THE CONSTITUTIONAL COUNCIL RECEIVED A REFERRAL, under the conditions provided for in the second paragraph of Article 61 of the Constitution, of the law containing various provisions on public health surveillance, under no. 2021-828 DC, on 5 November 2021, by Damien ABAD, Emmanuelle ANTHOINE, Julien AUBERT, Nathalie BASSIRE, Thibault BAZIN, Valérie BAZIN-MALGRAS, Valérie BEAUVAIS, Philippe BENASSAYA, Anne-Laure BLIN, Sandra BOËLLE, Émilie BONNIVARD, Jean-Yves BONY, Ian BOUCARD, Bernard BOULEY, Jean-Luc BOURGEAUX, Xavier BRETON, Fabrice BRUN, Gilles CARREZ, Jacques CATTIN, Gérard CHERPION, Dino CINIERI, Éric CIOTTI, Pierre CORDIER, Josiane CORNELOUP, Bernard DEFLESSELLES, Rémi DELATTE, Vincent DESCOEUR, Fabien DI FILIPPO, Éric DIARD, Julien DIVE, Jean-Pierre DOOR, Marianne DUBOIS, Virginie DUBY-MULLER, Pierre-Henri DUMONT, Nicolas FORISSIER, Claude DE GANAY, Jean-Jacques GAULTIER, Annie GENEVARD, Philippe GOSSELIN, Jean-Carles GRELIER, Victor HABERT-DASSAULT, Yves HEMEDINGER, Michel HERBILLON, Patrick HETZEL, Sébastien HUYGHE, Christian JACOB, Mansour KAMARDINE, Brigitte KUSTER, Marc LE FUR, Constance LE GRIP, Geneviève LEVY, David LORION, Véronique LOUWAGIE, Emmanuel MAQUET, Olivier MARLEIX, Gérard MENUEL, Frédérique MEUNIER, Maxime MINOT, Jérôme NURY, Éric PAUGET, Bernard PERRUT, Christelle PETEX-LEVET, Nathalie PORTE, Aurélien PRADIÉ, Didier QUENTIN, Alain RAMADIER, Julien RAVIER, Robin REDA, Jean-Luc REITZER, Vincent ROLLAND, Antoine SAVIGNAT, Raphaël SCHELLENBERGER, Jean-Marie SERMIER, Nathalie SERRE, Robert THERRY, Jean-Louis THIÉRIOT, Laurence TRASTOUR-ISNART, Isabelle VALENTIN, Pierre VATIN, Charles de la VERPILLIÈRE, Jean-Pierre VIGIER and Stéphane VIRY, Members of Parliament.
It also received a referral on the same day, from Valérie RABAULT, Mathilde PANOT, André CHASSAIGNE, Bertrand PANCHER, Joël AVIRAGNET, Marie-Noëlle BATTISTEL, Gisèle BIÉMOURET, Jean-Louis BRICOUT, Alain DAVID, Laurence DUMONT, Lamia EL AARAJE, Olivier FAURE, Guillaume GAROT, Christian HUTIN, Chantal JOURDAN, Régis JUANICO, Marietta KARAMANLI, Jérôme LAMBERT, Gérard LESEUL, Josette MANIN, Philippe NAILLET, Christine PIRES BEAUNE, Dominique POTIER, Claudia ROUAUX, Isabelle SANTIAGO, Hervé SAULIGNAC, Sylvie TOLMONT, Cécile UNTERMAIER, Hélène VAINQUEUR-CHRISTOPHE, Boris VALLAUD Boris VALLAUD, Michèle VICTORY, Moetai BROTHERSON, Manuéla KÉCLARD-MONDÉSIR, Karine LEBON, Jean-Philippe NILOR, Alain BRUNEEL, Marie-George BUFFET, Pierre DHARRÉVILLE, Jean-Paul DUFRÈGNE, Elsa FAUCILLON, Sébastien JUMEL, Jean-Paul LECOQ, Stéphane PEU, Fabien ROUSSEL, Hubert WULFRANC, Clémentine AUTAIN, Ugo BERNALICIS, Éric COQUEREL, Alexis CORBIÈRE, Caroline FIAT, Bastien LACHAUD, Michel LARIVE, Jean-Luc MÉLENCHON, Danièle OBONO, Loïc PRUD'HOMME, Adrien QUATENNENS, Jean-Hugues RATENON, Muriel RESSIGUIER, Sabine RUBIN, François RUFFIN, Bénédicte TAURINE, Jean-Félix ACQUAVIVA, Michel CASTELLANI, Jean-Michel CLÉMENT, Paul-André COLOMBANI, Charles de COURSON, Jeanine DUBIÉ, Frédérique DUMAS, Olivier FALORNI, François-Michel LAMBERT, Jean LASSALLE, Paul MOLAC, Sylvia PINEL, Sébastien NADOT and Jennifer de TEMMERMAN, and on 8 November 2021, by Émilie CARIOU, Matthieu ORPHELIN and Aurélien TACHÉ, Members of Parliament.
It also received a referral on the same day from Bruno RETAILLEAU, Pascal ALLIZARD, Jean-Claude ANGLARS, Jean-Michel ARNAUD, Serge BABARY, Jean BACCI, Philippe BAS, Jérôme BASCHER, Arnaud BAZIN, Bruno BELIN, Nadine BELLUROT, Catherine BELRHITI, Annick BILLON, Étienne BLANC, Jean-Baptiste BLANC, Christine BONFANTI-DOSSAT, Bernard BONNE, François BONNEAU, Michel BONNUS, Alexandra BORCHIO FONTIMP, Gilbert BOUCHET, Céline BOULAY-ESPÉRONNIER, Toine BOURRAT, Valérie BOYER, Max BRISSON, François-Noël BUFFET, Laurent BURGOA, Alain CADEC, François CALVET, Christian CAMBON, Agnès CANAYER, Jean-Noël CARDOUX, Alain CAZABONNE, Anne CHAIN-LARCHÉ, Patrick CHAIZE, Pierre CHARON, Alain CHATILLON, Marie-Christine CHAUVIN, Guillaume CHEVROLLIER, Marta de CIDRAC, Pierre CUYPERS, Laure DARCOS, Mathieu DARNAUD, Vincent DELAHAYE, Annie DELMONT-KOROPOULIS, Chantal DESEYNE, Brigitte DEVÉSA, Catherine DI FOLCO, Sabine DREXLER, Catherine DUMAS, Françoise DUMONT, Dominique ESTROSI SASSONE, Jacqueline EUSTACHE-BRINIO, Gilbert FAVREAU, Françoise FÉRAT, Bernard FOURNIER, Christophe-André FRASSA, Fabien GENET, Frédérique GERBAUD, Béatrice GOSSELIN, Nathalie GOULET, Sylvie GOY-CHAVENT, Daniel GREMILLET, Pascale GRUNY, Charles GUENÉ, Daniel GUERET, Jocelyne GUIDEZ, Olivier HENNO, Loïc HERVÉ, Alain HOUPERT, Jean-Raymond HUGONET, Jean-François HUSSON, Corinne IMBERT, Else JOSEPH, Muriel JOURDA, Roger KAROUTCHI, Claude KERN, Christian KLINGER, Laurent LAFON, Marc LAMÉNIE, Florence LASSARADE, Daniel LAURENT, Christine LAVARDE, Antoine LEFÈVRE, Pierre-Antoine LEVI, Dominique de LEGGE, Stéphane LE RUDULIER, Brigitte LHERBIER, Vivette LOPEZ, Viviane MALET, Didier MANDELLI, Hervé MARSEILLE, Hervé MAUREY, Marie MERCIER, Sébastien MEURANT, Brigitte MICOULEAU, Catherine MORIN-DESAILLY, Philippe MOUILLER, Laurence MULLER-BRONN, Louis-Jean de NICOLAŸ, Sylviane NOËL, Jean-Jacques PANUNZI, Philippe PAUL, Cyril PELLEVAT, Cédric PERRIN, Kristina PLUCHET, Sophie PRIMAS, Sonia de la PROVÔTÉ, Frédérique PUISSAT, Isabelle RAIMOND-PAVERO, Jean-François RAPIN, André REICHARDT, Olivier RIETMANN, Bruno ROJOUAN, Hugues SAURY, Stéphane SAUTAREL, René-Paul SAVARY, Michel SAVIN, Elsa SCHALCK, Bruno SIDO, Jean SOL, Laurent SOMON, Philippe TABAROT, Claudine THOMAS, Dominique VÉRIEN and Cédric VIAL, Senators.
Lastly it received a referral on the same day from Patrick KANNER, Éliane 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, Vincent ÉBLÉ, Frédérique ESPAGNAC, 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, Éric KERROUCHE, Annie LE HOUEROU, Jean-Yves LECONTE, Jean-Jacques LOZACH, Monique LUBIN, Victorin LUREL, 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, Sabine VAN HEGHE, Yannick VAUGRENARD, Yan CHANTREL, Cathy APOURCEAU-POLY, Jérémy BACCHI, Éric BOCQUET, Céline BRULIN, Laurence COHEN, Cécile CUKIERMAN, Fabien GAY, Michelle GRÉAUME, Gérard LAHELLEC, Pierre LAURENT, Marie-Noëlle LIENEMANN, Pierre OUZOULIAS, Pascal SAVOLDELLI, Marie-Claude VARAILLAS, Guy BENARROCHE, Thomas DOSSUS, Jacques FERNIQUE, Joël LABBÉ, Monique de MARCO, Paul Toussaint PARIGI, Raymonde PONCET, Daniel SALMON, Sophie TAILLÉ-POLIAN and Mélanie VOGEL, Senators.
On 5 November 2021, the Prime Minister asked the Constitutional Council to rule according to the emergency procedure provided for in the third section of Article 61 of the Constitution.
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 Public Health Code;
- Act No. 2020-290 of 23 March 2020 on emergency measures for responding to the Covid-19 epidemic;
- 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 relating to managing the end of the public health state of emergency;
- Constitutional Council decisions 2020-800 DC of 11 May 2020, 2020-808 DC of 13 November 2020, 2021-819 DC of 31 May 2021 and 2021-824 DC of 5 August 2021;
Having regard to the observations of the Government, registered on 7 November 2021;
And after having heard the rapporteur;
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COUNCIL DECIDED THAT:
- The applicant Members of Parliament and Senators referred the law containing various public health surveillance provisions to the Constitutional Council. They oppose certain provisions of its Article 2, and its Article 9. The applicant Members of Parliament also oppose certain provisions of its Article 1. The Senators who submitted the third referral also oppose its Article 6 and certain provisions of its Articles 13 and 14.
- Concerning Article 1:
- Article 1 of the law referred for review extends the period of the legal framework organising the public health state of emergency regime to 31 July 2022.
- The applicant Members of Parliament are challenging the constitutionality of this extension, maintaining that said extension would allow for the implementation of measures which, in terms of public health needs and the presidential and legislative elections scheduled to be held during the given period, would pose a disproportionate infringement on rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution, including the freedom of movement, the right to personal privacy, the right of free enterprise, and the freedom of expression and communication. According to the applicant Members of Parliament in the first referral, it would also result in the legislator being judged as not acting fully within the competence of jurisdiction, and an infringement on the principle of the separation of powers.
- According to the eleventh section 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.
- The Constitution does not exclude the possibility for the legislator to provide for a public health state of emergency regime. 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.
- Article 7 of the aforementioned Act of 23 March 2020 provides that these provisions, organising the legal framework of the public health state of emergency, are in force until 31 December 2021. The disputed provisions merely postpone the ending date to 31 July 2022. They have neither the purpose nor the effect of declaring the public health state of emergency itself or extending the term of its application.
- Even so, such an emergency can only be declared, as provided for in Article L. 3131-12 of the Public Health Code, “in the case of a public health catastrophe that puts the population's health in danger due to its serious nature.” It is then declared by decree in the Council of Ministers, which can be challenged before the administrative court. Furthermore, this state of emergency, after a delay of one month, can only be extended by a law that sets the duration, after the issue of an opinion by the committee of scientific experts, provided for by Article L. 3131-19 of the same code. This law may be subject to review by the Constitutional Council.
- On the other hand, in the event of the implementation of a public health state of emergency, the measures that may be taken by the regulatory power may only be taken for the sole purpose of guaranteeing public health. 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 the measures are appropriate, necessary, and proportionate to the result they are pursuing.
- Consequently, the legislator, without disregarding the scope of their competence or any other constitutional requirement, was able to maintain the legal framework organising the public health state of emergency until 31 July 2022.
- Consequently, the words “31 July 2022” appearing in Article 7 of the Act of 23 March 2020 as well as in 5° of Article L. 3821-11 and in the first section of Article L. 3841-2 of the Public Health Code conform to the Constitution.
- Concerning certain provisions of Article 2:
- Article 2 of the law referred for review amends Article 1 of the aforementioned Act of 31 May 2021 in order to extend the period during which the Prime Minister may take certain measures in the interest of public health and for the sole purpose of combating the spread of the Covid-19 epidemic until 31 July 2022, as well as to make access to certain places, establishments, services or events subject to the presentation of a “health pass”.
- The applicant Members of Parliament and Senators maintain that, by extending the application of the regime for managing the end of the public health state of emergency for a duration of eight months when the public health context does not justify such an extension and that Parliament cannot intervene again during this period, the disputed provisions create an unbalanced reconciliation between the constitutional objective of the protection of health and the rights and freedoms likely to be affected. According to the applicant Members of Parliament and Senators, this results in a violation of the freedom of movement and the right to personal privacy.
- The Members of Parliament who submitted the first referral stated that this would also result in an infringement of the right of free enterprise and the separation of powers, and the Senators who submitted the third referral argued that the right to have a normal family life would be infringed. Finally, the applicant Members of Parliament and the Senators who filed the fourth referral argue that this would result in an infringement of the right of collective expression of ideas and opinions on the grounds that the regulatory measures permitted by this regime could affect the conduct of the presidential and legislative elections to be held by 31 July 2022.
- The legislator must ensure the reconciliation between the 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.
- Firstly, by providing for the extension of the regime 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. They considered, particularly in light of the opinion of 6 October 2021 of the committee of scientific experts provided for in Article L. 3131-19 of the Public Health Code, that a significant risk of the epidemic spreading nationwide would persist until 31 July 2022. 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, as soon as, as in this case, this evaluation is not, to current knowledge, clearly inadequate concerning the current situation.
- Secondly, under the terms of the first section 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 regime 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.
- On the other hand, while these measures can be taken during the election period, the presentation of the “health pass” cannot be required for access to polling stations or to political meetings and activities. Furthermore, in accordance with paragraph V of this same Article 1, they may be subject to a summary judgement (référé-liberté in French) to ensure that the regulatory authority respects the right of collective expression of ideas and opinions.
- It follows from the foregoing that the disputed provisions provide a balanced reconciliation between the 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.
- In addition, paragraph VI of Article 1 of the Act of 31 May 2021 provides that Parliament shall be informed without delay of the measures taken by the Government, which is required to submit, in particular, on 15 February 2022 and then on 15 May 2022, a report setting out these measures as well as the reasons for maintaining, where appropriate, some of the measures taken and the guidelines for its action to combat the spread of the Covid-19 epidemic. This report may be debated in the standing committee or in a public session.
- Finally, the disputed provisions have neither the object nor the effect of depriving Parliament of its right to meet under the conditions laid down in Articles 28 and 29 of the Constitution, to control the action of the Government and to legislate.
- Consequently, the words “31 July 2022” appearing in the first section of paragraph I and in the A of paragraph II of Article 1 of the Act of 31 May 2021, which do not infringe the separation of powers and do not disregard any other constitutional requirement, conform to the Constitution.
- Concerning Article 6:
- Article 6 amends paragraph I of Article 11 of the aforementioned Act of 11 May 2020, relating to information systems implemented to combat the Covid-19 epidemic, in order to extend its application.
- The Senators who filed the third referral criticise these provisions for prolonging the collection and processing of medical data for an excessively long period. As a result, these provisions infringe on the right to personal privacy.
- 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 general 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.
- Article 11 of the Act of 11 May 2020 organises the conditions in which the data relating to the persons infected with the virus that causes Covid-19, and the persons that are in contact with them, are processed and shared through an ad hoc information system, if necessary without their consent. The disputed provisions extend the application of these provisions until 31 July 2022.
- Firstly, the legislator considered that a significant risk of the epidemic spreading would persist until that date. For the reasons mentioned in paragraph 15, this assessment is not, to current knowledge, clearly inadequate.
- Secondly, the Constitutional Council ruled that the provisions of Article 11 of the Act of 11 May 2020 instituting these information systems conform with the Constitution, subject to certain reservations, in its aforementioned decisions of 11 May 2020, 13 November 2020, 31 May 2021 and 5 August 2021.
- Consequently, the disputed provisions do not infringe on the right to personal privacy.
- Consequently, the words “31 July 2022” appearing in the first section of paragraph I of Article 11 of the Act of 11 May 2020, which do not infringe any other constitutional requirement, conform to the Constitution.
- Concerning Article 9:
- Article 9 allows school directors to access and process medical information on pupils.
- The Members of Parliament who submitted the first referral contend firstly that the procedure for adopting these provisions infringed Article 39 of the Constitution. In their view, by not including them in the initial bill, the Government had circumvented its obligations to present an impact assessment and to seek the opinion of the Conseil d'État.
- The applicant Members of Parliament and Senators also consider that these provisions infringe the right to personal privacy. They consider that the derogation from medical secrecy that they introduce and the authorisation for processing that they grant are not limited by sufficient guarantees as to the determination of the persons likely to have access to these personal data, the protection of the said data and the objectives pursued, while the data in question are particularly sensitive and relate to persons who are mostly minors.
- For the same reasons, the Senators who submitted the third referral argue that Article 9 is also judged as not acting fully within the competence of jurisdiction.
- Finally, according to the Members of Parliament who submitted the first referral, these provisions would be likely to lead to a breach of equality between pupils in their access to education, depending on their vaccination status.
- The freedom declared by Article 2 of the Declaration of Human and Civic Rights of 1789 presupposes the right to personal privacy. It follows from this right that the collection, recording, storage, consultation, and communication of personal data must be justified by a motive of general 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.
- The first section of Article 9 provides that, by way of derogation from the requirement laid down in Article L. 1110-4 of the Public Health Code, the directors of primary and secondary schools may have access to medical information relating to pupils, for a period not exceeding the end of the current school year. The second section authorises them to process the data thus collected for the purpose of facilitating the organisation of screening and vaccination campaigns and organising teaching conditions to prevent the risk of the virus spreading.
- By adopting these provisions, the legislator intended to combat the Covid-19 epidemic through the implementation of health protocols in schools. As such, the legislator has pursued the objective of constitutional value of the protection of health.
- However, in the first place, the disputed provisions allow access not only to the virological and vaccination status of pupils, but also to the existence of contacts with contaminated persons, as well as the processing of such data, without obtaining the prior consent of the pupils concerned or, if they are minors, of their legal representatives.
- Secondly, these provisions authorise access to and processing of such data both by the directors of primary and secondary schools and by “persons whom they specially authorise for this purpose”. The medical information in question is therefore likely to be communicated to a large number of people, whose authorisation is not subject to any criteria or guarantees regarding the protection of medical confidentiality.
- Lastly, by merely providing that the processing of such data makes it possible to organise teaching conditions to prevent the risk of the virus spreading, the legislator has not defined the purposes of these provisions with sufficient precision.
- It follows from the foregoing that these provisions pose a disproportionate infringement on the right to personal privacy.
- Consequently, without having to examine the other objections, Article 9 must be declared unconstitutional.
- On certain provisions of Articles 13 and 14:
- The third section of Article 13 empowers the Government, until 31 July 2022, to take, by ordinance, any measure falling within the scope of the law aimed at re-establishing, adapting or completing certain provisions of the Labour Code. The fourth to seventh sections of Article 13 specify the conditions under which such ordinances may be issued.
- Paragraph I of Article 14 also empowers the Government, until the same date, to take, by ordinance, measures to adapt the provisions relating to reduced activity to maintain employment.
- The Senators who submitted the third referral consider that the procedure for adopting these provisions infringes Article 38 of the Constitution. According to them, the latter, adopted at first reading by the National Assembly and then deleted by the Senate, could not be reinstated at new reading by parliamentary amendments.
- According to the first section of Article 38 of the Constitution: “In order to implement its programme, the Government may ask Parliament for authorisation, for a limited period, to take measures by Ordinance that are normally the preserve of statute law.” It follows from this provision that only the Government can ask Parliament for authorisation to issue such ordinances.
- However, the disputed provisions, some of which were introduced by the initial bill and others by government amendments, were deleted at first reading and reinstated at the new reading by means of parliamentary amendments. They were therefore not adopted at the request of the Government.
- As a result, these provisions were adopted according to a procedure that did not meet the requirements of Article 38 of the Constitution.
- Consequently, the third to fifth sections, the words “ordinances and the” in the sixth section and the seventh section of Article 13 as well as paragraph I of Article 14 are unconstitutional.
- Concerning the other provisions:
- Paragraph III of Article 14 empowers the Government to take measures by ordinance relating to the operation of general meetings of co-owners.
- Adopted under the same conditions, these provisions, for the same reasons as those set out in paragraphs 47 and 48, are unconstitutional. Consequently, the same applies to the provisions of paragraph IV, which are inseverable from it.
- 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 law on various public health surveillance provisions are unconstitutional:
- Article 9;
- the third to fifth sections, the words “ordinances and the” in the sixth section, and the seventh section of Article 13;
- paragraphs I, III and IV of Article 14.
Article 2. - The following provisions conform to the Constitution: - the words “31 July 2022” appearing in Article 7 of Act No. 2020-290 of 23 March 2020 on emergency measures for responding to the Covid-19 epidemic as well as in 5° of Article L. 3821-11 and the first section of Article L. 3841-2 of the Public Health Code, in their wording resulting from Article 1 of the law referred for review;
- the words “31 July 2022” appearing in the first section of paragraph I and in A of paragraph II of Article 1 of Act No. 2021-689 of 31 May 2021 relating to managing the end of the public health state of emergency, in its wording resulting from Article 2 of the law referred for review;
- the words “31 July 2022” appearing in the first section of paragraph I of Article 11 of Act No. 2020-546 of 11 May 2020 extending the public health state of emergency and rounding out its provisions, in its wording resulting from Article 6 of the law referred for review.
Article 3. - This decision shall be published in the Journal Officiel of the French Republic.
Ruled by the Constitutional Council in its 9 November 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 9 November 2021.