. 824-9 of the Code for Entry and Residence of Foreigners and Right of Asylum (CESEDA), in the version resulting from Article 2 of the same law;
  • subject to the reservation set out in paragraph 106, the second sentence of subparagraph 3 of paragraph I of Article 11 of Act No 2020-546 of 11 May 2020 on extending the public health state of emergency, in its formulation resulting from Article 8 of the law referred for review;
    Article 3. - The following provisions conform to the Constitution:
  • paragraphs III and IV of Article 3 of the Act of 31 May 2021, in its formulation resulting from Article 1 of the law referred for review;
  • the words "15 November 2021" appearing in subparagraph 1 of paragraph I of Article 1 of the Act of 31 May 2021, in its formulation resulting from Article 1 of the law referred for review;
  • 2° of A and B of paragraph II of Article 1 of the Act of 31 May 2021, in its formulation resulting from Article 1 of the law referred for review;
  • subparagraphs 1 and 2 of 1, and 2 of C of paragraph II of Article 1 of the Act of 31 May 2021, in its formulation resulting from Article 1 of the law referred for review;
  • the last sentence of subparagraph 3 of D of paragraph II of Article 1 of the Act of 31 May 2021, in its formulation resulting from Article 1 of the law referred for review;
  • A of paragraph I of Article 14 of the same law.
    Ruled by the Constitutional Council in its 5 August 2021 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 5 August 2021.
À voir aussi sur le site : Communiqué de presse, Commentaire, Dossier documentaire, Législation consolidée, Texte adopté, Saisine par Premier ministre, Saisine par 60 sénateurs, Saisine par 60 sénateurs, Saisine par 60 députés, Observations du Gouvernement, Réplique par 60 sénateurs, Contributions extérieures, Dossier législatif AN, Dossier législatif Sénat, Références doctrinales.