TTL 30 09 15 Law

(2015) 2 LAW
RNI No. APENG/2005/18975
Annual Subscription Rs. 1200/-
ISSN 2277 8829
A world law fortnightly published from Hyderabad, India.
Editor: I. Mallikarjuna Sharma

ADVISORS: B.P. Jeevan Reddy (Former Judge, Supreme Court of India),
R.V.R. Chandrasekhara Rao (Politics Professor), K. Subba Rao (Senior Advocate, Bangalore),
Umesh Chandra (Senior Advocate, Lucknow), Ravi Kiran Jain (Senior Advocate, Allahabad),
Sagar Dhara (Engineer, Hyderabad), Dr. Koenraad Elst (Indologist, Belgium)
Volume 11: Part 2

CONTENTS
1. All Fundamentalism Despicable
1
2. On Inclusive Growth
2
3. Autobiography of Martyr
3-4
Ramprasad Bismil (11)
4. The importance of Professor
Kalburgi, Chandan Gowda
5
5. Dont Appease the
Iranian Regime!
6
6. In Re: Law on Intelligence
(Surveillance) [FR-CC]
7-37
7. In Re: Law prohibiting
cultivation of genetically
modified maize [FR-CC]
38-40
8. In Re: Law on transition to
streamlined energy [FR-CC] 41-49
9. In Re: Law on immigration,
integration & citizenship [FR-CC] 50-66
10. Case of Mr. Ahmed S.

(Revocation of citizenship) [FR-CC] 66-70
11. Bin Laden killing: American

Lies exposed by Seymour
Hersh, Niles Williamson
71-72
12. U.S. to use al Qaeda to
take Syria, Tony Cartalucci 73-74
13. Sustainable Development:
Forests critical, Marco Albani 75
14. Poems, Dante Allegheri
76
Editorial Office: 6-3-1243/156,
M.S. Makta, Opposite Raj Bhavan,
HYDERABAD - 500 082.
Ph: 23300284; E-mail: mani.bal44@gmail.com
Processing: Sai Likhita Printers,
Hyderabad (Ph: 65545979); Printed at
Pragati Offset Pvt. Ltd., Red Hills,
Hyderabad - 500 004. (Ph: 23380000)
Annual Subscription: Rs. 1200/Abroad: $ 180 (postage extra)
Life Subscription:
Rs. 12,000/-
Please donate Rs. 50/- or more.
30 September 2015
No. 18
ALL FUNDAMENTALISM DESPICABLE

Protesting Dadri Lynching
Jihadi John
beheading
Steven Sotloff
Prof. Kalburgi
Maha or Rudra Kali
Anti-cowslaughter pic
Courtesy: www.hindustantimes.com
Wailing kins of Dadri victim
Ya, not only bad but utterly despicable and vehemently condemnable. And
good or bad, the word fundamentalism is used nowadays only in the
pejorative sense but not in any positive sense of imbibing the best values in
the fundamentals of a religion/system, and so here too it is used in that
sense only. If I am sick at some religious fundamentalist beheading an
enemy and exhibiting that on YouTube even, how can I be enamored by
and worshipful towards a goddess who not only beheads the enemies
but even flaunts a necklace of the cut-off heads? Because human sacrifices
were not only permitted but also revered in many religious systems in the
past and also cannibalism was prevalent in many tribes of the past and in
the lore of the past [Bheema drinking the blood of Dusshasana!], can we
condone or tolerate such things in the modern times? Obviously NOT! Of
course, this would extend to condemning all animal sacrifices in the public
too, though to condemn all animal slaughter may be too ahead of the day,
since a majority of population, for good or bad, is non-vegetarian.
However, it may be pointed out that in these times of scientific,
technological revolution non-non-veg substitutes for non-veg foods are also
coming out and tomorrow those may be the craze of the day and vanquish
all animal killings even. That would be in conformity with non-cruelty and
empathy with all living species. Wait, would the censure then extend to
vegetarianism too since it is said trees and rocks may revolt saying we too
have life! Frankly, I donno. Well, halting here, there is nothing wrong in
any laws for banning/regulating cow/cattle slaughter in our country as it
would be in right consonance with Article 48 of our Constitution. But
would it extend to a total beef ban? No, not at present or in foreseeable
future, and certainly even if banned, it would not be an offence punishable
with death. So there the fundamentalists are again on the wrong and, also,
dont they know that the biggest beef exporters in India are Hindus?! Can
anyone say killing and exporting meat of cows/cattle is OK, but killing and
eating that here is bad? Then, another question arises as to whether
expressing ideas about goods or bads of cow-slaughter, etc. is also
blasphemy and fit to be banned. Whether asking if a prophet was really a
prophet and whether he really hailed from a high caste or whether he was
in fact a Hindu or outside the pale of Hinduism should be suppressed?
Then, why Prof. Kalburgi was silenced by a roaring gun?
1
NOTE: The opinions and comments in the editorials are exclusively the Editors and
need not necessarily reflect the approval or consent of all or any of the
editorial advisors or of the publisher even - IMS.
shot dead
//www.deccanherald.com/
(2015) 2 LAW
INCLUSIVE GROWTH : HOW CAN WE ACHIEVE?

- Klaus Schwab & Richard Samans
economic
growth
and
There is no bigger
policy
challenge
preoccupying
leaders
around the world than
expanding participation
in
the
benefits
of
globalization. Indeed, a
twentieth century, when especially in the

decades following the Great Depression most of
todays advanced industrialized countries
underwent a sustained process of institutional
deepening that broadened the base and
strengthened the resilience of their economies.
Reforms targeting labor policy, the investment climate,
social insurance, competition, education, and
infrastructure created a more inclusive and more
sustainable growth model by spreading purchasing
power
geographically
and
ideologically
diverse
consensus has emerged that a new or at least
much improved model of economic
development will be required if truly greater
inclusiveness is to be achieved.
Unfortunately, this political consensus has
remained aspirational, rather than prescriptive at
least up to now. Policymakers have yet to
develop an internationally recognized policy
framework to guide countries targeting broadbased improvements in living standards, rather
than simply continuing to use GDP growth as the
bottom-line measure of economic performance.
The extent to which growth creates opportunities
It is a lesson that needs relearning today, as the

world economy continues to struggle to find a
more solid foundation for growth and escape the
shadow of the 2008-2009 crisis. Adopting a more
socially inclusive model of growth and development will
require widening the lens through which priorities are
set when shaping national economic strategies.
Appropriate policies regarding macroeconomics, trade,
and financial stability will remain crucial to establishing
the basic conditions for the efficient allocation of
resources underpinning growth. But such policies are
only part of the solution.
and improves living standards depends on an array of

structural and institutional economic policies, including
many in areas outside of education and redistribution
The Inclusive Growth and Development

Report 2015 from The World Economic Forum,
has identified 15 domains that are important for
promoting social inclusion that include educational
opportunity and performance, the relationship
between productivity and wage growth, the
concentration of economic rents, etc. and also
include areas not traditionally considered as
equality-enhancing but that are just as important
as education or redistribution for improving
living standards. There is no single ideal institutional
mix for inclusive growth, but all countries should
begin to think more systematically about strengthening
(the areas most commonly featured in discussions

about inequality). There is a growing recognition
of the importance of institutions particularly
legal frameworks and public agencies that
administer rules and incentives in the
development process. But this recognition has yet
to fully penetrate the mental model of economic
growth used by most policymakers and
economists.
The role that institutions play in shaping
economic growth was a key finding of the
landmark 1993 World Bank study, The East
Asian Miracle, which examined how eight
countries in the region achieved high growth
with equity from 1960 to 1990. The lesson
is also apparent in the economic history of the
their institutions and creating incentives to promote

inclusive growth; much room for improvement. It is
possible, indeed essential, to be pro-equality and progrowth, to advocate strengthening social inclusion while
promoting the efficiency of markets. An inclusive
model for growth and development is inherently prolabor and pro-business. It is time to put our
Courtesy: Klaus Schwab & Richard Samans, and World

Economic Forum, dated 7 September 2015; duly edited
excerpts; emphases in bold ours - IMS.
Law Animated World, 30 September 2015
aspirations to work.
*****
2
AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF MARTYR RAMPRASAD BISMIL

mother. And my father was warned by people
that since I was absconding, my share of the
ancestral property i.e. the house which was
acquired by my grandfather, could be auctioned
off and the government would confiscate those
assets, my father got frightened and sold away the
house for a song sold away the house costing at
least 2000 for just 800 rupees, sold away other
goods with him also for low prices and left
Shahjahanpur in a huff. My two sisters were got
married by that time and whatever savings were
there were spent away. So the condition of my
parents again relapsed into poverty. Likewise the
conditions of other members of the society who
were also absconding also turned quite miserable.
We were so immiserised that for months we had to eat
just peas only and quell our hunger. Whatever, say
two or three rupees, which some friends and
sympathizers would donate was only means of
survival for us. And there were not even clothes
to wear. Becoming helpless, we had to sell away our
guns and revolvers and thus spend some days. We
could not tell our predicament to anybody else;
nor could we make any other arrangement or do
any job due to the fear of getting arrested.
It was in that condition that I got the idea to do
farming. I had also learnt Bengali in memory of
my classmate and friend Sri Sushilchandra Sen
who had expired long back, and also named my
younger brother who was born around that time
as Sushilchandra in his memory. I thought of
publishing a series of books by the sale of which
some profit could be made. The job was also
[seemed] easy. I would translate books from
Bengali to Hindi and publish them. However,
I had no experience at all. But I began the work
and started translating the Bengali book Nihilist
Secrets into Hindi. And the way I translated,
recollecting it I get amused very much and laugh
on myself manytimes. I used to take out many
bullocks, cows and buffalos with me, go to the
wastelands for their grazing in pastures. I used to
sit idly when the cattle were grazing and so I used
to carry a pencil and notebook with me and
translate the book in such leisure time. When the
PART 2:
2.6 Absconding phase:
I was in [our] village, wearing
clothes as per the custom and
traditions of the villagers, and
looking like a villager myself. At
the most people could only guess that I was
residing in a town and perhaps was somewhat
educated too. I had not paid much attention to the
agriculture works [till then]. But since I possessed
a sound physique, with some attention placed,
I could, and indeed had, become a good farmer in
a relatively less time period. It was no easy job to
do agricultural work in that hard terrain. Except
babool and neem (, acacia and azadirachta
indica) trees no other varieties of trees could be
seen there perhaps a few mango trees were here
and there, thats all. The rest of all was just like a
desert quite barren land. Anyway, I began to go
to the fields. But by the time I would reach our
fields my entire legs would be full of zarbheri
(thistle) thorns. Initilally this used to be very
painful but gradually I became used to that. I also
gained good experience and could plough as
much land as a strong male farmer of that region
could ordinarily till. My face turned totally black
[due the hardwork under hot Sun]. So much so that
when after a few days I went to Shahjahanpur just
for a visit, so many known acquaintances could
not recognize me even. Once I missed a train at
Shahjahanpur and in the morning I was walking
on the roads of that town, when suddenly a police
man happened to see and recognize me. He
immediately departed with a view to mobilize
more policemen to surround and capture me.
Sensing this I ran away. That day I had to run and
walk for about 35 miles in a very tired condition, since
the earlier day also I had to walk for about 20 miles.
My parents had helped me out. I could spend
my time there in a very good and happy manner.
I had already lost the investment made by my
Continued from Law Animated World, 15 September

2015 issue; emphases in bold ours - IMS.
3
(2015) 2 LAW
Autobiography of Martyr Ramprasad Bismil
cattle used to wander away to distant places, then

I would keep the pencil and notebook down, take
the lathi with me, hail the cattle and bring them
back to nearer positions. For some days I used to
stay at the cottage of a sadhu {hermit} in those
barren fields. Much time in that cottage I used to
spend in translation only. I used to take [grain/
wheat] flour with me for food. I used to store the
flour sufficient for 4-5 days, take it with me and
used to cook food myself. After the translation
was completed and corrected, I brought out a
series of publications by name Sushil granth mala
[Sushil books garland]. I titled that book as
Achievements of the Bolsheviks. Thereafter,
I got printed a second book titled Waves of the
Mind. But instead of proft, I suffered a loss of about
4-5 hundred rupees in this business. And thereafter,
when Amnesty was declared and political
prisoners were released, I thought of going back
to Shahjahanpur again and doing some business
so that at least then I could take care of my
parents and serve them for a while. In those days
He was always in suit and boot, which he would

not take out without wearing it for a week at a
stretch. But when he went to get some help from
Brahmachariji, he unfortunately got arrested.
Brahmacharis squad had committed several
dacoities in British India and after committing
dacoities they would hide themselves in the
ravines of Chambal valley. On behalf of the State
Government a letter was written to the Gwalior
Maharaja to help in arresting these dacoits.
Consequently arrangements were made to catch
this squad. The British government had even sent
an unit of Indian Army which camped on the
banks of Chambal River in Agra District for a
long period. Mounted police were also deployed,
but yet these people did not get frightened. At
last, they were caught by betrayal of a person in
their own ranks, who was in league with the
police. Once a place for dacoity was selected
which was quite far off and so in between one
stop was necessary. After travelling long distance
all were tired and so a halt was made in between.
I was really apprehensive that perhaps never again in

my life would I be able to go back to Shahjahanpur.
The man in cahoots with police offered to bring food for

all, saying that one of his near relatives house was
But the compassion and play of the Almighty is

unlimited. Those days had again come back and
I could again go to and reside at Shahjahanpur.
2.6 Pandit Gendalal Dikshit:
The birth of this great man had taken place in
village Mayi near Bateshwar on the bank of
River Jamuna. He passed Matriculation (Xth)
Class English Medium. When he was a teacher in
the D.A.V. School, Oraiya, District Itawa, he
established a Shivaji Society the aims and
objectives of which were to organize squads like
Shivaji had done and commit dacoities and
robberies and taking one fourth of the proceeds
for purchase of arms, distribute the rest to the
members of the squads. It was to make such
campaigns succeed that he was bringing weapons
from a native State but due to the negligence of
some youths of the society those were seized in
searches near Agra Ralway Station. However,
Pandit Gendalal Dikshit was very brave and a
close to that halting place. On being permitted, he

went and got poories (wheat cakes) made there
and brought those for the squad. All were very
tired and hungry, and so began to immediately
take and eat those poories. Even Brahmachari, the
leader of the squad, who usually would not take
any food outside but used to cook for himself or
at least fry potato or yam (sweet potato) pieces
and eat those, had that day opted to eat those.
Since all were hungry, all began to avidly eat
those poories. But poison was mixed in those poories.
So even though he ate only one poorie, Brahmacharis
tongue began to ache and get twisted. Others who ate
more poories fell down fainting. The traitor who
brought poories began to walk away on the pretext of
bringing drinking water for all. But Brahmachari
got suspicious, took hold of his gun and fired on him.
Immediately as this gun was fired, a rain of bullets
began to shower from all sides on the squad members
fired by the police who already encircled them secretly
and lay in wait.
*****
zealot. He knew not to sit calm without doing things. He

used to always preach some messages to the youths.
(to be continued)
THE IMPORTANCE OF PROFESSOR KALBURGI

- Chandan Gowda
The murder of Professor

Kalburgi has meant the loss of
a scholar who exemplified a
grand research tradition that
considered knowledge of
philology,
history
and
literature essential for understanding society.
was done without the support of large research

grants or the formidable library support of the
kind found in libraries in western universities.
The presence of serious scholars in non-metropolitan
universities cannot be valued enough. Not only has it
meant the decentralization of scholarly discussions, it
has guarded against homogeneity in research concerns.
Kalburgi's work also shows how state universities

allowed enormous research freedom for scholars.
Kalburgi's work was controversial because it
disturbed the stable official memories of Lingayat
institutions, through discovery of historical facts
that provoked moral disbelief e.g. he would
present facts to prove that Lingayats cannot be
considered Hindus. His claims supported by his
formidable hold over the vacanas, such findings
(symptomatic of the superficiality of our times, his

passing away was quickly seen as the murder of a
rationalist and an atheist - but he was a devout
Lingayat, in fact - at the hands of intolerant bigots).
He had worked extensively on Lingayat

philosophy, ancient Kannada literature, and the
folklore of North Karnataka. His four volume
collection titled Marga (The Way), bring together
a rich range of essays in these areas. A
discussion of medieval Karnataka society will not
remain - as the hostile reception to Kalburgi in
the past has shown - only a historical discussion.
Medieval society, unlike in Europe, is a living
presence here. We have the strange case of
scholars of contemporary Indian society with
little idea - let alone knowledge - of the cultural
universe that lives outside the charmed circles of
English scholarship.
During Kalburgi's tenure as the second vicechancellor of the Kannada University at Hampi,
according to one of his colleagues, he was keen
on making up for the modernist intellectual bias
of its faculty and get them to take the premodern
literature and history seriously. He later edited the
massive fifteen volume compilation of Vacanas
published by the Kannada Book Authority.
Kalburgi's work is testimony to the valuable
scholarship that has emerged from the state
universities in the country. Much of this work
had angered many of the Lingayat mathas in the past,

some of whom had stated that it was better that he died.
In 1989, the anger of the established Lingayat
orthodoxy was so great that they forced him to retract
his claims that the father of Basavanna's nephew,
Chenna Basavanna, was a lower caste man. the
Hindu right wing attacked him viciously when he
questioned the sanctity of idol worship in
Hinduism. historians like Kalburgi or novelists
have been able to elicit controversies that stir the

moral equanimity of communities. The
unfortunate trend towards producing "useful"
knowledge has meant a decline in institutional
support for humanities research. These changing
research priorities make us doubly grateful for
intellectual contributions of scholars like Kalburgi
whose work will remain a precious inheritance for
anyone interested in the intellectual history of the state,
and indeed of India.
None of his writings have been translated into

English or, for that matter, any other language.
Facts like these, one hopes, will cease to be
routine. A possible tribute to the memory of Kalburgi
Courtesy: Chandan Gowda & www.bangaloremirror.com/;

the author is Professor of Sociology in Azim Premji
University, Bengaluru; edited excerpts of his article dated
04-09-2015; our sincere tributes to the memory of Prof.
would be to make his writings available to readers

outside the state, and enable new conversations between
scattered research communities in the country and
abroad.
Malleshappa Madivalappa Kalburgi (28-11-1938/30-8-2015)
shot dead by caste/religious fanatics, just for his fearless,

rational research/ideas; emphases in bold ours - IMS.
*****
[Image coutesy: - https://en.wikipedia.org/]
DONT APPEASE THE IRANIAN REGIME !

- Iranian Human Rights Activists
Western apologists and appeasers of Iranian

theocracy do no favors to the Iranian people. They
Dont Appease the Iranian Regime,

Iranian human rights activists warn
In the past few weeks, some Iranian activists
have vocally supported the nuclear deal between
Iran and the P5+1 (China, Russia, France, United
Kingdom, United States and Germany). While we
deeply respect the experience and views of these
men and women, it is important to hear all
perspectives.
We represent another collection of Iranian
distance the likelihood of positive change and

undercut the hopes of the Iranian people.
When the Iranian regime no longer fears its people,
then the world will no longer have a reason to fear the
Iranian regime.
activists who share the worlds hope for a better future but
believe that appeasing the Iranian regime will lead to a
more dangerous world.
We have spent our lives advocating for peace,

justice and freedom in Iran. We represent a diverse
array of Iranians who hope to warn the world of the
danger of this regime regardless of how many
centrifuges spin in Iran.
This deal will provide up to $150 billion windfall of
cash into the bank account of our tyrants and theocrats.
This money will not be spent on the Iranian people but
rather to enrich a repressive regime.
Sadly, the world has not demanded real improvements
in human rights. Thousands of activists continue to
languish behind bars (including several Americans)

and it is tragic that their release was not included in
these discussions.
We are sounding the alarm bells before it is too late.
Those who care about peace should help restore
focus to the Iranian regimes brutal human rights
records, its support for global terror and role in
destabilizing the Middle East. More pressure should be
applied to the regime, not less.
One day when the Iranian people are finally free,
they will hold an accounting of who stood on their
side and who stood on the regimes. It is not too late
to hold the Iranian regime accountable for their continued
human rights violations.
Today in Iran, political prisoners are tortured.

Bloggers, journalists and teachers remain behind bars.
Sexual and religious rights are trampled. Women are
treated as second class citizens.
BIJAN FATHI
(two sons executed)
Sayeh Saeedi Sirjani

(father jailed, died in custody)
Banafsheh Pourzand
(father jumped to death under
house arrest)
Ahmad Mostafalou (jailed,

tortured, escaped execution)
Shadi Paveh (father executed)
Borzumehr Toloui
Soheila Dorostkar (brother
(uncle executed)
executed, his body never recovered)
Shabnam Assadollahi
Afshin Afshin-Jam
(jailed and tortured)
Ahmad Batebi
Kaveh Taheri
Marina Nemat
Shiva Mahbobi
Salman Sima
Roozbeh Farahanipour
Abbas Khorsandi
Abazar Nourizad
(Jailed and tortured)
(father jailed and tortured)
Nima Rashedan (jailed)
Alireza Kiani (jailed)
Amir Hossein Etemadi (jailed)
Siavash Safavi (jailed)
Saeed Ghasseminejad (jailed)
Behzad Mehrani (jailed)
Roya Araghi (Jailed)
Marjan Keypour
Sheema Kalbasi
Majid Rafizadeh
Youhan Najdi
Masood Masjoodi
Daniel Jafari
Ashkan Monfared
Hossein Ladjevardi
Avideh Motamen Far
Afshine Emrani
Bahram Bahramian
Sirus Malakooty
Babak Seradjeh
Shahla Abghari
Siavash Abghari
Majid Mohammadi
Damon Golriz
Hassan Dai
Keyvan Kaboli
Sam Yebri
Elham Yaghoubian
Shayan Arya
Peter Kohanloo
Amir Khosrow Sheibany
Soheila Nikpour
Reza Taghizadeh
Setareh Yavari
Mansoureh Nasserchian
Maryam Moazenzadeh
Parviz Sayyad
Farrokh Zandi
Partow Nooriala
Alireza Saghafi
Manda Zand Ervin
Lohrasb Pourzand
Fati Mohamadi
Akhtar Ghasemi (jailed)
MARYAM NAMAZIE
Aynaz Anni Cyrus

(Jailed and tortured)
Courtesy: http://freethoughtblogs.com/maryamnamazie/;
emphases in bold ours - IMS.
MAHVASH ALASVANDI
(two sons executed)
*****
6
(2015) 2 LAW
In Re: Law on Intelligence [FR-CC]
(2015) 2 LAW F-189 (FR-CC)
Council and the limits on the Intelligence Services

powers, posted on: http://www.constitutionnet.org/ has
made an incisive analysis of the Act and the circumstances
leading to its enactment with a balanced approach and on
the whole has approved of the Constitutional Council
decision, extensive excerpts of which we cite below:
The new French law on intelligence was passed on
24 July 2015. Despite an array of human rights based
objections, the law has recently withstood the scrutiny of
the French Constitutional Council, which deemed the
establishment of the Independent Commission and the a
posteriori oversight of an administrative judge to be an
adequate check for the broad authorization of the executive
to conduct mass-surveillance. The Council found that due
to these safeguards the law struck a fair balance between
the requirements of public safety and fundamental rights
guarantees.
Why a law on intelligence? While the adoption of the
Intelligence Law was accelerated by the Charlie Hebdo
and Hyper-Casher supermarket terror attacks, the
Government already started work on a draft legislation in
the summer of 2014, given that France was one of the last
Western democracies not to have a comprehensive and
consistent legal framework to govern the activities of its
intelligence services. The law goes beyond counterterrorism and covers intelligence activities broadly. The Act
added a provision to the Interior Security Code that defines
the goals that intelligence services can legitimately pursue.
CONSTITUTIONAL COUNCIL
OF FRANCE AT PARIS
Decision no. 2015-713 DC
Thursday, 23 July 2015

Citation: (2015) 2 LAW F-189
***
NOTES: This is a landmark decision of the Constitutional
Council of France, the highest court of that country,
generally seized of weighty constitutional questions,
whereby the Court has validated most of the provisions of
the recently passed French Patriot Act which came
expeditiously in the wake of the gory and revolting Charlie
Hebdo massacres by the Islamic fundamentalists in Paris.
While the left in general and especially the Communist and
extremist sections and several human right organizations
decried the Act as an undue and unwarranted invasion on
the right to privacy and other fundamental rights of the
citizens in the name of fight against terrorism and likened it
to the notorious Patriot Act of the US which was passed in
the wake of the 9/11 attacks, it is remarkable that the Act
itself was passed with an overwhelming majority in the
Parliament, which implies that considerable numbers of the
leftist and communist/socialist MPs also voted for it
perhaps as per the dictates of their conscience. While Le
Figaro sarcastically commented on the decision that the
sages have approved the law on intelligence and Amnesty
International expressed its dissent saying, The surveillance
measures authorized by this law are wildly out of
proportion, and the United Nations committee for human
rights also warned that the surveillance powers granted to
French intelligence agencies were excessively broad and
stated that the bill [which has become an Act] grants
overly broad powers for very intrusive surveillance on the
basis of vast and badly defined objectives and called
on France to guarantee that any interference in private life
must conform to principles of legality, proportionality and
necessity, there seems to be a general approval in the
French society, perhaps even cutting across party and
community affiliations, to this over-broad general
surveillance law. Olivier Le Bot, Professor of public law at
Aix-Marseille University (Study and Research Group on
Constitutional Justice - GERJC) in an article titled, France
under mass-surveillance? The French Constitutional
F-189
Prevention of terrorism is just one of the seven legitimate state

interests listed, besides national independence, economic,
scientific and industry protection, foreign policy or the

execution of international engagements. Nevertheless, by
the fear they provoked, the January attacks in France have
greatly facilitated the adoption of the law
The law legalizes intelligence techniques that have
previously been in use without any legal regulation. It
distinguishes counter-terrorism tools from processes that can
be used in other fields. For the purposes of counter-terrorism
action, intelligence services are now allowed to use black

boxes and real-time surveillance. internet providers will
be forced to install black boxes on their networks. Black
boxes are complex algorithms that produce a bulk analysis
of internet metadata to track suspicious behavior, for
example, the time and frequency of use of a given site,
keywords used and contacts made. Neither the people, nor
the content are individually identified. Beyond the general
mass surveillance carried out via black boxes, the law also
allows for real-time surveillance that concerns specific
persons. Individuals previously identified as presenting a
terrorist threat could be placed under permanent

surveillance on the grounds of this provision. Over 3000
people could be implicated by the measure.
The definition of terrorism is provided by the criminal
code that includes a long list of acts of terrorism, from
Courtesy: Constitutional Council of France Conseil

constitutionnel 2, rue de Montpensier 75001 PARIS;
http://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/; emphases in bold
ours - IMS.
7
F-190
willful attacks on life and physical integrity to computer

offences; provided that those are committed intentionally in
order to disrupt public order through intimidation or terror.
It is left for the Prime Minister to assess, in the light of this
Constitutional Council. Lawsuits were filed before the

constitutional judge by the parliamentary opposition and
even some MPs of the majority, and on a rare instance, the
President of the Senate and the President of the Republic
himself. This is the first time in the history of the 5th Republic
definition, and under the control of the administrative judge,

whether an act falls under the scope of terrorism.
that the Head of State refers a law to the Constitutional

Council
In the other fields, the authorities are allowed to use less
Constitutional Council: not-to-be-crossed limits:- The
intrusive devices, like an ISMI Catcher, wiretapping, realtime location of people and objects. ISMI Catchers are fake
Council validated the new Intelligence Law, finding that the

Act strikes a balance between the guarantees of
constitutional rights, especially the right to privacy and the
legitimate state objectives of the Act, in particular the
defense of public safety. However, the Constitutional
Council struck down two provisions. The first provision
would have allowed intelligence services to use their
monitoring tools in (undefined) emergency situations
without referring to the Commission or seeking
authorization from the Prime Minister. For the Council, this
provision was a clearly disproportionate breach of the
right to respect for privacy and for the secrecy of
correspondence. It indicates that intelligence agencies are
not constitutionally allowed to carry out surveillance
without any authorization. The constitutional judge also
struck down a provision that allowed intelligence services
to spy on communications sent to or received from abroad,
on the ground that lawmakers had not sufficiently defined
the conditions for its use. Finally, to validate the law, the
Council has insisted on the importance of the role of the
oversight bodies, the Commission and the administrative
judge, in ensuring that the implementation of the law
respects the requirement of necessity and proportionality.
Now that the Act was passed, two main implementation
questions remain open: the issue of black-boxes and the
efficacy of the safeguards.
relay transmitters, or spy devices, that record all types of

telephone, internet or text message conversations in an area.
Their use is allowed in exceptional cases and in a
subsidiary manner. The authorities can also install
recording and filming devices in people's homes or cars.
They are allowed to bug their computers, cell phones and
other digital devices. Thus, the law gives extensive powers to
authorities to monitor people online and offline. getting the
measure adopted was childs play for the Government.
Government and civil society responses: Not surprisingly

given the post-terrorism context, the parliament has
overwhelmingly approved the bill. There was no serious
opposition to the draft in the assemblies. While the

Intelligence Act made international headlines as the Spy
Bill or the Patriot Act of France among ordinary
French citizens it has not sparked opposition on a similar
scale;
neither
the
civil protests nor
local NGO
resistance have become a nation-wide phenomenon. It is

not easy for people to understand what the law really allows
and on what scale it extends, due to technical issues and
administrative-legal jargon. Above all, French citizens
were satisfied with a reaction that aims to protect their
security even if it requires a weakening of their right to
privacy. However, various organizations from rights
groups, to lawyers, to tech companies have expressed their
concerns. Two main criticisms were formulated. The first
one scrutinized the broadness and vagueness of the seven
listed state objectives that under the new law can justify
surveillance. For example, Amnesty International pointed
out how the law allows the Prime Minister to authorize
intrusive surveillance measures as a means to achieving
broad and undefined goals such as major foreign policy
interests, protecting Frances economic, industrial and
scientific interests or preventing collective violence and
organized delinquency. Human Rights Watch underlined
that [u]nlike the protection of national security and public
safety, these interests are not recognized in international
human rights law as grounds for interference with basic
rights (). Beyond the substantive concerns, the second
criticism pertains to the procedure itself, more precisely the
absence of a priori judicial approval. The Prime Minister
can under the new law order surveillance after simply
seeking advice from a newly created Commission
specifically dedicated to such approvals.
To challenge the constitutionality of the bill, several
organizations submitted amicus curiae briefs to the
(2015) 2 LAW
Black boxes: an extensive surveillance for a controversial

efficiency: The Act authorizes the automatic analysis of
connection data with the sole aim of detecting online

patterns of behavior typically displayed by terrorists. The
law provides several guarantees: user anonymity is
preserved, the content of messages are not monitored and it
can be used only to pursue a counter-terrorism objective.
Opinions over the efficacy of black boxes remain divided
and more clarity can only be expected from the first annual
report of the Commission.
Sufficient safeguards? Undoubtedly, the new act
constitutes a progress compared to the previous law.
Previously, intelligence services used most of their
monitoring devices outside of any rules and without any
real control. Technically, the law provides a three-step procedure
for any surveillance operation: first, a reasoned written request
from a minister; secondly, a reasoned advice from the new
National Commission for the Control of Intelligence
Techniques (CNCTR), an independent administrative
authority composed of judges, MPs and an engineer
specializing in IT and digital technology; thirdly, the

8
(2015) 2 LAW
F-191
authorization of the Prime Minister, who is not bound to

follow the Commissions advice (and consequently can
FULL TEXT OF THE DECISION IN FRENCH:
Dcision n 2015-713 DC du 23 juillet 2015
override a negative opinion of this Commission).
Loi relative au renseignement

Le Conseil constitutionnel a t saisi, le 25 juin 2015,
sous le numro 2015-713 DC, par le prsident du
Snat, dans les conditions prvues l'article 61,
deuxime alina, de la Constitution, de la loi relative
au renseignement,
Et, le mme jour, par le Prsident de la Rpublique,
Et, le mme jour, par Mme Laure de LA RAUDIRE,
M. Pierre LELLOUCHE, Mme Laurence ABEILLE,
M. ric ALAUZET, Mmes Brigitte ALLAIN, Isabelle
ATTARD, Danielle AUROI, M. Denis BAUPIN,
Mme
Michle
BONNETON,
M.
Sergio
CORONADO, Mmes Ccile DUFLOT, Vronique
MASSONNEAU, Barbara POMPILI, M. Jean-Louis
ROUMEGAS, Mme Eva SAS, MM. Damien ABAD,
lie ABOUD, Yves ALBARELLO, Julien AUBERT,
Patrick BALKANY, Sylvain BERRIOS, tienne
BLANC, Xavier BRETON, Luc CHATEL, Grard
CHERPION, Alain CHRTIEN, Philippe COCHET,
Jean-Louis COSTES, Marc-Philippe DAUBRESSE,
Claude de GANAY, Bernard DEBR, Jean-Pierre
DECOOL,
Lucien
DEGAUCHY,
Patrick
DEVEDJIAN, Nicolas DHUICQ, Mmes Sophie
DION, Virginie DUBY-MULLER, MM. Sauveur
GANDOLFI-SCHEIT, Herv GAYMARD, Franck
GILARD,
Charles-Ange
GINESY,
Claude
GOASGUEN, Jean-Pierre GORGES, Mmes Claude
GREFF,
Anne
GROMMERCH,
Arlette
GROSSKOST, MM. Henri GUAINO, Jean-Jacques
GUILLET, Antoine HERTH, Patrick HETZEL,
Philippe HOUILLON, Denis JACQUAT, Jacques
KOSSOWSKI, Mme Valrie LACROUTE, M. JeanFranois
LAMOUR,
Mme
Isabelle
LE
CALLENNEC, MM. Marc LE FUR, Bruno LE
MAIRE, Alain LEBOEUF, Jean LEONETTI, M.
Cleste LETT, Mme Vronique LOUWAGIE, MM.
Lionnel LUCA, Jean-Franois MANCEL, Thierry
MARIANI, Herv MARITON, Alain MARSAUD,
Philippe ARMAND, Patrice MARTIN-LALANDE,
Alain MARTY, Philippe MEUNIER, Pierre
MORANGE, Yannick MOREAU, Pierre MOREL-AL'HUISSIER, Alain MOYNE-BRESSAND, Mme
Valrie PCRESSE, MM. Jacques PLISSARD,
Bernard PERRUT, Jean-Frdric POISSON, Mme
Brengre POLETTI, MM. Frdric REISS, Franck
RIESTER, Arnaud ROBINET, Martial SADDIER,
Paul SALEN, Mme Claudine SCHMID, MM. Thierry
SOLRE, ric STRAUMANN, Alain SUGUENOT,
Lionel TARDY, Jean-Charles TAUGOURDEAU,
Michel VOISIN, Mmes Marie-Jo ZIMMERMANN,
Vronique BESSE, MM. Gilbert COLLARD, Jean
LASSALLE, Mme Marion MARCHAL-LE PEN,
Is this control inferior to a prior judicial control? no doubt

about it. Was a prior judicial control legally required? No.
Indeed, the scheme adopted is not contrary to the French

legal tradition. A prior authorization of a judge is required
only in a criminal proceeding, not in a preventive
administrative procedure. As the intelligence services
operate only in a preventative way, the Constitutional

Council reiterated that under French law their actions do
not need to be previously authorized by a judge.
Are the safeguards sufficient? Firstly, the CNCTR is
independent from the Prime Minister. Its members themselves
are independent from the executive, and come from the
legislative and judicial branches but the Commission also
includes an IT expert. Secondly, the CNCTR will give
reasoned advice, so that the Prime Minister knows why the
Commission approves, or expresses its reservations to
surveillance. It also benefits from permanent access to data
on the surveillance operation, including the start date,

agents involved, statements, registers, records, information
collected, transcripts etc. And the Commission has the right
to formulate recommendations. Furthermore, in its public
annual report, it will be able to make public its
disagreement with the Prime Minister, by disclosing, for
example, that its advice was not followed. Furthermore, the
Commission has money, agents and offices. It also benefits
from permanent access to all the data and offices of the
intelligence agencies. Thirdly, a judicial oversight is
provided since the Commission, as well as private persons are
allowed to lodge a complaint with the administrative judge.
An authorization will be annulled if it does not meet the
conditions provided by the law, for example, use of black
boxes for other means than counter-terrorism, monitoring of
political parties, trade unions or peaceful protest movements.
As of now, this procedure stands without precedence, yet it
represents an important guarantee along with the Council
power to immediately suspend an operation. The one-month
deadline for the Council to rule on the surveillance provides a
speedy guarantee. The annual report and the right to refer to
the administrative judge will be powerful means of pressure
on the Prime Minister. These tools, in the hands of the
CNCTR, represent a strong incitement for the Executive to

follow the advice of the Commission.
Conclusion: While the future use (or abuse) of Frances
new Intelligence Act is yet to be seen, its legal framework
appears to strike a fair balance between public safety and the
guarantee of constitutional rights - and cannot reasonably be
equated with the Patriot Act of the U.S. Among the various
safeguards the Act introduces, the role of the CNCTR is
paramount. This Commission is destined to play a decisive
role not only in the implementation of the Intelligence Act but
also in the future of guaranteeing the right to privacy in
France.
***
9
F-192
MM. Charles de COURSON, Yannick FAVENNEC,

Jean-Christophe FROMANTIN, Maurice LEROY,
Herv MORIN, Arnaud RICHARD, Edouard
PHILIPPE, Nol MAMRE et Jean-Claude
MIGNON, dputs.
LE CONSEIL CONSTITUTIONNEL,
Vu la Constitution;
Vu l'ordonnance n 58-1067 du 7 novembre 1958
modifie portant loi organique sur le Conseil
constitutionnel;
Vu la loi organique n 2001-692 du 1er aot 2001
relative aux lois de finances;
Vu le code de la dfense;
Vu le code des douanes;
Vu le code de justice administrative;
Vu le code pnal;
Vu le code des postes et des communications
lectroniques;
Vu le code de la scurit intrieure;
Vu la loi n 2004-575 du 21 juin 2004 pour la
confiance dans l'conomie numrique;
Vu les observations du Gouvernement, enregistres le
7 juillet 2015;
Vu les observations en rplique prsentes par les
dputs requrants, enregistres le 21 juillet 2015;
Le rapporteur ayant t entendu;
1. Considrant que le Prsident de la Rpublique, le
prsident du Snat et plus de soixante dputs dfrent au
Conseil constitutionnel la loi relative au renseignement ;
que le Prsident de la Rpublique demande au Conseil
constitutionnel de se prononcer sur la conformit au droit
au respect de la vie prive, la libert de communication et
au droit un recours juridictionnel effectif des articles L.
811-3, L. 821-5 L. 821-7, L. 822-2 et L. 841-1 du code de
la scurit intrieure tels qu'ils rsultent de l'article 2 de la
loi, des articles L. 851-3, L. 851-5, L. 851-6 et du
paragraphe II de l'article L. 852-1 du mme code tels qu'ils
rsultent de l'article 5 de la loi, des articles L. 853-1 L.
853-3 du mme code tels qu'ils rsultent de l'article 6 de la
loi ainsi que des articles L. 773-2 L. 773-7 du code de
justice administrative tels qu'ils rsultent de l'article 10 de
la loi ; que le prsident du Snat n'invoque l'encontre de
ce texte aucun grief particulier ; que les dputs requrants
contestent la conformit la Constitution, et en particulier
au droit au respect de la vie prive et la libert
d'expression, des articles L. 811-3, L. 811-4, L. 821-1, L.
821-7 et L. 831-1 du code de la scurit intrieure tels qu'ils
851-6 et de l'article L. 852-1 du mme code tels qu'ils
853-3 et L. 854-1 du mme code tels qu'ils rsultent de
l'article 6 de la loi ainsi que des articles L. 773-3 et L. 7736 du code de justice administrative tels qu'ils rsultent de
l'article 10 de la loi;
(2015) 2 LAW
- SUR LES NORMES DE RFRENCE:
2. Considrant qu'en vertu de l'article 34 de la Constitution,

il appartient au lgislateur de fixer les rgles concernant les
garanties fondamentales accordes aux citoyens pour
l'exercice des liberts publiques ; qu'il incombe au
lgislateur d'assurer la conciliation entre, d'une part, la
prvention des atteintes l'ordre public et des infractions,
ncessaire la sauvegarde de droits et de principes de
valeur constitutionnelle, et, d'autre part, l'exercice des droits
et des liberts constitutionnellement garantis ; qu'au nombre
de ces derniers figurent le droit au respect de la vie prive,
l'inviolabilit du domicile et le secret des correspondances,
protgs par les articles 2 et 4 de la Dclaration des droits
de l'homme et du citoyen de 1789;
3. Considrant qu'en vertu de l'article 5 de la Constitution,
le Prsident de la Rpublique est le garant de
l'indpendance nationale et de l'intgrit du territoire ;
qu'aux termes du premier alina de l'article 20 : Le
Gouvernement dtermine et conduit la politique de la
Nation ; qu'en vertu de l'article 21, le Premier ministre
dirige l'action du Gouvernement et est responsable de la
Dfense nationale ; que le secret de la dfense nationale
participe de la sauvegarde des intrts fondamentaux de la
Nation, au nombre desquels figurent l'indpendance de la
Nation et l'intgrit du territoire;
4. Considrant qu'aux termes de l'article 66 de la
Constitution : Nul ne peut tre arbitrairement dtenu.
L'autorit judiciaire, gardienne de la libert individuelle,
assure le respect de ce principe dans les conditions prvues
par la loi ;
5. Considrant qu'aux termes de l'article 16 de la
Dclaration de 1789 : Toute socit dans laquelle la
garantie des droits n'est pas assure, ni la sparation des
pouvoirs dtermine, n'a point de Constitution ; que sont
garantis par cette disposition le droit des personnes
intresses exercer un recours juridictionnel effectif, le
droit un procs quitable ainsi que le principe du
contradictoire;
- SUR CERTAINES DISPOSITIONS DE L'ARTICLE 2:
6. Considrant que l'article 2 de la loi dfre complte, par

les titres Ier IV, le livre VIII du code de la scurit
intrieure cr par l'article 1er de la mme loi ; que le titre
Ier est consacr aux dispositions gnrales et comprend les
articles L. 811-1 L. 811-4 ; que le titre II est consacr la
procdure applicable aux techniques de recueil de
renseignement soumises autorisation et comprend les
articles L. 821-1 L. 822-4 ; que le titre III est relatif la
commission nationale de contrle des techniques de
renseignement et comprend les articles L. 831-1 L. 83311 ; que le titre IV est consacr aux recours relatifs la
mise en uvre des techniques de renseignement soumises
autorisation et des fichiers intressant la sret de l'tat et
comprend les articles L. 841-1 et L. 841-2;
10
(2015) 2 LAW
F-193
finalits dfinies au a) du 5, faisant rfrence aux

incriminations pnales du chapitre II du titre Ier du livre IV
du code pnal, de celles dfinies au b) du 5, faisant
rfrence aux dispositions de l'article L. 212-1 du code de
la scurit intrieure, de celles dfinies au c) du 5, faisant
rfrence aux incriminations pnales dfinies aux articles
431-1 431-10 du code pnal, de celles dfinies au 6,
faisant rfrence aux incriminations pnales numres
l'article 706-73 du code de procdure pnale et aux dlits
punis par l'article 414 du code des douanes commis en
bande organise et de celles dfinies au 7, faisant rfrence
aux incriminations pnales dfinies aux articles L. 2339-14
L. 2339-18 du code de la dfense;
11. Considrant que les dispositions de l'article L. 811-3
doivent tre combines avec celles de l'article L. 801-1,
dans sa rdaction rsultant de l'article 1er de la loi dfre,
aux termes desquelles la dcision de recourir aux
techniques de renseignement et les techniques choisies
devront tre proportionnes la finalit poursuivie et aux
motifs invoqus ; qu'il en rsulte que les atteintes au droit
au respect de la vie prive doivent tre proportionnes
l'objectif poursuivi ; que la commission nationale de
contrle des techniques de renseignement et le Conseil
d'tat sont chargs de s'assurer du respect de cette exigence
de proportionnalit;
12. Considrant qu'il rsulte de ce qui prcde que les
dispositions de l'article L. 811-3 du code de la scurit
intrieure doivent tre dclares conformes la
Constitution;
En ce qui concerne l'article L. 811-3

du code de la scurit intrieure:
7. Considrant que l'article L. 811-3 du code de la scurit

intrieure numre les finalits pour lesquelles les services
spcialiss de renseignement peuvent recourir aux
techniques dfinies aux articles L. 851-1 L. 854-1 du
mme code tels qu'ils rsultent des articles 5 et 6 de la loi
dfre, pour le seul exercice de leurs missions respectives,
afin de recueillir des renseignements ; que ces finalits
correspondent
la dfense et la promotion des intrts fondamentaux
de la Nation suivants : 1 L'indpendance nationale,
l'intgrit du territoire et la dfense nationale ;
2 Les intrts majeurs de la politique trangre,
l'excution des engagements europens et internationaux
de la France et la prvention de toute forme d'ingrence
trangre;
3 Les intrts conomiques, industriels et
scientifiques majeurs de la France;
4 La prvention du terrorisme;
5 La prvention:
a) Des atteintes la forme rpublicaine des
institutions;
b) Des actions tendant au maintien ou la
reconstitution de groupements dissous en
application de l'article L. 212-1;
c) Des violences collectives de nature porter
gravement atteinte la paix publique;
6 La prvention de la criminalit et de la dlinquance
organises;
7 La prvention de la prolifration des armes de
destruction massive ;


intrieure renvoie un dcret en Conseil d'tat la
dsignation des services, autres que les services spcialiss
de renseignement, qui peuvent tre autoriss recourir aux
techniques dfinies au titre V du livre VIII du code de la
scurit intrieure ; qu'il renvoie galement ce dcret la
dlimitation, pour chaque service, des finalits et des
techniques qui peuvent donner lieu autorisation;
14. Considrant que, selon les dputs requrants, en
renvoyant au pouvoir rglementaire le soin de dterminer
les services non spcialiss qui pourront recourir aux
techniques de recueil de renseignement ainsi que celles de
ces techniques qu'il leur sera loisible de mettre en uvre, le
lgislateur n'a pas fix lui-mme des rgles concernant des
garanties fondamentales accordes aux citoyens pour
l'exercice des liberts publiques ; que le lgislateur aurait
ainsi mconnu l'tendue de sa comptence;
15. Considrant qu'en dfinissant les techniques de recueil
de renseignement qui peuvent tre mises en uvre par les
services de renseignement et les finalits pour lesquelles
elles peuvent l'tre tout en confiant au pouvoir
rglementaire le soin d'organiser ces services viss aux
articles L. 811-2 et L. 811-4 du code de la scurit
8. Considrant que les dputs requrants font valoir que

les finalits numres par le lgislateur sont trop larges, au
regard des techniques de recueil de renseignement prvues
par la loi dfre, et insuffisamment dfinies ; qu'il en
rsulterait une atteinte disproportionne au droit au respect
de la vie prive ainsi qu' la libert d'expression;
9. Considrant que le recueil de renseignement au moyen
des techniques dfinies au titre V du livre VIII du code de
la scurit intrieure par les services spcialiss de
renseignement pour l'exercice de leurs missions respectives
relve de la seule police administrative ; qu'il ne peut donc
avoir d'autre but que de prserver l'ordre public et de
prvenir les infractions ; qu'il ne peut tre mis en uvre
pour constater des infractions la loi pnale, en rassembler
les preuves ou en rechercher les auteurs;
10. Considrant qu'en retenant, pour dterminer les finalits
numres aux 1 4, des dfinitions faisant rfrence
certains des intrts mentionns l'article 410-1 du code
pnal, le lgislateur a prcisment circonscrit les finalits
ainsi poursuivies et n'a pas retenu des critres en
inadquation avec l'objectif poursuivi par ces mesures de
police administrative ; qu'il en va de mme pour les
11
F-194
intrieure, le lgislateur n'est pas rest en de de la

comptence que lui attribue l'article 34 de la Constitution
pour fixer les rgles concernant ... les garanties
fondamentales accordes aux citoyens pour l'exercice des
liberts publiques ; que les dispositions de l'article L. 8114 du code de la scurit intrieure doivent tre dclares
conformes la Constitution;
consultation d'une autorit administrative indpendante, ne

privent pas les personnes d'un recours juridictionnel
l'encontre des dcisions de mise en uvre leur gard des
techniques de recueil de renseignement ; que les exigences
de l'article 16 de la Dclaration de 1789 ne sont donc pas
mconnues;
21. Considrant, en troisime lieu, que ces dispositions ne
portent pas d'atteinte la libert individuelle;
22. Considrant qu'il rsulte de tout ce qui prcde que les
Constitution;


intrieure prvoit que les techniques de recueil de
renseignement dfinies aux articles L. 851-1 L. 853-3 du
mme code sont mises en uvre sur le territoire national
par des agents individuellement dsigns et habilits, sur
autorisation pralable du Premier ministre dlivre aprs
avis de la commission nationale de contrle des techniques
de renseignement;
17. Considrant que, selon les dputs requrants, en
prvoyant une autorisation dlivre par le pouvoir excutif,
aprs avis de la commission nationale de contrle des
techniques de renseignement, et en permettant que
l'autorisation puisse tre dlivre en dpit d'un avis
dfavorable de cette commission, les dispositions
contestes prsenteraient des garanties insuffisantes au
regard des droits et liberts constitutionnellement garantis,
et notamment de la libert d'expression et de
communication ; qu'en ne plaant pas le recours ces
techniques sous le contrle du juge judiciaire, le lgislateur
mconnatrait tant les exigences de l'article 66 de la
Constitution que celles de l'article 16 de la Dclaration de
1789;
18. Considrant, en premier lieu, que l'autorisation,
sollicite par une demande crite et motive du ministre de
la dfense, du ministre de l'intrieur ou des ministres
chargs de l'conomie, du budget ou des douanes, est
dlivre par le Premier ministre des agents
individuellement dsigns et habilits pour mettre en uvre
sur le territoire national des techniques de recueil de
renseignement, pour une dure maximale de quatre mois ;
qu'elle est subordonne l'avis pralable de la commission
nationale de contrle des techniques de renseignement ; que
le lgislateur s'est fond sur l'article 21 de la Constitution
pour confier au Premier ministre le pouvoir d'autoriser la
mise en uvre des techniques de recueil de renseignement
dans le cadre de la police administrative;
19. Considrant qu'en elle-mme, la procdure
d'autorisation par le Premier ministre aprs avis de la
renseignement ne mconnat ni le droit au respect de la vie
prive, ni l'inviolabilit du domicile ni le secret des
correspondances;
20. Considrant, en deuxime lieu, que ces dispositions, qui
sont relatives la dlivrance d'autorisations de mesures de
police administrative par le Premier ministre aprs
(2015) 2 LAW


intrieure institue une procdure drogatoire de dlivrance
de l'autorisation de mettre en uvre des techniques de
recueil de renseignement en cas d'urgence absolue et pour
les seules finalits mentionnes aux 1, 4 et a) du 5 de
l'article L. 811-3 du mme code ; que, dans ce cas,
l'autorisation du Premier ministre est dlivre sans avis
pralable de la commission nationale de contrle des
techniques de renseignement, laquelle est informe sans
dlai et reoit dans les vingt-quatre heures compter de la
dlivrance de l'autorisation tous les lments de motivation
de l'autorisation ainsi que ceux justifiant le caractre
d'urgence absolue;
24. Considrant, d'une part, que la procdure drogatoire
prvue par l'article L. 821-5 n'est pas applicable lorsque la
mise en uvre des techniques de recueil de renseignement
exige l'introduction dans un lieu priv usage d'habitation
en application du paragraphe V de l'article L. 853-1 ou du
paragraphe V de l'article L. 853-2 et n'est donc pas
susceptible d'affecter l'inviolabilit du domicile;
25. Considrant, d'autre part, que la procdure drogatoire
prvue par l'article L. 821-5 est rserve certaines des
finalits mentionnes l'article L. 811-3, qui sont relatives
la prvention d'atteintes particulirement graves l'ordre
public, et doit tre motive par le caractre d'urgence
absolue du recours la technique de recueil de
renseignement ; que cette procdure n'est pas applicable
aux techniques de recueil de renseignement prvues aux
articles L. 851-2 et L. 851-3 et au 1 du paragraphe I de
l'article L. 853-2 ; qu'elle n'est pas non plus applicable
lorsqu'une technique prvue l'article L. 853-1 ou au 2 de
l'article L. 853-2 doit tre mise en uvre au moyen de
l'introduction dans un lieu d'habitation ; que la commission
nationale de contrle des techniques de renseignement, qui
doit en tre informe sans dlai, doit recevoir l'ensemble
des lments de motivation ainsi que la justification du
caractre d'urgence absolue dans un dlai maximal de
vingt-quatre heures ; que la commission dispose de
l'ensemble des moyens relatifs au contrle de la mise en
uvre d'une technique de recueil de renseignement qui lui
12
(2015) 2 LAW
F-195
sont confrs par les articles L. 833-1 L. 833-11 pour

s'assurer que le cadre lgal a t respect ; que l'autorisation
du Premier ministre de mettre en uvre les techniques de
recueil de renseignement selon cette procdure drogatoire
est place sous le contrle juridictionnel du Conseil d'tat,
charg d'apprcier les motifs qui en ont justifi l'usage ;
que, par suite, les dispositions de l'article L. 821-5 du code
de la scurit intrieure ne portent pas d'atteinte
manifestement disproportionne au droit au respect de la
vie prive et au secret des correspondances;
26. Considrant qu'il rsulte de ce qui prcde que les
Constitution;
29. Considrant, d'autre part, qu' l'inverse des autres

procdures drogatoires, y compris celle institue par
l'article L. 821-5 du mme code, la procdure prvue par
l'article L. 821-6 permet de droger la dlivrance
pralable d'une autorisation par le Premier ministre ou par
l'un de ses collaborateurs directs habilits au secret de la
dfense nationale auxquels il a dlgu cette attribution,
ainsi qu' la dlivrance d'un avis pralable de la
renseignement ; qu'elle ne prvoit pas non plus que le
Premier ministre et le ministre concern doivent tre
informs au pralable de la mise en uvre d'une technique
dans ce cadre ; que, par suite, les dispositions de l'article L.
821-6 portent une atteinte manifestement disproportionne
au droit au respect de la vie prive et au secret des
correspondances ; que les dispositions de l'article L. 821-6
du code de la scurit intrieure doivent tre dclares
contraires la Constitution;
30. Considrant que, par voie de consquence, la dernire
phrase du premier alina de l'article L. 821-7 du code de la
scurit intrieure dans sa rdaction rsultant de l'article 2
de la loi dfre, qui est indissociable des dispositions de
l'article L. 821-6, doit galement tre dclare contraire la
Constitution ; qu'il en va de mme des mots : et L. 821-6
au septime alina de l'article L. 833-9 du code de la
scurit intrieure dans sa rdaction rsultant de l'article 2
de la loi dfre;


intrieure institue une procdure drogatoire d'installation,
d'utilisation et d'exploitation des appareils ou dispositifs
techniques de localisation en temps rel d'une personne,
d'un vhicule ou d'un objet, d'identification d'un
quipement terminal ou du numro d'abonnement ainsi que
de localisation de cet quipement ou d'interception des
correspondances mises ou reues par cet quipement, en
cas d'urgence lie une menace imminente ou un risque
trs lev de ne pouvoir effectuer l'opration ultrieurement
; que cette procdure permet aux agents individuellement
dsigns et habilits d'installer, utiliser et exploiter sans
autorisation pralable ces appareils ou dispositifs
techniques; que le Premier ministre, le ministre concern et
la commission nationale de contrle des techniques de
renseignement en sont informs sans dlai et par tout
moyen; que le Premier ministre peut ordonner tout
moment d'interrompre la mise en uvre de la technique et
de dtruire sans dlai les renseignements collects ; qu'une
autorisation doit tre ensuite dlivre par le Premier
ministre, dans un dlai de quarante-huit heures, aprs avis
rendu par la commission au vu des lments de motivation
mentionns l'article L. 821-4 du mme code et de ceux
justifiant le recours la procdure d'urgence;
28. Considrant, d'une part, que la procdure prvue
l'article L. 821-6 peut tre utilise pour la mise en place des
techniques de recueil de renseignement prvues par les
articles L. 851-5, L. 851-6 et par le paragraphe II de l'article
L. 852-1 du code de la scurit intrieure ; que ces
procdures permettent l'autorit administrative d'utiliser
un dispositif technique permettant la localisation en temps
rel d'une personne, d'un vhicule ou d'un objet, ou de
recueillir ou d'intercepter, au moyen d'un appareil ou d'un
dispositif, sans le consentement de leur auteur les donnes
de connexion permettant l'identification d'un quipement
terminal ou du numro d'abonnement de son utilisateur
ainsi que les donnes relatives la localisation des
quipements terminaux utiliss et les correspondances
mises ou reues par un quipement terminal;


intrieure interdit qu'un parlementaire, un magistrat, un
avocat ou un journaliste puisse tre l'objet d'une demande
de mise en uvre, sur le territoire national, d'une technique
de recueil de renseignement dfinie aux articles L. 851-1
L. 853-3 raison de l'exercice de son mandat ou de sa
profession ; qu'il impose un examen en formation plnire
par la commission nationale de contrle des techniques de
renseignement d'une demande concernant l'une de ces
personnes ou ses vhicules, ses bureaux ou ses domiciles ;
qu'il interdit le recours la procdure drogatoire prvue
par l'article L. 821-5 ; que la commission, qui est informe
des modalits d'excution des autorisations dlivres en
application du prsent article, et laquelle sont transmises
les transcriptions des renseignements collects sur ce
fondement, veille au caractre ncessaire et proportionn
des atteintes portes aux garanties attaches l'exercice des
activits professionnelles ou mandats;
32. Considrant que, selon les dputs requrants, ces
dispositions n'assurent pas une protection suffisante contre
l'atteinte indirecte au secret des sources des journalistes
ainsi qu' la confidentialit des changes entre avocats et
clients ; qu'il en rsulterait une atteinte au droit au respect
de la vie prive ainsi que, pour les avocats, aux droits de la
dfense et au droit un procs quitable, et pour les
13
F-196
journalistes, la libert d'expression ; qu'en outre, l'absence

d'incrimination pnale des agents qui rvleraient le
contenu des renseignements collects permettrait le
contournement des garanties lgales de la protection du
secret professionnel de ces professions;
33. Considrant que les dputs requrants contestent
galement l'absence d'application des dispositions
contestes aux professeurs d'universit et matres de
confrences, en mconnaissance du principe fondamental
reconnu par les lois de la Rpublique d'indpendance des
enseignants-chercheurs;
34. Considrant, en premier lieu, que les dispositions
contestes prvoient un examen systmatique par la
commission nationale de contrle des techniques de recueil
de renseignement sigeant en formation plnire d'une
demande de mise en uvre d'une technique de
renseignement concernant un membre du Parlement, un
magistrat, un avocat ou un journaliste ou leurs vhicules,
bureaux ou domiciles, laquelle ne peut intervenir raison
de l'exercice du mandat ou de la profession ; que la
procdure drogatoire prvue par l'article L. 821-5 du code
de la scurit intrieure n'est pas applicable ; qu'il incombe
la commission, qui est destinataire de l'ensemble des
transcriptions de renseignements collects dans ce cadre, de
veiller, sous le contrle juridictionnel du Conseil d'tat, la
proportionnalit tant des atteintes portes au droit au
respect de la vie prive que des atteintes portes aux
garanties attaches l'exercice de ces activits
professionnelles ou mandats ; qu'il rsulte de ce qui prcde
que les dispositions de l'article L. 821-7 ne portent pas une
atteinte manifestement disproportionne au droit au respect
de la vie prive, l'inviolabilit du domicile et au secret des
correspondances;
35. Considrant, en deuxime lieu, que l'article 226-13 du
code pnal incrimine la rvlation d'une information
caractre secret par une personne qui en est dpositaire;
que, par suite, le grief tir de l'absence d'incrimination
pnale des agents qui rvleraient les renseignements ou
donnes collects manque en fait;
36. Considrant, en troisime lieu, que le principe
d'indpendance des enseignants-chercheurs n'implique pas
que les professeurs d'universit et matres de confrences
doivent bnficier d'une protection particulire en cas de
mise en uvre leur gard de techniques de recueil de
renseignement dans le cadre de la police administrative;
37. Considrant qu'il rsulte de tout de ce qui prcde que
le surplus des dispositions de l'article L. 821-7 du code de
la scurit intrieure, qui ne mconnaissent aucune
exigence constitutionnelle, doivent tre dclares
renseignements collects par la mise en uvre d'une

technique de recueil de renseignement dfinie aux articles
L. 851-1 L. 853-3 du mme code ; que ces dures sont de
trente jours compter de leur recueil pour les
correspondances interceptes et les paroles captes, de cent
vingt jours compter de leur recueil pour les donnes
informatiques et les images, de quatre ans compter de leur
recueil pour les donnes de connexion et de six ans
compter de leur recueil pour les donnes chiffres;
39. Considrant qu'en prvoyant de telles dures de
conservation en fonction des caractristiques des
renseignements collects ainsi qu'une dure maximale de
conservation de six ans compter du recueil des donnes
chiffres, au-del de laquelle les renseignements collects
doivent tre dtruits, le lgislateur n'a mconnu aucune
exigence constitutionnelle ; que les dispositions de l'article
L. 822-2 du code de la scurit intrieure doivent tre
dclares conformes la Constitution;

intrieure est relatif la composition de la commission
nationale de contrle des techniques de renseignement, qui
est qualifie d'autorit administrative indpendante ; qu'elle
est compose de neuf membres, dont un prsident ; qu'elle
comprend deux dputs et deux snateurs, dsigns,
respectivement, pour la dure de la lgislature par
l'Assemble nationale et pour la dure de leur mandat par le
Snat, deux membres du Conseil d'tat nomms par le viceprsident du Conseil d'tat, deux magistrats hors hirarchie
de la Cour de cassation nomms conjointement par le
Premier prsident et par le procureur gnral de la Cour de
cassation et une personnalit qualifie pour sa connaissance
en matire de communications lectroniques nomme sur
proposition du prsident de l'autorit de rgulation des
communications lectroniques et des postes ; que son
prsident est nomm par dcret du Prsident de la
Rpublique parmi les membres issus du Conseil d'tat ou
de la Cour de cassation ; que la dure du mandat des
membres non parlementaires est fixe six ans ; que le
mandat des membres n'est pas renouvelable ; que les
membres du Conseil d'tat et les magistrats de la Cour de
cassation sont renouvels par moiti tous les trois ans ; que
la commission peut suspendre le mandat d'un de ses
membres ou y mettre fin en cas d'incompatibilit,
d'empchement ou de manquement;
41. Considrant que les dputs requrants soutiennent que
la composition de la commission nationale de contrle des
techniques de renseignement est fixe en mconnaissance
du principe de sparation des pouvoirs ds lors, d'une part,
qu'un seul de ses neuf membres est dsign eu gard ses
comptences en matire de communications lectroniques
et, d'autre part, que les membres du Parlement sont
minoritaires;


intrieure fixe les dures de conservation maximales des
(2015) 2 LAW
14
(2015) 2 LAW
F-197
42. Considrant, d'une part, que la prsence d'une seule

personnalit qualifie pour sa connaissance en matire de
communications lectroniques au sein de la commission
nationale de contrle des techniques de renseignement est
sans incidence sur le respect du principe de la sparation
des pouvoirs;
43. Considrant, d'autre part, que la prsence de membres
du Parlement parmi les membres de la commission
nationale de contrle des techniques de renseignement n'est
pas de nature porter atteinte au principe de la sparation
des pouvoirs, garanti par l'article 16 de la Dclaration de
1789, ds lors qu'ils sont astreints, en vertu du troisime
alina de l'article L. 832-5 du code de la scurit intrieure,
au respect des secrets protgs aux articles 226-13 et 41310 du code pnal;
intrieure doit tre dclar conforme la Constitution;
1, le Conseil d'tat peut tre saisi par ladite commission

lorsqu'elle estime que ses avis ou recommandations n'ont
pas t suivis d'effet ou que les suites qui y ont t donnes
sont insuffisantes, ou par au moins trois de ses membres ;
qu'en vertu du cinquime alina de l'article L. 841-1, une
juridiction administrative ou une autorit judiciaire saisie
d'une procdure ou d'un litige dont la solution dpend de
l'examen de la rgularit d'une technique de recueil de
renseignement a la facult de saisir le Conseil d'tat titre
prjudiciel;
intrieure, qui met en uvre le droit un recours
juridictionnel effectif, doit, l'exception des mots : Sous
rserve des dispositions particulires prvues l'article L.
854-1 du prsent code, , tre dclar conforme la
Constitution;
En ce qui concerne certaines dispositions de l'article

L. 832-4 du code de la scurit intrieure:
50. Considrant que l'article 5 de la loi complte le livre

VIII du code de la scurit intrieure par un titre V intitul
Des techniques de recueil de renseignement soumises
autorisation au sein duquel il est insr un chapitre Ier
intitul Des accs administratifs aux donnes de
connexion comprenant les articles L. 851-1 L. 851-7 et
un chapitre II intitul Des interceptions de scurit
comprenant l'article L. 852-1;
51. Considrant que les techniques de recueil de
renseignement prvues aux articles L. 851-1 L. 851-6 et
l'article L. 852-1 s'exercent, sauf disposition spcifique,
dans les conditions prvues au chapitre Ier du titre II du
code de la scurit intrieure ; qu'ainsi, elles sont autorises
par le Premier ministre, sur demande crite et motive du
ministre de la dfense, du ministre de l'intrieur ou des
ministres chargs de l'conomie, du budget ou des douanes,
aprs avis pralable de la commission nationale de contrle
des techniques de renseignement ; que ces techniques ne
peuvent tre mises en uvre que par des agents
individuellement dsigns et habilits ; qu'elles sont
ralises sous le contrle de la commission nationale de
contrle des techniques de renseignement ; que la
composition et l'organisation de cette autorit
administrative indpendante sont dfinies aux articles L.
831-1 L. 832-5 du code de la scurit intrieure dans des
conditions qui assurent son indpendance ; que ses missions
sont dfinies aux articles L. 833-1 L. 833-11 du mme
code dans des conditions qui assurent l'effectivit de son
contrle ; que, conformment aux dispositions de l'article L.
841-1 du mme code, le Conseil d'tat peut tre saisi par
toute personne souhaitant vrifier qu'aucune technique de
recueil de renseignement n'est irrgulirement mise en
uvre son gard ou par la commission nationale de
contrle des techniques de renseignement ; qu'enfin, en
application des dispositions de l'article L. 871-6 du mme
code, les oprations matrielles ncessaires la mise en
place des techniques mentionnes aux articles L. 851-1 L.

intrieure est relatif aux moyens accords la commission
nationale de contrle des techniques de renseignement ;
qu' ce titre, la deuxime phrase du premier alina de cet
article dispose que les crdits de la commission sont inscrits
au programme Protection des droits et liberts de la
mission Direction de l'action du Gouvernement ;
46. Considrant que le 1 du paragraphe II de l'article 34 de
la loi organique du 1er aot 2001 susvise, laquelle
renvoie l'article 34 de la Constitution, rserve un texte de
loi de finances le soin de fixer pour le budget gnral, par
mission, le montant des autorisations d'engagement et des
crdits de paiement ;
47. Considrant que la deuxime phrase du premier alina
de l'article L. 832-4, qui empite sur le domaine exclusif
d'intervention des lois de finances, doit tre dclare
contraire la Constitution;

intrieure prvoit que Sous rserve des dispositions
particulires prvues l'article L. 854-1 du prsent code, le
Conseil d'tat est comptent pour connatre, dans les
conditions prvues au chapitre III bis du titre VII du livre
VII du code de justice administrative, des requtes
concernant la mise en uvre des techniques de
renseignement mentionnes au titre V du prsent livre ;
qu'en vertu du 1 du mme article, le Conseil d'tat peut
tre saisi par toute personne souhaitant vrifier qu'elle ne
fait pas, ou n'a pas fait, l'objet d'une surveillance irrgulire,
sous rserve de l'exercice d'une rclamation pralable
auprs de la commission nationale de contrle des
techniques de renseignement conformment l'article L.
833-4 du mme code ; qu'en vertu du 2 de l'article L. 84115
F-198
851-4 et L. 852-1 ne peuvent tre excutes, dans leurs

rseaux respectifs, que par des agents qualifis des services
ou organismes placs sous l'autorit ou la tutelle du
ministre charg des communications lectroniques ou des
exploitants de rseaux ou fournisseurs de services de
tlcommunications;
mentionnes au considrant 52 ; que selon les dispositions

du paragraphe VI de l'article L. 34-1 du code des postes et
des communications lectroniques, les donnes conserves
et traites par les oprateurs de communications
lectroniques et les personnes offrant au public une
connexion permettant une telle communication portent
exclusivement sur l'identification des personnes utilisatrices
des services fournis par les oprateurs, sur les
caractristiques techniques des communications assures
par ces derniers et sur la localisation des quipements
terminaux et ne peuvent en aucun cas porter sur le contenu
des correspondances changes ou des informations
consultes, sous quelque forme que ce soit, dans le cadre de
ces communications ; que selon le paragraphe II de l'article
6 de la loi du 21 juin 2004, les donnes conserves par les
personnes offrant un accs des services de communication
en ligne et celles assurant le stockage de diverses
informations pour mise disposition du public par ces
services sont celles de nature permettre l'identification de
quiconque a contribu la cration du contenu ou de l'un
des contenus des services dont elles sont prestataires ;
qu'ainsi, le lgislateur a suffisamment dfini les donnes de
connexion, qui ne peuvent porter sur le contenu de
correspondances ou les informations consultes;
56. Considrant, en second lieu, que cette technique de
recueil de renseignement est mise en uvre dans les
conditions et avec les garanties rappeles au considrant 51
; qu'elle ne pourra tre mise en uvre que pour les finalits
numres l'article L. 811-3 du code de la scurit
intrieure ; qu'elle est autorise pour une dure de quatre
mois renouvelable conformment l'article L. 821-4 du
mme code ; qu'en outre, lorsque le recueil des donnes a
lieu en temps rel, il ne pourra tre autoris que pour les
besoins de la prvention du terrorisme, pour une dure de
deux mois renouvelable, uniquement l'gard d'une
personne pralablement identifie comme prsentant une
menace et sans le recours la procdure d'urgence absolue
prvue l'article L. 821-5 du mme code ; que, par suite, le
lgislateur a assorti la procdure de rquisition de donnes
techniques de garanties propres assurer entre, d'une part,
le respect de la vie prive des personnes et, d'autre part, la
prvention des atteintes l'ordre public et celle des
infractions, une conciliation qui n'est pas manifestement
dsquilibre;
articles L. 851-1 et L. 851-2 du code de la scurit
intrieure doivent tre dclars conformes la
Constitution;
En ce qui concerne les articles L. 851-1 et L. 851-2


intrieure reprend la procdure de rquisition administrative
de donnes techniques de connexion prvue auparavant
l'article L. 246-1 du mme code autorisant l'autorit
administrative recueillir des informations ou documents
traits ou conservs par leurs rseaux ou services de
communications lectroniques, auprs des oprateurs de
communications lectroniques, auprs des personnes
offrant, au titre d'une activit professionnelle principale ou
accessoire, au public une connexion permettant une
communication en ligne par l'intermdiaire d'un accs au
rseau et auprs de celles qui assurent, pour mise
disposition du public par des services de communication au
public en ligne, le stockage de signaux, d'crits, d'images,
de sons ou de messages de toute nature fournis par des
destinataires de ces services ; que, par exception aux
dispositions de l'article L. 821-2 du mme code, lorsque la
demande sera relative l'identification des numros
d'abonnement ou de connexion des services de
communications lectroniques ou au recensement de
l'ensemble des numros d'abonnement ou de connexion
d'une personne dsigne, elle sera directement transmise
renseignement par les agents individuellement dsigns et
habilits des services de renseignement;
intrieure permet l'administration, pour les seuls besoins
de la prvention du terrorisme, de recueillir en temps rel,
sur les rseaux des oprateurs et personnes mentionns
l'article L. 851-1, les informations ou documents
mentionns ce mme article relatifs une personne
pralablement identifie comme prsentant une menace;
54. Considrant que les dputs requrants font valoir que
le lgislateur a mconnu l'tendue de sa comptence en ne
dfinissant pas suffisamment les donnes de connexion
pouvant faire l'objet d'un recueil par les autorits
administratives et que la procdure porte une atteinte
disproportionne au droit au respect de la vie prive compte
tenu de la nature des donnes pouvant tre recueillies, de
l'ampleur des techniques pouvant tre utilises et des
finalits poursuivies;
55. Considrant, en premier lieu, que l'autorisation de
recueil de renseignement prvue par les articles L. 851-1 et
L. 851-2 porte uniquement sur les informations ou
documents traits ou conservs par les rseaux ou services
de communications lectroniques des personnes
(2015) 2 LAW


intrieure prvoit qu'il pourra tre impos aux oprateurs et
aux personnes mentionnes l'article L. 851-1 du mme
code la mise en uvre, sur leur rseau, de traitements
16
(2015) 2 LAW
F-199
automatiss destins, en fonction de paramtres prciss

dans l'autorisation, dtecter des connexions susceptibles
de rvler une menace terroriste ; que ces traitements
automatiss utiliseront exclusivement les informations ou
documents mentionns l'article L. 851-1, sans recueillir
d'autres donnes que celles rpondant leurs paramtres de
conception et sans permettre l'identification des personnes
auxquelles les informations ou documents se rapportent ;
que, lorsque ces traitements dtecteront des donnes
susceptibles de caractriser l'existence d'une menace
terroriste, l'identification de la ou des personnes concernes
et le recueil des donnes y affrentes pourront tre autoriss
par le Premier ministre ou par l'une des personnes
dlgues par lui;
59. Considrant que les dputs requrants soutiennent que,
compte tenu du nombre de donnes susceptibles d'tre
contrles et de l'insuffisance des garanties concernant les
faux positifs , la technique prvue par ces dispositions
porte une atteinte disproportionne au droit au respect de la
vie prive;
60. Considrant que la technique de recueil de
renseignement prvue l'article L. 851-3 est mise en uvre
dans les conditions et avec les garanties rappeles au
considrant 51 ; qu'elle ne peut tre mise en uvre qu'aux
fins de prvention du terrorisme ; que tant le recours la
technique que les paramtres du traitement automatis sont
autoriss aprs avis de la commission nationale de contrle
des techniques de renseignement ; que la premire
autorisation d'utilisation de cette technique est dlivre pour
une dure limite deux mois et que la demande de
renouvellement doit comporter un relev du nombre
d'identifiants signals par le traitement automatis et une
analyse de la pertinence de ces signalements ; que les
traitements automatiss utilisent exclusivement les
informations ou documents mentionns l'article L. 851-1,
sans recueillir d'autres donnes que celles qui rpondent
leurs paramtres de conception et sans permettre
l'identification des personnes auxquelles les informations
ou documents se rapportent ; que, lorsqu'une donne
dtecte par le traitement automatis est susceptible de
caractriser l'existence d'une menace terroriste, une
nouvelle autorisation du Premier ministre sera ncessaire,
aprs avis de la commission nationale de contrle des
techniques de renseignement, afin d'identifier la personne
concerne ; que ces donnes sont exploites dans un dlai
de soixante jours compter de ce recueil et sont dtruites
l'expiration de ce dlai sauf en cas d'lments srieux
confirmant l'existence d'une menace terroriste ; que
l'autorisation d'usage de cette technique ne peut tre
dlivre selon la procdure d'urgence absolue prvue
l'article L. 821-5 ; que, par suite, ces dispositions ne portent
pas une atteinte manifestement disproportionne au droit au
respect de la vie prive ; que les dispositions de l'article L.
851-3 du code de la scurit intrieure doivent tre
En ce qui concerne les articles L. 851-4, L. 851-5 et

L. 851-6 du code de la scurit intrieure:

intrieure autorise l'autorit administrative requrir des
oprateurs la transmission en temps rel des donnes
techniques relatives la localisation des quipements
terminaux utiliss mentionns l'article L. 851-1 ; que,
selon l'article L. 851-5, l'autorit administrative peut utiliser
un dispositif technique permettant la localisation en temps
rel d'une personne, d'un vhicule ou d'un objet ; que
l'article L. 851-6 prvoit la possibilit pour cette mme
autorit de recueillir, au moyen d'un appareil ou d'un
dispositif permettant d'intercepter, sans le consentement de
leur auteur, des paroles ou des correspondances mises,
transmises ou reues par la voie lectronique ou d'accder
des donnes informatiques, les donnes de connexion
permettant l'identification d'un quipement terminal ou du
numro d'abonnement de son utilisateur ainsi que les
donnes relatives la localisation des quipements
terminaux utiliss;
62. Considrant que, selon les dputs requrants, au regard
des finalits justifiant leur mise en uvre, ces techniques
portent une atteinte disproportionne au droit au respect de
la vie prive;
63. Considrant que les techniques de recueil de
renseignement prcites sont mises en uvre dans les
conditions et avec les garanties rappeles au considrant 51
et pour les finalits numres l'article L. 811-3 du code
de la scurit intrieure ; que lorsque la mise en uvre de la
technique prvue l'article L. 851-5 impose l'introduction
dans un vhicule ou dans un lieu priv, cette mesure
s'effectue selon les modalits dfinies l'article L. 853-3 ;
que l'autorisation d'utilisation de la technique prvue
l'article L. 851-6 est dlivre pour une dure de deux mois
renouvelable dans les mmes conditions de dure ; que les
appareils ou dispositifs utiliss dans le cadre de cette
dernire technique font l'objet d'une inscription dans un
registre spcial tenu la disposition de la commission
nationale de contrle des techniques de renseignement ; que
le nombre maximal de ces appareils ou dispositifs pouvant
tre utiliss simultanment est arrt par le Premier
ministre, aprs avis de cette commission ; que les
informations ou documents recueillis par ces appareils ou
dispositifs doivent tre dtruits ds qu'il apparat qu'ils ne
sont pas en rapport avec l'autorisation de mise en uvre et,
en tout tat de cause, dans un dlai maximal de quatrevingt-dix jours compter de leur recueil ; que, dans ces
conditions, les dispositions critiques ne portent pas une
atteinte manifestement disproportionne au droit au respect
de la vie prive ; que, par suite, les dispositions des articles
L. 851-4, L. 851-5 et L. 851-6 du code de la scurit
Constitution;
17
F-200

68. Considrant que l'article 6 de la loi complte le titre V

du livre VIII du code de scurit intrieure par un chapitre
III intitul De la sonorisation de certains lieux et
vhicules et de la captation d'images et de donnes
informatiques comprenant les articles L. 853-1 L. 853-3
et par un chapitre IV intitul Des mesures de surveillance
internationale comprenant un article L. 854-1;
64. Considrant que le paragraphe I de l'article L. 852-1 du

code de la scurit intrieure autorise les interceptions
administratives de correspondances mises par la voie des
communications lectroniques ; que les personnes
appartenant l'entourage d'une personne concerne par
l'autorisation d'interception peuvent galement faire l'objet
de ces interceptions lorsqu'elles sont susceptibles de fournir
des informations au titre de la finalit qui motive
l'autorisation;
65. Considrant que le paragraphe II de ce mme article
prvoit que, pour les finalits mentionnes aux 1, 4 et a)
du 5 de l'article L. 811-3, l'utilisation d'un appareil ou d'un
dispositif permettant d'intercepter, sans le consentement de
leur auteur, des paroles ou des correspondances mises,
transmises ou reues par la voie lectronique ou d'accder
des donnes informatiques peut tre autorise afin
d'intercepter des correspondances mises ou reues par un
quipement terminal ; que les correspondances interceptes
sont dtruites ds qu'il apparat qu'elles sont sans lien avec
l'autorisation dlivre, au plus tard trente jours compter de
leur recueil;
66. Considrant que, selon les dputs requrants, au regard
des finalits justifiant leur mise en uvre, ces techniques
portent une atteinte disproportionne au droit au respect de
la vie prive;
67. Considrant que les techniques d'interception de
correspondance prvues au paragraphe I de l'article L. 8521 sont mises en uvre dans les conditions et avec les
garanties rappeles au considrant 51 ; qu'elles ne pourront
tre mises en uvre que pour les finalits numres
l'article L. 811-3 du code de la scurit intrieure ; que le
nombre maximal des autorisations d'interception en vigueur
simultanment est arrt par le Premier ministre aprs avis
de la commission nationale de contrle des techniques de
renseignement ; qu'afin de faciliter le contrle de cette
commission, l'excution de ces interceptions sera
centralise ; qu'en outre, en ce qui concerne les
interceptions ralises au moyen de la technique prvue au
paragraphe II de l'article L. 851-2, l'autorisation ne pourra
tre dlivre que pour certaines des finalits mentionnes
l'article L. 811-3, qui sont relatives la prvention
d'atteintes particulirement graves l'ordre public ; que les
correspondances ainsi interceptes seront dtruites ds qu'il
apparatra qu'elles sont sans lien avec l'autorisation dlivre
et au plus tard trente jours compter de leur recueil ; qu'il
rsulte de ce qui prcde que le lgislateur n'a pas, par les
dispositions
prcites,
opr
une
conciliation
manifestement dsquilibre entre, d'une part, la prvention
des atteintes l'ordre public et celle des infractions et,
d'autre part, le droit au respect de la vie prive et le secret
des correspondances ; que, par suite, les dispositions de
l'article L. 852-1 du code de la scurit intrieure doivent
tre dclares conformes la Constitution;
(2015) 2 LAW
En ce qui concerne les articles L. 853-1 L. 853-3


intrieure autorise, lorsque les renseignements ne peuvent
tre recueillis par un autre moyen lgalement autoris,
l'utilisation de dispositifs techniques permettant la
captation, la fixation, la transmission et l'enregistrement de
paroles prononces titre priv ou confidentiel, ou
d'images dans un lieu priv ; que l'article L. 853-2 du mme
code prvoit, dans les mmes conditions, l'utilisation de
dispositifs techniques permettant d'accder des donnes
informatiques stockes dans un systme informatique, de
les enregistrer, de les conserver et de les transmettre ou
d'accder des donnes informatiques, de les enregistrer,
de les conserver et de les transmettre, telles qu'elles
s'affichent sur un cran pour l'utilisateur d'un systme de
traitement automatis de donnes, telles qu'il les y introduit
par saisie de caractres ou telles qu'elles sont reues et
mises par des priphriques audiovisuels;
intrieure permet, lorsque les renseignements ne peuvent
tre recueillis par un autre moyen lgalement autoris,
l'introduction dans un vhicule ou dans un lieu priv aux
seules fins de mettre en place, d'utiliser ou de retirer les
dispositifs techniques mentionns aux articles L. 851-5, L.
853-1 et L. 853-2;
ces techniques doivent, compte tenu de leur caractre
intrusif, tre contrles par le juge judiciaire et qu'elles
portent une atteinte disproportionne l'inviolabilit du
domicile et au droit au respect de la vie prive;
72. Considrant, en premier lieu, que les techniques de
recueil de renseignement prvues aux articles L. 853-1 et L.
853-2, mises en place, le cas chant, en application de
l'article L. 853-3, la suite de l'introduction dans un lieu
priv ou dans un vhicule ne constituant pas un lieu priv
usage d'habitation, s'exercent, sauf disposition spcifique,
dans les conditions prvues au chapitre Ier du titre II du
code de la scurit intrieure rappeles au considrant 51 ;
que ces techniques ne peuvent tre utilises que pour les
finalits numres l'article L. 811-3 du code de la
scurit intrieure et si les renseignements recherchs ne
peuvent tre recueillis par un autre moyen lgalement
autoris ; qu'il appartiendra la commission nationale de
contrle des techniques de renseignement de s'assurer lors
de l'examen de la demande du respect de cette condition ;
18
(2015) 2 LAW
F-201
que l'autorisation est dlivre pour une dure de deux mois

ou de trente jours selon la technique utilise ; que le service
autoris recourir la technique de recueil de
renseignement rend compte la commission nationale de
contrle des techniques de renseignement de sa mise en
uvre ; que l'utilisation des dispositifs techniques et, le cas
chant, l'introduction dans un lieu priv ou un vhicule, ne
peuvent tre le fait que d'agents individuellement dsigns
et habilits appartenant l'un des services mentionns aux
articles L. 811-2 et L. 811-4 et dont la liste est fixe par
dcret en Conseil d'tat ; que lorsque l'introduction dans un
lieu priv ou dans un vhicule est ncessaire pour utiliser
un dispositif technique permettant d'accder des donnes
stockes dans un systme informatique, l'autorisation ne
peut tre donne qu'aprs avis exprs de la commission
nationale de contrle des techniques de renseignement,
statuant en formation restreinte ou plnire ; que l'exigence
de cet avis exprs pralable exclut l'application de la
procdure d'urgence prvue l'article L. 821-5 ; qu'il
rsulte de ce qui prcde que le lgislateur a entour la mise
en uvre des techniques prvues aux articles L. 853-1 L.
853-3, le cas chant lorsqu'elles imposent l'introduction
dans un lieu priv ou un vhicule, qui n'est pas usage
d'habitation, de dispositions de nature garantir que les
restrictions apportes au droit au respect de la vie prive ne
revtent pas un caractre manifestement disproportionn;

articles L. 853-1, L. 853-2 et L. 853-3 du code de la
scurit intrieure doivent tre dclars conformes la
Constitution;
76. Considrant que le paragraphe I de l'article L. 854-1 du

code de la scurit intrieure autorise, aux seules fins de
protection des intrts fondamentaux de la Nation
mentionns l'article L. 811-3 du mme code, la
surveillance des communications mises ou reues
l'tranger ; que le deuxime alina de ce paragraphe prvoit
les mentions que les autorisations de surveillance dlivres
en application de cet article devront comporter ; que le
troisime alina de ce paragraphe indique que ces
autorisations seront dlivres sur demande motive des
ministres mentionns au premier alina de l'article L. 821-2
du mme code pour une dure de quatre mois renouvelable
; que le quatrime alina de ce paragraphe dispose qu'un
dcret en Conseil d'tat, pris aprs avis de la commission
nationale de contrle des techniques de renseignement,
dfinit les conditions d'exploitation, de conservation et de
destruction des renseignements collects, ainsi que les
conditions de traabilit et de contrle par la commission de
la mise en uvre des mesures de surveillance ; que le
cinquime alina prvoit qu'un dcret en Conseil d'tat non
publi pris aprs avis de ladite commission et port la
connaissance de la dlgation parlementaire au
renseignement prcise, en tant que de besoin, les modalits
de mise en uvre de ces mesures de surveillance;
ces dispositions mconnaissent le droit au respect de la vie
prive;
78. Considrant qu'en ne dfinissant dans la loi ni les
73. Considrant, en deuxime lieu, que lorsque la mise en

uvre des techniques de recueil de renseignement prvues
aux articles L. 853-1 et L. 853-2 impose l'introduction dans
un lieu priv usage d'habitation, l'autorisation ne peut tre
donne qu'aprs avis exprs de la commission nationale de
contrle des techniques de renseignement, statuant en
formation restreinte ou plnire ; que l'exigence de cet avis
exprs pralable exclut l'application de la procdure
d'urgence prvue l'article L. 821-5 ; que, lorsque cette
introduction est autorise aprs avis dfavorable de la
renseignement, le Conseil d'tat est immdiatement saisi
par le prsident de la commission ou par l'un des membres
de celle-ci mentionns aux 2 et 3 de l'article L. 831-1 ;
que, sauf si l'autorisation a t dlivre pour la prvention
du terrorisme et que le Premier ministre a ordonn sa mise
en uvre immdiate, la dcision d'autorisation ne peut tre
excute avant que le Conseil d'tat ait statu ; qu'il rsulte
de ce qui prcde que le lgislateur a entour la mise en
uvre des techniques prvues aux articles L. 853-1 L.
853-3, lorsqu'elles imposent l'introduction dans un lieu
priv usage d'habitation, de dispositions de nature
garantir que les restrictions apportes au droit au respect de
la vie prive et l'inviolabilit du domicile ne revtent pas
un caractre manifestement disproportionn;
conditions d'exploitation, de conservation et de destruction des

renseignements collects en application de l'article L. 854-1, ni
celles du contrle par la commission nationale de contrle des
techniques de renseignement de la lgalit des autorisations
dlivres en application de ce mme article et de leurs
conditions de mise en uvre, le lgislateur n'a pas dtermin
les rgles concernant les garanties fondamentales accordes
aux citoyens pour l'exercice des liberts publiques ; que, par
suite, les dispositions du paragraphe I de l'article L. 854-1, qui
mconnaissent l'article 34 de la Constitution, doivent tre
dclars contraires la Constitution;
79. Considrant qu'il en va de mme, par voie de consquence,
des paragraphes II et III du mme article L. 854-1, qui en sont
insparables ; qu'il y a galement lieu, par voie de
consquence, de dclarer contraires la Constitution les mots :
, l'exception de ceux mentionns l'article L. 854-1
figurant au troisime alina de l'article L. 833-2 du code de la
scurit intrieure dans sa rdaction rsultant de l'article 2 de la
loi, les mots : Sous rserve des dispositions particulires
prvues l'article L. 854-1 du prsent code, figurant au
premier alina de l'article L. 841-1 du code de la scurit
74. Considrant, en troisime lieu, que les dispositions

contestes ne portent pas atteinte la libert individuelle;
19
F-202
84. Considrant que l'article L. 773-3 dispose, en son

premier alina, que les exigences de la contradiction sont
adaptes celles du secret de la dfense nationale ; qu'
cette fin, le deuxime alina de cet article prvoit que la
renseignement est informe de toute requte prsente sur
le fondement de l'article L. 841-1 du code de la scurit
intrieure ; qu'elle reoit communication de l'ensemble des
pices produites par les parties et est invite prsenter des
observations crites ou orales ; que le troisime alina du
mme article prvoit que la formation charge de
l'instruction entend les parties sparment lorsqu'est en
cause le secret de la dfense nationale ; que l'article L. 7734 prvoit que le prsident de la formation de jugement
ordonne le huis-clos lorsqu'est en cause ce secret ; que
l'article L. 773-5 prvoit que la formation de jugement peut
relever d'office tout moyen;
85. Considrant que les dputs requrants reprochent
l'article L. 773-3 de porter atteinte au droit un procs
quitable ds lors qu'il n'opre pas une juste conciliation
entre le respect de la procdure contradictoire et celui du
secret de la dfense nationale ; que, selon eux, la possibilit
accorde au juge de relever d'office tout moyen serait
insuffisante pour pallier l'absence de respect de la
procdure contradictoire;
86. Considrant que les dispositions des articles L. 773-3 et
L. 773-4 ne trouvent s'appliquer que lorsqu'est en cause le
secret de la dfense nationale ; qu'eu gard aux possibilits
de saisine du Conseil d'tat, l'information donne la
renseignement lorsqu'une requte est prsente par une
personne, la possibilit, le cas chant, donne ladite
commission de prsenter des observations et, enfin, la
possibilit donne la formation de jugement de relever
d'office tout moyen, le lgislateur a opr une conciliation
qui n'est pas manifestement dsquilibre entre, d'une part,
le droit des personnes intresses exercer un recours
juridictionnel effectif, le droit un procs quitable et le
principe du contradictoire et, d'autre part, les exigences
constitutionnelles inhrentes la sauvegarde des intrts
fondamentaux de la Nation, dont participe le secret de la
dfense nationale;
87. Considrant que les dispositions des articles L. 773-3,
L. 773-4 et L. 773-5 du code de justice administrative
doivent tre dclares conformes la Constitution;
intrieure dans sa rdaction rsultant de l'article 2 de la loi, les

mots : et de l'article L. 854-1 du code de la scurit intrieure
figurant l'article L. 773-1 du code de justice administrative
dans sa rdaction rsultant de l'article 10 de la loi ainsi que le
paragraphe IV de l'article 26 de la loi;
80. Considrant que l'article 10 de la loi dfre modifie le

code de justice administrative ; que le 1 de cet article 10
insre dans ce code un nouvel article L. 311-4-1 qui attribue au
Conseil d'tat la comptence pour connatre, en premier et
dernier ressort, des requtes concernant la mise en uvre des
techniques de recueil de renseignement soumises autorisation
et des fichiers intressant la sret de l'tat ; que le 2 de cet
article 10 insre dans le titre VII du livre VII un nouveau
chapitre III bis intitul Le contentieux de la mise en uvre
des techniques de renseignement soumises autorisation et des
fichiers intressant la sret de l'tat comprenant les articles
L. 773-1 L. 773-8;
du code de justice administrative:
81. Considrant que l'article L. 773-2 du code de justice

administrative est relatif l'organisation retenue au sein du
Conseil d'tat pour statuer sur ces requtes dans le respect du
secret de la dfense nationale, dont la mconnaissance est
sanctionne par l'article 226-13 413-10 du code pnal ; que les
premier et deuxime alinas de l'article L. 773-2 dterminent
les formations de jugement appeles statuer sur ces requtes
au fond ou sur les questions de droit qu'elles sont susceptibles
de soulever ; que le troisime alina de cet article L. 773-2,
d'une part, fixe les modalits d'habilitation au secret de la
dfense nationale des membres des formations de jugement
mentionnes au premier alina de l'article, de leur rapporteur
public et des agents qui les assistent et, d'autre part, prvoit
que les mmes personnes sont astreintes au respect du secret
professionnel et du secret de la dfense nationale ; que le
quatrime alina de l'article L. 773-2 prvoit que les membres
de la formation de jugement et le rapporteur public sont
autoriss connatre de l'ensemble des pices, y compris celles
relevant du secret de la dfense nationale, en possession soit de
renseignement soit des services spcialiss de renseignement
ou des autres services administratifs, mentionns
respectivement aux articles L. 811-2 et L. 811-4 du code de la
scurit intrieure;
82. Considrant que les dispositions de l'article L. 773-2 du
code de justice administrative ne portent pas atteinte au secret
de la dfense nationale, qui participe des exigences
constitutionnelles inhrentes la sauvegarde des intrts
fondamentaux de la Nation ; qu'elles doivent tre dclares
En ce qui concerne les articles L. 773-6 et L. 773-7

88. Considrant que l'article L. 773-6 est relatif la

motivation des dcisions du Conseil d'tat lorsqu'il
considre qu'aucune illgalit n'entache la mise en uvre
d'une technique de recueil de renseignement ; que, dans
cette hypothse, la dcision se borne indiquer au
requrant ou la juridiction de renvoi qu'aucune illgalit
n'a t commise, sans confirmer ni infirmer la mise en
En ce qui concerne les articles L. 773-3, L. 773-4 et L. 773-5

83. Considrant que les articles L. 773-3, L. 773-4 et L.

773-5 sont relatifs la prise en compte du secret de la
dfense nationale pour l'organisation de la procdure
contradictoire;
(2015) 2 LAW
20
(2015) 2 LAW
F-203
uvre d'une technique de recueil de renseignement ; qu'il

en va de mme en l'absence d'illgalit relative la
conservation de renseignements;
89. Considrant que l'article L. 773-7 est relatif la motivation
92. Considrant que les dispositions des articles L. 773-6 et

L. 773-7 du code de justice administrative doivent tre
93. Considrant qu'il n'y a lieu, pour le Conseil
constitutionnel, de soulever d'office aucune autre question
de conformit la Constitution,
D C I D E:
Article 1er.- Sont contraires la Constitution les
des dcisions du Conseil d'tat et aux prrogatives de ce

dernier lorsqu'il constate qu'une technique de recueil de
renseignement est ou a t mise en uvre irrgulirement ou
qu'un renseignement a t conserv illgalement ; que le
premier alina de cet article prvoit que le Conseil d'tat est
comptent pour annuler l'autorisation et ordonner la
destruction des renseignements irrgulirement collects ; que
le deuxime alina prvoit que le Conseil d'tat, lorsqu'il est
saisi par une juridiction sur renvoi prjudiciel ou par la
personne intresse, informe cette dernire ou la juridiction
qu'une illgalit a t commise, sans rvler aucun lment
couvert par le secret de la dfense nationale ; que cet alina
prvoit galement que la formation de jugement, saisie de
conclusions indemnitaires, peut condamner l'tat rparer le
prjudice subi ; que le troisime alina de cet article prvoit
que, lorsque la formation de jugement estime que l'illgalit
constate est susceptible de constituer une infraction, elle en
avise le procureur de la Rpublique;
dispositions suivantes de la loi relative au renseignement:
- l'article 2, l'article L. 821-6, la dernire phrase

du premier alina de l'article L. 821-7, la
deuxime phrase du premier alina de l'article L.
832-4, les mots : , l'exception de ceux
mentionns l'article L. 854-1 figurant au
troisime alina de l'article L. 833-2, les mots :
et L. 821-6 figurant au septime alina de
l'article L. 833-9 et les mots : Sous rserve des
dispositions particulires prvues l'article L.
854-1 du prsent code, figurant au premier
alina de l'article L. 841-1 du code de la scurit
intrieure ;
- l'article 6, l'article L. 854-1 du code de la
scurit intrieure ;
- l'article 10, les mots : et de l'article L. 854-1
du code de la scurit intrieure figurant
l'article L. 773-1 du code de justice
administrative ;
- le paragraphe IV de l'article 26.
Article 2. Sont conformes la Constitutionles
90. Considrant que les dputs requrants reprochent

l'article L. 773-6 de porter atteinte au droit un procs
quitable ds lors que la motivation des dcisions du
Conseil d'tat rendues lorsqu'aucune illgalit n'a t
commise dans la mise en uvre de techniques de recueil de
renseignement ne permet pas la personne intresse de
savoir si elle a fait ou non l'objet d'une mesure de
surveillance;
91. Considrant que les dispositions de l'article L. 773-6 ne
dispositions suivantes de la mme loi:
portent, en elles-mmes, aucune atteinte au droit au procs

quitable ; que le Conseil d'tat statue en toute connaissance
de cause sur les requtes concernant la mise en uvre des
techniques de recueil de renseignement dont il est saisi sur le
fondement de l'article L. 841-1 du code de la scurit
intrieure, ds lors qu'en vertu de l'article L. 773-2 du code de
justice administrative, les membres de la formation de
jugement et le rapporteur public sont autoriss connatre de
l'ensemble des pices, y compris celles relevant du secret de la
dfense nationale, en possession soit de la commission
nationale de contrle des techniques de renseignement soit des
services spcialiss de renseignement ou des autres services
administratifs, mentionns respectivement aux articles L. 8112 et L. 811-4 du code de la scurit intrieure ; qu'en vertu de
l'article L. 773-3, la commission nationale de contrle des
techniques de renseignement est informe de toute requte
prsente sur le fondement de l'article L. 841-1, reoit
communication de l'ensemble des pices produites par les
parties et est invite prsenter des observations crites ou
orales ; qu'en vertu de l'article L. 773-5, la formation de
jugement peut relever d'office tout moyen ; qu'ainsi, en
adoptant les article L. 773-6 et L. 773-7, le lgislateur a opr
une conciliation qui n'est pas manifestement dsquilibre
entre, d'une part, le droit des personnes intresses exercer un
recours juridictionnel effectif et le droit un procs quitable
et, d'autre part, le secret de la dfense nationale;
- l'article 2, les articles L. 811-3, L. 811-4, L. 8211 et L. 821-5, le surplus de l'article L. 821-7, les
articles L. 822-2 et L. 831-1 et le surplus de
l'article L. 841-1 du code de la scurit intrieure ;
- l'article 5, les articles L. 851-1, L. 851-2, L. 8513, L. 851-4, L. 851-5, L. 851-6 et L. 852-1 du code
de la scurit intrieure ;
- l'article 6, les articles L. 853-1, L. 853-2, L. 8533 du code de la scurit intrieure ;
- l'article 10, les articles L. 773-2, L. 773-3, L. 7734, L. 773-5, L. 773-6 et L. 773-7 du code de justice
administrative.
Article 3.- La prsente dcision sera publie au Journal

officiel de la Rpublique franaise.
Dlibr par le Conseil constitutionnel dans sa sance du
23 juillet 2015, o sigeaient : M. Jean-Louis DEBR,
Prsident, Mmes Claire BAZY MALAURIE, Nicole
BELLOUBET, MM. Guy CANIVET, Michel CHARASSE,
Renaud DENOIX de SAINT MARC, Lionel JOSPIN et
Mme Nicole MAESTRACCI.
JORF n0171 du 26 juillet 2015 page 12751, texte n 4
ECLI:FR:CC:2015:2015.713.DC
***
21
F-204
Law on Intelligence {Surveillance}
Frdric REISS, Franck Riester, Arnaud TAP,

Martial SADDIER Paul SALEN, Claudine
Schmid,
MM.
Thierry
Solre
Eric
STRAUMANN,
Alain
Suguenot,
Lionel
TARDY,
Jean-Charles
TAUGOURDEAU
Michel VOISIN, Mrs Marie-Jo ZIMMERMANN,
Veronique Besse, MM. Gilbert Collard, Jean
Lassalle, Marion MARSHAL-PEN, MM. Charles
de Courson, Yannick FAVENNEC, JeanChristophe Fromantin Maurice LEROY, Herv
Morin, Arnaud RICHARD PHILIPPE Edouard,
Nol Mamre and Jean-Claude Mignon, deputies.
Under the terms provided for by Article 61-2 of

the Constitution, the Constitutional Council was
seized, under number 2015-713 DC, on June 25,
2015, of a referral [reference] by the President of
the Senate, on the Law on Intelligence,
And the same day, of a reference by the President
of the Republic,
And the same day, of references by Ms Laure de
La Raudire, Mr Pierre LELLOUCHE, Laurence
BEE, ric ALAUZET, Mrs Brigitte Allain,
Isabelle Attard, Danielle AUROI, Denis Baupin
Michle BONNETON Sergio CORONADO, Mrs
Ccile Duflot, Vronique MASSONNEAU,
Barbara POMPILI, Jean-Louis ROUMEGAS,
Eva SAS, Messrs. Damien ABAD, Elijah
ABOUD Yves ALBARELLO, Julien Aubert,
Patrick Balkany, Sylvain Berrios, Stephen
WHITE, Xavier BRETON, Luc Chatel, Grard
CHERPION, Alain CHRISTIAN Philippe
Cochet, Jean-Louis Costes, Marc-Philippe
DAUBRESSE, Claude GANAY, DEBR
Bernard,
Jean-Pierre
DECOOL
Lucien
DEGAUCHY, Patrick Devedjian, Nicolas
Dhuicq, Mrs Sophie Dion, Virginia DUBYMULLER, MM. GANDOLFI SCHEIT-Sauveur,
Herv Gaymard, GILARD Franck, Charles-Ange
Ginesy, GOASGUEN Claude, Jean-Pierre
Gorges, Mrs Claude GREFF, Anne Grommerch
Arlette GROSSKOST, MM. Henri Guaino, JeanJacques Guillet, Antoine HERTH Patrick Hetzel,
HOUILLON Philippe Denis JACQUAT, Jacques
KOSSOWSKI, Valrie Lacroute, Jean-Franois
Lamour, Ms Isabelle LE Callennec, MM. Marc
Le Fur, Bruno Le Maire, Alain LEBOEUF, Jean
LEONETTI Mr. Celeste LETT, Vronique
LOUWAGIE, MM. Lionnel LUCA, JeanFranois MANCEL, Thierry Mariani, Herv
MARITON,
MARSAUD
Alain
Philippe
ARMAND, Patrice Martin-Lalande, Alain
MARTY Philippe Meunier, Pierre MORANGE,
Yannick Moreau, Pierre Morel-A-USHER, Alain
MOYNE-BRESSAND Ms. Valrie Pcresse,
MM. Plissard Jacques Bernard PERRUT, JeanFrdric FISH Berengere Poletti Mrs MM.
(2015) 2 LAW
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COUNCIL
Having regard to the Constitution;

Having regard to Ordinance 58-1067 of 7
November 1958 laying down organic law on the
Constitutional Council;
Given Organic Law n 2001-692 of 1 August
2001 concerning finance laws;
Having regard to the code of Defence;
Having regard to the Customs Code;
Having regard to the Code of Administrative
Justice;
Having regard to the Penal Code;
Having regard to the code of postal and electronic
communications;
Considering the code of internal security;
Considering Law No. 2004-575 of 21 June 2004
on confidence in the digital economy;
Having regard to the Government's observations,
recorded July 7, 2015;
Having regard to the reply comments submitted
by the applicant MEPs, recorded July 21, 2015;
Having heard the rapporteur
1. Considering that the President of the Republic,
the President of the Senate and more than sixty
deputies deferential to the Constitutional Council
the Act on Intelligence; the President of the
Republic asked the Constitutional Council to rule
on the conformity with the right to respect for
private life, freedom of communication and the
right to effective judicial review of Articles L.
22
(2015) 2 LAW
F-205
811-3, L. 821- 5 to L. 821-7, L. 822-2 and L.

841-1 of the code of internal security as they
result from Article 2 of the Law, Articles L. 8513 to L. 851 -5, L. 851-6 and paragraph II of
Article L. 852-1 of the same code as they result
from Article 5 of the Law, Articles L. 853-1 of L.
853- 3 of the Code as they result from Article 6
of the Law and Articles L. 773-2 to L. 773-7 of
the code of administrative justice as they result
from Article 10 of the Law ; the Senate President
invokes against this text no particular grievance;
that the applicant MEPs are challenging the
conformity with the Constitution, in particular the
right to respect for privacy and freedom of
expression, Articles L. 811-3 to L. 811-4, L. 8211, L. 821-7 and L. 831-1 of the code of internal
security as they result from Article 2 of the Law,
Articles L. 851-1 of L. 851-6 and Article L . 8521 of the same code as they result from Article 5
of the Law, Articles L. 853-1 of L. 853-3 and L.
854-1 of the same code as they result from the
Article 6 of the Law and Articles L. 773-3 and L.
773-6 of the code of administrative justice as they
result from Article 10 of the Law;
the secrecy of national defense is involved in

safeguarding the fundamental interests of the
nation, among which are the independence of the
Nation and the territorial integrity;
4. Whereas under Article 66 of the Constitution: "No
one shall be arbitrarily detained. The judicial authority,
guardian of individual liberty, shall ensure respect for
this principle as provided by law";
5. Whereas under Article 16 of the Declaration of

1789: "Any society in which the guarantee of
rights is not assured, nor the separation of
powers, has no Constitution"; as guaranteed by
that provision the right of interested persons to
exercise an effective judicial remedy, the right to
a fair trial and the adversarial principle;
ON CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 2:
6. Considering that Article 2 of the complete

statute referred, for Titles I to IV, Book VIII of
the Code of Homeland Security established by
Article 1 of the Act; that Title I is devoted to
general provisions and Articles L. 811-1 includes
L. 811-4; Title II is devoted to the procedure
applicable to technical intelligence collection
subject to authorization and includes Articles L.
821-1 to L. 822-4; Title III concerns the national
commission for oversight of intelligence
techniques and includes Articles L. 831-1 to L.
833-11; Title IV is devoted to actions related to
the implementation of information technology
subject to authorization and interesting files state
security and includes Articles L. 841-1 and L.
841-2;
BENCHMARK STANDARDS:
2. Whereas under Article 34 of the Constitution, it is

for the legislature to establish the rules concerning the
fundamental guarantees granted to citizens for the
exercise of civil liberties; it is for the legislature to
reconcile, on the one hand, prevention of breaches of
public order and offenses, necessary to safeguard rights
and constitutional principles and, on the other, the
exercise of the constitutionally guaranteed rights and
freedoms; that many of the latter include the right to
respect for private life, inviolability of the home and the
confidentiality of correspondence, protected by Articles
2 and 4 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and
Citizen of 1789;
As regards Article L. 811-3 of

the code of internal security:
7. Considering that Article L. 811-3 of the Code

of Homeland Security lists the purposes for
which the specialized intelligence services may
use techniques defined in Articles L. 851-1 to L.
854-1 of the Code such they result from Articles
5 and 6 of the Act referred to only performing
their respective tasks, in order to gather
information; These objectives correspond to
3. Considering that under Article 5 of the

Constitution, the President of the Republic is the
guarantor of national independence and territorial
integrity; that under the first paragraph of Article
20: "The Government determines and conducts
the policy of the Nation"; that under Article 21,
the Prime Minister "directs government action"
and "is responsible for National Defence"; that
the defense and promotion of following

fundamental interests of the Nation:
23
F-206
those in b), 5, referring to provisions Article L.

212-1 of the Code of internal security, from those
in c), 5, referring to the criminal offenses
defined in Articles 431-1 to 431-10 of the
Criminal Code, from those in 6, referring to
criminal offenses listed in Article 706-73 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure and the offenses
punishable under section 414 of the Customs
Code committed by an organized group and from
those in 7, referring to criminal offenses defined
in Articles L. 2339-14 to L. 2339-18 of the
Defence Code;
11. Considering that the provisions of Article L.
811-3 must be combined with those of Article L.
801-1, as worded in Article 1 of the Act referred,
pursuant to which the decision to use information
"1. The national independence, territorial

integrity and national defense;
"2. The major interests in foreign policy,
enforcement of European and international
commitments of France and prevention of all
forms of foreign interference;
"3. The economic interests, major industrial
and scientific of France;
"4. The prevention of terrorism;
"5. Prevention:
"A) attacks on the republican form of the
institutions;
"B) action aimed at maintaining or
reconstituting groups dissolved under
Article L. 212-1 of;
"C) collective violence likely to cause
serious harm to the public peace;
"6. The prevention of crime and organized
crime;
"7 The prevention of proliferation of weapons
of mass destruction";
technologies and techniques chosen should be

proportionate to the aim pursued and the reasons
therefor; It follows that violations of the right to
respect for privacy must be proportionate to the
objective pursued; that the national technical
8. Considering that the applicant MEPs contend

that the objectives set out by law are too broad, given
intelligence gathering techniques under the Act
referred, and inadequately defined; it would result
intelligence oversight committee and the State

Council are responsible for ensuring compliance
with this requirement of proportionality;
12. It follows from the above that the provisions of
in a disproportionate interference with the right to

respect for privacy and freedom of expression;
Article L. 811-3 of the code of internal security must be

declared to be constitutional;
9. Considering that the information collection using

the techniques defined in Title V of Book VIII of
the code of internal security by specialized

13. Considering that Article L. 811-4 of the code

of internal security refers to a decree of the State
Council the designation of services, other than the
specialized intelligence services, which may be
authorized to use techniques defined Title V of
Book VIII of the Code of internal security; it also
refers to the decree delimiting, for each service,
the purposes and techniques that can lead to
authorization;
14. Whereas, in the applicants' members,
referring to the regulatory power to determine
non-specialized services that will use the
intelligence gathering techniques and those of
these techniques it will be open to them to
implement, the Parliament did not set itself the
rules concerning the fundamental guarantees
intelligence services to carry out their respective

missions is solely administrative policing; it can
therefore have no other purpose than to preserve

public order and prevent crime; it can be used to
investigate offenses under the criminal law,
collecting evidence and seeking out offenders;
10. Considering that holding, to determine the
objectives listed in 1 to 4, definitions referring
to some of the interests mentioned in Article 4101 of the Criminal Code, the legislature precisely
circumscribed the aims pursued and did not
accept the criteria mismatch with the objective
pursued by the administrative police measures; it
is the same for the purposes set out in a), 5,
referring to criminal offenses of Chapter II of
Title I of Book IV of the Criminal Code, from
(2015) 2 LAW
24
(2015) 2 LAW
F-207
granted to citizens for the exercise of civil

liberties; the legislature thus disregarded the
scope of its jurisdiction;
15. Whereas in defining intelligence collection
techniques that can be implemented by the
intelligence services and the purposes for which
they can be while entrusting the regulatory
authority the task of organizing the services
referred to in Articles L. 811-2 and L. 811-4 of
the Code of internal security, the legislator did
not remain beyond the jurisdiction conferred on it
by Article 34 of the Constitution to set "the rules
... concerning the fundamental guarantees granted
to citizens for the exercise of public freedoms ";
implement the national territory of intelligence

gathering techniques, to a maximum of four
months; it is subject to the prior opinion of the
national commission for oversight of intelligence
techniques; that Parliament is based on Article 21
of the Constitution to entrust the Prime Minister
the power to authorize the implementation of
intelligence gathering techniques in the context of
the administrative policing;
19. Considering that in itself, the procedure for
authorization by the Prime Minister after consultation
with the national commission for oversight of
intelligence techniques infringes neither the right to
respect for privacy or inviolability of the home or the
confidentiality of correspondence;
that the provisions of Article L. 811-4 of the code of

internal security must be declared to be constitutional;
20. Considering, secondly, that those provisions,

which relate to the issue of administrative police
measures pursuant to authorization by the Prime
Minister after consultation with an independent
administrative authority, do not deprive people of a
judicial remedy against the implementation of decisions
on them of the intelligence collection techniques; that
the requirements of Article 16 of the 1789 Declaration
are not overlooked;


provides that the internal security intelligence
gathering techniques defined in Articles L. 851-1
to L. 853-3 of the Code are implemented on the
National territory individually by designated and
authorized agents, with the prior approval of the Prime
Minister issued after consultation with the national
commission for oversight of intelligence techniques;
21. Considering, thirdly, that these provisions

cause no interference with individual liberty;
22. It follows from the foregoing that the
17. Whereas, as per the applicants' contentions,

by providing for authorization by the Executive,
after consultation with the national commission
for oversight of intelligence techniques, and
allowing the authorization may be issued despite
a negative opinion this commission, the impugned
provisions of Article L. 821-1 of the code of internal

security must be declared to be constitutional;


of internal security establishes a special
procedure of issuance of the authorization to
implement intelligence collection techniques in
cases of absolute urgency and solely for the
purposes mentioned for 1, 4 and of 5 of Article
L. 811-3 of the Code; that in this case, the
provisions would present insufficient guarantees in

respect of constitutionally guaranteed rights and
freedoms, including freedom of expression and
communication; by not placing the use of these
techniques under the supervision of the judicial judge,
the legislature disregards both the requirements of
Article 66 of the Constitution as Article 16 of the 1789
Declaration;
authorization of the Prime Minister is issued without

notice to the National Commission for Monitoring of
Intelligence techniques, which is immediately
18. Considering, first, that the authorization

sought by a written, reasoned request of the
minister of defense, the interior minister or
ministers responsible for the economy, budget or
customs is issued by Prime Minister to
individually designated officials authorized to
informed and receives within twenty-four hours

after the issuance of the authorization all
permission motivators and those justifying the
absolute urgency;
25
F-208

of internal security establishes a special
procedure of installation, use and operation of
technical devices or devices for real-time location
of a person, of a vehicle or an object, identifying
a terminal equipment or the subscriber number
and location of the equipment or the interception
of correspondence sent or received by the
equipment, in case of emergency associated with
a imminent threat or a very high risk of being
unable to perform the operation later; this
24. Considering, firstly, that the special procedure

provided for in Article L. 821-5 is not applicable
when implementation of intelligence collection
techniques requires their introduction in a private
place into the use of Housing pursuant to
paragraph V of Article L. 853-1 or paragraph V
of Article L. 853-2 and is therefore not likely to
affect the inviolability of the home;
25. Considering, secondly, that the exceptional
procedure provided for in Article L. 821-5 is reserved
for certain of the purposes mentioned in Article L. 8113, which are related to the prevention of particularly
serious violations of public order, and must be
motivated by the absolute urgency of using the
technique of intelligence gathering; that this
procedure allows individually designated officials

authorized to install, use and exploit these devices
without prior authorization or technical devices; Prime
Minister, the Minister concerned and the national

techniques are informed without delay by any
means; the Prime Minister may direct at any time
to interrupt the implementation of technical and
destroy the information collected without delay;
an authorization shall then be issued by the Prime
Minister, within forty-eight hours, after opinion
by the Committee in view of motivating factors
mentioned in Article L. 821-4 of the Code and
those justifying the use of the emergency
procedure;
28. Considering, firstly, that the procedure under
procedure is not applicable to intelligence

gathering techniques specified in Articles L. 8512 and L. 851-3 and 1 of subsection I of Article L.
853-2; it is not applicable when technology
provided for in Article L. 853-1 or 2 of Article L.
853-2 shall be implemented through the
introduction in dwelling place; the National
Commission for Monitoring of Intelligence
techniques, which should be notified without
delay, to receive all the motivators and the
justification of absolute urgency within a
maximum period of twenty-four hours the
commission has all the resources related to
monitoring the implementation of technical
intelligence collection conferred by Articles L.
833-1 to L. 833-11 to ensure that the legal
framework has been respected; that the
Article L. 821-6 to be used for setting up intelligence

collection techniques provided for in Articles L. 851-5,
L. 851- 6 and paragraph II of Article L. 852-1 of the
Code of internal security; These procedures enable
the administrative authority to use a technical device
enabling the real-time location of a person, vehicle or
object, or collect or intercept, using a camera or device,
without the consent of the author the login data for
authorization of the Prime Minister to implement

intelligence collection techniques according to this
exceptional procedure is under the judicial control of
the State Council, responsible for assessing the
reasons which justified the use; that as a result, the
provisions of Article L. 821-5 of the Code of Homeland
Security does not carry manifestly disproportionate
interference with the right to respect for privacy and the
secrecy of correspondence;
the identification of a terminal equipment or its

user subscription number as well as data on the
location of terminal equipment used and the
correspondence issued or received by a terminal
equipment;
29. Considering, secondly, that unlike other
derogatory procedures, including those established by
Article L. 821-5 of the Code, the procedure provided for
in Article L. 821-6 allows to waive the prior grant of an
authorization by the Prime Minister or one of his
collaborators authorized [for] secret national
26. It follows from the above that the provisions of


(2015) 2 LAW
defense to which it has delegated this award, as

26
(2015) 2 LAW
well as the issuance of a notice of national

techniques; it does not provide that the Prime
F-209
between lawyers and clients; it would result in an

infringement of the right to respect for privacy and for
lawyers, rights of defense and the right to a fair trial
and for journalists, freedom of expression; in addition,
Minister and the minister concerned must be informed

in advance of the implementation of a technique in this
context; that as a result, the provisions of Article L.
821-6 carry a manifestly disproportionate interference
with the right to respect for privacy and the secrecy of
correspondence; that the provisions of Article L. 821-6
of the code of internal security must be declared
unconstitutional;
the absence of criminalization agents that would

reveal the contents of the information collected
would allow the circumvention of legal
safeguards for the protection of confidentiality of
these professions;
33. Considering that the applicant MEPs also
dispute the lack of application of the challenged
provisions to university professors and lecturers,
in disregard of the fundamental principle
recognized by the laws of the Republic of
Independence of the faculty;
34. Given, first, that the contested provisions
provide for a systematic review by the national
gathering techniques Full Bench of implementing
an information request regarding a member of the
Technical Parliament, a judge, a lawyer or a
journalist or their vehicles, homes or offices,
which may not intervene because of the exercise
of office or profession; that the special procedure
provided for in Article L. 821-5 of the code of
internal security is not applicable; it is for the
Commission, which is addressed to all
information collected transcripts within this
framework, to ensure, under the jurisdictional
control of the State Council, proportionality as
litter violations of the right to respect for privacy
with instances of guarantees attached to the
exercise of these warrants or professional
activities; It follows from the foregoing that the
30. Whereas, consequently, the last sentence of

the first paragraph of Article L. 821-7 of the Code
of internal security in the version resulting from
Article 2 of the Act referred, which is inseparable
from provisions L. 821-6 of the article, must also
be declared unconstitutional; it is the same [for
the] word, "and L. 821-6" in the seventh
paragraph of Article L. 833-9 of the Code of
internal security in the version resulting from
Article 2 of the Act referred;

of internal security prohibits a parliamentarian, a
judge, a lawyer or a journalist could be the
subject of a request for implementation, on the
national territory, [of such] technical intelligence
collection defined in Articles L. 851-1 to L. 853-3
in respect of the discharge of its mandate or
profession; it imposes an en banc review by the
National Control Commission of intelligence techniques
of an application for any of these people or vehicles, its
offices or homes; it prohibits the use of the
exceptional procedure provided for in Article L.

821-5; that the commission, which is informed of
the implementing rules for authorizations granted
under this section, to which are sent transcripts of
information collected on this basis, ensures the
necessary and proportionate with instances of
guarantees attached to the Pursuit of the activities
or mandates;
32. Considering that, according to the applicant
MEPs, these provisions do not provide sufficient
provisions of Article L. 821-7 do not bear a manifestly

disproportionate interference with the right to respect
for private life, to inviolability of the home and the
secrecy of correspondence;
35. Considering, secondly, that Article 226-13 of the

Penal Code criminalizes the disclosure of secret
information by a person who is the depositary; that,
following the complaint of the lack of

criminalization agents that would reveal
information or data collected is factually;
36. Considering, thirdly, that the principle of
protection against the indirect effect on the secrecy of

journalistic sources and the confidentiality of exchanges
independence of faculty does not imply that the

27
F-210
university professors and lecturers must receive special

protection in case of implementation for them
techniques intelligence gathering as part of the
administrative policing;
appointed by the Vice President of Council of

State, two magistrates hierarchy outside the
Supreme Court appointed jointly by the First
President and the Attorney General of the Court
of Cassation and a qualified person for his
knowledge in electronic communications called
on the President 's proposal regulatory authority
for electronic communications and postal
services; its president is appointed by decree of
the President of the Republic from among the
members of the Council of State or Court of
Cassation; that the term of office of nonparliamentary members is six years; that the term
of office is not renewable; that members of the
State Council and the judges of the Court of
Cassation are renewed by half every three years;
the commission may suspend the mandate of a
member or terminate in case of incompatibility,
incapacity or failure;
37. It follows from all the foregoing that the

surplus of the provisions of Article L. 821-7 of the Code
of internal security, which ignore any constitutional
requirement, must be declared to be constitutional;

38. Considering that Article L. 822-2 of the fixed

code of internal security [sets] the maximum
periods of retention of information collected by
the implementation of technical intelligence
collection defined in Articles L. 851-1 to L. 853-3
of the same code; These periods are of thirty days
from their collection to the intercepted letters and
words captured, one hundred and twenty days
from their collection for computer data and
images, four years after their collection for data
connection and six years after their collection to
the encrypted data;
39. Considering that providing for such retention

that the composition of the national commission
for oversight of intelligence is fixed in technical
breach of the principle of separation of powers
since, on the one hand, [only] one of its nine
members was appointed in view of [his] expertise
in electronic communications and, secondly, that
members of Parliament are in the minority;
periods depending on the characteristics of the

information collected and a maximum of six years
from the conservation collection of figures,

beyond which the information collected must be
destroyed, the legislature has not violated any
constitutional requirement; that the provisions of
42. Considering, firstly, that the presence of only one

person qualified for his knowledge in electronic

communications within the national commission for
control of technical intelligence has no effect on the
principle of separation of powers;

43. Considering, secondly, that the presence of

of Homeland Security is relative [subject] to the
composition of the national commission for
oversight of intelligence techniques, which is
qualified as independent administrative authority;
it is composed of nine members, including a
chairman; it comprises two deputies and two
senators, designated, respectively, for the
duration of the legislature by the National
Assembly and for the duration of their mandate
by the Senate, two members of the State Council
(2015) 2 LAW
members of Parliament from among members of the

national commission of control of technical intelligence
[is] not likely to undermine the principle of separation
of powers guaranteed by Article 16 of the 1789
Declaration, as they are obliged, under the third
paragraph of Article L. 832-5 of the code of

internal security, respect for secrets protected
with Articles 226-13 and 413- 10 of the Criminal
Code;
44. Considering that Article L. 831-1 of the code of
internal security must be declared to be constitutional;
28
(2015) 2 LAW
As regards certain provisions of Article

L. 832-4 of the Code of Homeland Security:
F-211
procedure or a dispute whose solution depends on

the review of the regularity of a technique
Intelligence gathering has the right to refer to the
Council of State for a preliminary ruling;
49. Considering that Article L. 841-1 of the Code of

of Homeland Security is on resources allocated to
the National Commission for Monitoring of
Intelligence techniques; as such, the second
sentence of the first paragraph of that article
provides that the credits of the Commission are
registered in the program "Protection of Rights"
mission "action Directorate of Government";
46. Considering that 1 of subsection II of Article
34 of the Organic Law of 1 August 2001 referred
to above, to which Article 34 of the Constitution,
subject to a finance bill to fix the text "for the
budget Generally, by mission, the amount of
commitment authorizations and payment
appropriations ";
47. Considering that the second sentence of the first
internal security, which implements the right to an

effective judicial remedy, shall, with the exception of
the words "Subject to the special provisions for the Article L.
854-1 of this Code," be declared to be constitutional;
50. Considering that Article 5 of the law

complements the book VIII of the code of
internal security by Title V entitled "intelligence
collection techniques require authorization" in which
[is] inserted a Chapter I entitled "Access to the
administrative login data" including Articles L.
851-1 to L. 851-7 and Chapter II entitled "Security
interceptions" including Article L. 852-1;
51. Considering that the techniques of collecting
information specified in Articles L. 851-1 to L.
851-6 and in Article L. 852-1 are exercised,
unless specifically provided for, under the
conditions provided in Chapter I of Title II of the
Code of internal security; thus, they are
authorized by the Prime Minister, upon written
and reasoned request of the minister of defense,
the interior minister or ministers responsible for
the economy, budget or customs, after prior
opinion of the Committee National control
intelligence techniques; these techniques may be
implemented by individually designated and
authorized agents; they are carried out under the
control of the national commission for oversight
of intelligence techniques; the composition and
organization of this independent administrative
authority are defined in Articles L. 831-1 to L.
832-5 of the Code of internal security in
conditions which ensure its independence; that its
tasks are defined in Articles L. 833-1 to L. 83311 of the Code in conditions that ensure the
effectiveness of control; that, in accordance with
the provisions of Article L. 841-1 of the Code,
the Council of State may be seized by any person
wishing to verify that no technical intelligence
collection is improperly implemented or against
paragraph of Article L. 832-4, which encroaches on the

exclusive area of intervention of the finance laws, must
be declared unconstitutional;


of internal security provides that "Subject to the
provisions of Article L. 854-1 of this Code, the
Council of State has jurisdiction, as provided in
Chapter III of Title VII bis of Book VII of the
Code of Administrative Justice, requests
regarding the implementation of intelligence
techniques mentioned in Title V of this Book "; 1
that under the same article, the Council of State
may be seized by any person wishing to verify
that it does not, or did not, subject to irregular
supervision, subject to the exercise of a prior
complaint with the National Intelligence
Technical Control Commission in accordance
with Article L. 833-4 of the Code; 2. that under
Article L. 841-1 of the State Council can be
seized by that committee when it considers that
its opinions or recommendations have not been
acted upon or suites that have been given are
inadequate, or at least three of its members; that
under the fifth paragraph of Article L. 841-1 of an
administrative court or judicial authority of a
29
F-212
54. Considering that the applicant MEPs argue

that the legislature disregarded the scope of its
jurisdiction by not defining sufficiently the
connection data can be a collection by the
administrative authorities and that the procedure
carries a disproportionate interference the right to
respect for private life given the nature of the
evidence can be collected, scale techniques that
may be used and the objectives pursued;
55. Given, first, that the authorization for
collecting information provided by articles L.
851-1 and L. 851-2 refers only to information or
documents processed or stored by electronic
communications networks or services persons
mentioned in recital 52; that according to the
provisions of Section VI of Article L. 34-1 of the
code of postal and electronic communications,
the data retained and processed by electronic
communications operators and people with a
connection to the public for such communications
are exclusively on the identification of people
who use the services provided by operators, on
the technical aspects of the communications
provided by them and on the location of terminal
equipment and can in no way relate to the content
of the exchanged correspondences or information
accessed under any form whatsoever, in
connection with such communications; that
according to paragraph II of Article 6 of the Law
of 21 June 2004, the data held by people with
access to online communication services and
those for the storage of various information made
available to the public by these those services are
likely to enable the identification of any person
who has contributed to the creation of content or
of any content of services they are providers;
thus, the legislature has adequately defined the
him by the national commission for oversight of

intelligence techniques; finally, under the
provisions of Article L. 871-6 of the Code, the
physical operations necessary for implementation
of the techniques mentioned in Articles L. 851-1
to L. 851-4 and L. 852 -1 can not be executed in
their respective networks, by qualified agents
services or agencies under the authority or the
authority of the Minister responsible for
electronic communications networks or operators
or telecommunications service providers;
Regarding Articles L. 851-1 and L. 851-2 of
the Code of Homeland Security:

of Homeland Security took over the
administrative requisition procedure Connection
earlier technical data provided in Article L. 246-1
of that code authorizing the administrative
authority to collect Treaties information or
documents or preserved by their electronic
communications networks or services, to
electronic communications operators, with people
offering, under a main occupation or accessory,
enabling a connection to the public online
communication by 'via a network access, and to
those that provide for provision of public services
by communication to the public online, the
storage signals, writing, images, sounds or
messages any kind provided by the recipients of
such services; as an exception to the provisions of
Article L. 821-2 of the Code, when demand on
the identification numbers of subscription or
connection to electronic communications services
or the census of all Subscription numbers or
connection of a designated person, it will be
directly forwarded to the National Commission
for Monitoring of Intelligence techniques
individually designated and empowered agents of
the intelligence services;
of Homeland Security allows the administration,
for the sole purpose of preventing terrorism, gather
connection data, which may relate to the content of

correspondence or information consulted;
56. Considering, secondly, that this technique [of]

Intelligence collection is implemented under the
conditions and guarantees recalled in recital 51; it
can not be implemented only for the purposes
listed in Article L. 811-3 of the Code of internal
security; it is authorized for a renewable period of
four months in accordance with Article L. 821-4
real-time on the networks of operators and persons

mentioned in Article L. 851-1, information or
documents referred to in that article relating to a
person previously identified as posing a threat;
(2015) 2 LAW
30
(2015) 2 LAW
F-213
60. Considering that the technique of collecting

information provided for in Article L. 851-3 is
implemented under the conditions and guarantees
recalled in recital 51; it can not be implemented
for the purpose of preventing terrorism; that both
the use of the technique that the automatic
processing settings are allowed after consultation
with the national commission for oversight of
intelligence
techniques;
that
the
first
authorization for use of this technique is issued
for a limited period to two months and that the
renewal application must include a statement of
the number of identifiers reported by the
automated processing and analysis of the
relevance of these reports; the automated
processing exclusively use the information or
documents referred to in Article L. 851-1,
without collecting more data than those that meet
their design parameters and without allowing the
identification of the persons to whom the
information or documents relate; that when given
detected by automated processing is likely to
characterize the existence of a terrorist threat, a
new authorization will be required of the Prime
Minister, after consultation with the national
techniques, to identify the person concerned;
these data shall be used within sixty days of this
collection and are destroyed at the end of this
period except in cases of serious evidence
confirming the existence of a terrorist threat; that
the authorization to use this technique may be
issued according to the absolute urgency
procedure provided for in Article L. 821-5; that as
of the Code; in addition, when the data collection

takes place in real time, it can be authorized for the
purposes of the prevention of terrorism, for a renewable
period of two months, only in respect of a previously
identified person to pose a threat and without the use of
an absolute emergency procedure laid down in
Article L. 821-5 of the same code; that as a result,

the legislature has imposed [on] the requisition
process [of] technical data, safeguards to make
[balance] between, on the one hand, respect for
the privacy of individuals and, secondly, the
prevention of damage to the public order offenses
and that [is] a conciliation which is not patently
unbalanced;
57. It follows from the foregoing that Articles L.
851-1 and L. 851-2 of the code of internal security must
be declared to be constitutional;

the code of internal security

of internal security provides that [it] may be
imposed on operators and the persons referred to
in Article L. 851-1 of the Code implementation,
[that] on their network, automated treatments
intended, according to parameters specified in the
authorization, [to] detect connections that could
reveal a terrorist threat; These automated
processes exclusively use the information or
documents referred to in Article L. 851-1,
without collecting more data than meet their
design parameters and without allowing the
identification of the persons to whom the
information or documents relate ; that when these
treatments detect data may characterize the
existence of a terrorist threat, the identification of
the person concerned and the collection of related
data may be authorized by the Prime Minister or
one of the people delegated by him;
a result, these provisions do not carry a manifestly

disproportionate interference with the right to respect
for privacy; that the provisions of Article L. 851-3 of
the code of internal security must be declared to be
constitutional;
Regarding Articles L. 851-4, L. 851-5 and

L. 851-6 of the Code of Homeland Security:

that, given the number of data that can be
controlled and insufficient guarantees for the
"false positives", the technique under these
provisions carries a disproportionate interference
with the right to respect for private life;

of Homeland Security allows the administrative
authority to require operators real-time
transmission of technical data relating to the
location of terminal equipment for use referred to
31
F-214
as a result, the provisions of Articles L. 851-4, L. 851-5

and L. 851-6 of the code of internal security must be
in Article L. 851-1; that under Article L. 851-5 of

the administrative authority may use a technical
device enabling the real-time location of a person,
vehicle or object; that Article L. 851-6 provides
the possibility for that authority to collect, using a
camera or device to intercept, without the consent
of their author, words or written correspondence,
transmitted or received by electronic means or
access to computer data, connection data enabling
the identification of a terminal equipment or the
subscriber number of the user as well as data
relating to the location of the terminal equipment
used;
62. Considering that, according to [the contentions
of the] applicant MEPs, [in contrast] to the
purposes justifying their implementation, these
techniques carry a disproportionate interference
with the right to respect for privacy;
63. Considering that the above information
collection techniques are being implemented
under the conditions and guarantees recalled in
recital 51 and for the purposes listed in Article L.
811-3 of the Code of internal security; when the
implementation of the planned technical in
Article L. 851-5 requires the introduction in a
vehicle or in a private place, this measure is
carried out according to the procedures defined in
Article L. 853-3 ; that the authorization of use of
the technique provided for in Article L. 851-6 is
issued for a renewable period of two months
under the same conditions of life; that equipment
or devices used as part of the latter technique is
subject to registration in a special register kept at
the disposal of the national commission for
oversight of intelligence techniques; the
maximum number of these devices or devices can
be used simultaneously is decided by the Prime
Minister, after consulting the Commission; that
information or documents obtained by these
devices or devices must be destroyed as soon as it
appears that they are not related to the
authorization of implementation and, in any
event, within a maximum of four-ninety days
after their collection; that, in these conditions, the

64. Considering that paragraph I of Article L.

852-1 of the code of internal security authorizes
administrative interceptions of correspondence
transmitted through electronic communications;
that persons belonging to the entourage of a
person involved in the interception authorization
may also be subject to such interception when it
is likely to provide information in respect of the
purpose that motivates the authorization;
65. Considering that paragraph II of the same
article provides that for the purposes mentioned
in 1, 4, and of 5 of Article L. 811-3, the use of
a device or a device to intercept, without the
consent of their author, words or written
correspondence,
transmitted
or
received
electronically or access to computer data may be
authorized to intercept correspondence sent or
received by a terminal equipment; that the
intercepted correspondence is destroyed once it appears
that they are not related to the authorization, within
thirty days of their collection;

MEPs contentions, [in contrast] to the purposes
justifying their implementation, these techniques
carry a disproportionate interference with the
right to respect for privacy;
67. Considering that the correspondence
interception techniques specified in paragraph I
of Article L. 852-1 are implemented under the
conditions and guarantees recalled in recital 51;
they can be implemented only for the purposes
listed in Article L. 811-3 of the Code of internal
security; the maximum number of existing
interception authorities simultaneously stopped
by the Prime Minister after consultation with the
national commission for oversight of intelligence
techniques; in order to facilitate the control of the
commission, the execution of those interceptions
will be centralized; in addition, with regard
interceptions performed using the technique
impugned provisions do not manifestly disproportionate

interference with the right to respect for privacy; that
(2015) 2 LAW
32
(2015) 2 LAW
F-215

of internal security allows, when the information
may be collected by another legally authorized
means, the introduction in a vehicle or in a
private place for the sole purpose to up, using or
removing technical devices mentioned in articles
L. 851-5, L. 853-1 and L. 853-2;
that these techniques should, given their intrusive
nature, be controlled by the judicial court and
they bear a disproportionate interference with the
inviolability of the home and the right to respect
for privacy;
72. Given, first, that the techniques of collection
of information specified in Articles L. 853-1 and
L. 853-2, in place, if any, pursuant to Article L.
853-3 of, following the introduction in a private
place or in a car that is not a private place for
residential use, exercise, unless specifically
provided for, under the conditions provided in
Chapter I of Title II of the security code Indoor
recalled in recital 51; These techniques can be
used only for the purposes listed in Article L.
811-3 of the Code of internal security and if the
information sought can not be collected by
another legally authorized means; it will be up to
the National Control Commission intelligence
techniques to ensure during the examination of
the application for compliance with this
condition; that authorization is issued for a period
of two months and thirty days depending on the
technique used; the Authorized Service to use the
technique of intelligence decisions reports to the
national
technical
intelligence
oversight
committee of its implementation; that the use of
technical devices and, where appropriate, the
introduction in a private place or vehicle, may be
the fact that agents individually designated and
authorized belonging to one of the services
mentioned in articles L. 811 L. 811-4 and -2 and
whose list is fixed by decree of the State Council;
when introduced in a private place or in a vehicle is
required to use a technical device to access data
stored in a computer system, the authorization may
described in subsection II of Article L. 851-2, the

authorization may be issued only for certain of
the purposes mentioned in Article L. 811-3,
which are related to the prevention of particularly
serious breaches of public order; as well
intercepted correspondence will be destroyed as
soon as it appears that they are not related to the
authorization, and within thirty days of their
collection; It follows from the above that the
legislature did not, by the above provisions, make a
manifestly unbalanced reconciliation [between],
firstly, the prevention of breaches of public order

and those offenses and, Furthermore, the right to
respect for privacy and the confidentiality of
correspondence; that as a result, the provisions of
68. Considering that Article 6 of the

comprehensive law [contains in] Title V of Book
VIII of internal security code with a chapter III
entitled "From the sound of certain places and
vehicles and the capture of images and computer
data" including L. 853-1 to Articles L. 853-3 and
a chapter IV entitled "International surveillance
measures" including a new Article L. 854-1;
Regarding Articles L. 853-1 to L. 853-3 of
the Code of Homeland Security:

of internal security authorize, where information
may be collected by another legally authorized
means, the use of technical devices to capture,
fixation, transmission and the recording of words
spoken privately or confidentially, or images in a
private place; that Article L. 853-2 of the Code
provides, under the same conditions, the use of
technical devices to access computer data stored
in a computer system, save them, keep them and
pass them or access to computer data, save them,
keep them and pass them as they are displayed on
a screen for the user to an automated data
processing system, such that the are introduced
by character input or as received and issued by
audiovisual devices;
be given only after express opinions of the National
33
F-216
(2015) 2 LAW
Commission technical oversight of intelligence, acting in

restricted or plenary; that the requirement of this

prior express opinion excludes the application of

the emergency procedure provided for in Article
L. 821-5; It follows from the foregoing that the
76. Considering that paragraph I of Article L.

854-1 of the code of internal security authorizes,
for the sole purpose of protection of fundamental
interests of the nation mentioned in Article L.
811-3 of the same code, monitoring of
communications sent or received abroad; that the
second paragraph of this section provides
references that surveillance authorizations issued
pursuant to this article shall include; that the third
paragraph of this section indicates that these
authorizations will be issued upon reasoned
request of the ministers mentioned in the first
paragraph of Article L. 821-2 of the same code
for a renewable period of four months; that the
fourth paragraph of this paragraph provides that a
decree of the State Council, issued after
consultation with the national commission for
oversight of intelligence techniques, defines the
operating
conditions,
conservation
and
destruction of the collected information, and the
conditions of traceability and control by the
Commission for the implementation of the
monitoring measures; that the fifth paragraph
provides that a State Council decree unpublished
issued after consultation with the said committee
and brought to the attention of the parliamentary
delegation to
accurate information,
as
appropriate, implementation of the terms of these
measures monitoring ;
that these provisions infringe the right to respect
for privacy;
78. Considering that not defining in the law or the
conditions of exploitation, conservation and
destruction of information collected under Article
L. 854-1 of nor those controlled by the National
Commission technical control Intelligence
legality of authorizations issued under that Article
and their implementation conditions, the
legislature has surrounded the implementation

techniques specified in Articles L. 853-1 to L. 853-3, as
appropriate when imposing the introduction in a private
place or vehicle, which is not for residential use,
such provisions to ensure that the restrictions on

the right to respect for privacy are of a clearly
proportionate [nature];
73.
Considering,
secondly,
that
when
implementing intelligence collection techniques
specified in Articles L. 853-1 and L. 853-2
requires the introduction in a private place for
residential use, the Permission shall be given only
after express opinions of the National
Commission for Monitoring of Intelligence
techniques, acting in restricted or plenary; that the
requirement of this prior express opinion
excludes the application of the emergency
procedure provided for in Article L. 821-5; that
when this introduction is allowed after negative
opinion of the National Commission for
Monitoring of Intelligence techniques, the State
Council immediately seized by the Chairman of
the Committee or any member thereof referred to
in 2 and 3 of Article L. 831-1 of; that, unless
permission has been granted for the prevention of
terrorism and that the prime minister ordered his
immediate implementation, the authorization decision
can not be executed before the Council of State has
ruled; It follows from the foregoing that the
legislature has surrounded the implementation

techniques specified in Articles L. 853-1 to L.
853-3, when they impose the introduction in a
private place for residential use , such provisions
to ensure that the restrictions on the right to respect for
privacy and inviolability of the home are of a clearly
proportionate [nature];
74. Considering, thirdly, that the impugned

provisions do not violate individual freedom;
75. It follows from the foregoing that Articles L.
legislature has not determined the rules concerning the

fundamental guarantees granted to citizens for the
exercise of civil liberties; that as a result, the provisions of
paragraph I of Article L. 854-1, which violate Article 34
of the Constitution, must be declared unconstitutional;
853-1, L. 853-2 and L. 853-3 of the code of internal

security must be declared to be constitutional;
34
(2015) 2 LAW
F-217
79. Considering that it is the same, consequently,

for paragraphs II and III of Article L. 854-1 as
well, which are inseparable; it is also necessary,
security clearance of national defense of members

of formations of the Court mentioned in the first
paragraph of the article, their audience and
rapporteur agents who assist them and, on the
other hand, provides that the same people are
bound to professional secrecy and the secrecy of
national defense; that the fourth paragraph of
Article L. 773-2 provides the members of the
bench and the public are allowed to know
Rapporteur of all rooms, including those under
the secrecy of national defense, in possession or
the National Control Commission intelligence
techniques or specialized services for information
or other administrative services, referred to in
Articles L. 811-2 and L. 811-4 of the Code of
internal security;
consequently, to declare unconstitutional the words

"except those mentioned in Article L. 854-1 of" in the
third paragraph of Article L . 833-2 of the Code of
internal security in the version resulting from
Article 2 of the Law, the words "Subject to the

provisions of Article L. 854-1 of this Code," in
the first paragraph of Article L. 841-1 of the Code
of internal security in the version resulting from
Article 2 of the Law, the words "and Article L.
854-1 of the code of internal security" in Article
L. 773-1 of the Administrative Justice Code in
the version of Article 10 of the Act and paragraph
IV of Article 26 of the Act;
82. Considering that the provisions of Article L. 773-2
80. Considering that Article 10 of the Act

referred amendments to the Code of
Administrative Justice; that one of the said
section 10 inserts into the Code a new Article L.
311-4-1 which gives the Council of State's
jurisdiction in the first and last instance, requests
concerning the implementation of techniques
collection of information subject to authorization
and files relevant to the state security; that 2 of
the said section 10 inserts into Title VII of Book
VII a new Section IIIa entitled "Litigation of the
implementation of information technology
subject to authorization and interesting files state
security" including Articles L. 773-1 to L. 773-8;
of the Administrative Justice Code does not affect the

secrecy of national defense, competing constitutional
requirements inherent in safeguarding the

fundamental interests of the Nation; they must be
Regarding Articles L. 773-3, L. 773-4 and
L. 773-5 of the Administrative Justice Code:
83. Considering that L. 773-3 articles L. 773-4

and L. 773-5 are related to the consideration of
the secrecy of national defense for the
organization of adversarial proceedings;
84. Considering that Article L. 773-3 provides in
the first paragraph, the requirements of
contradiction "are adapted to those of the secrecy
of national defense"; to this end, the second
paragraph of that article provides that the
National Commission for Monitoring of
Intelligence techniques is informed of any request
on the basis of Article L. 841-1 of the Code of
internal security; [It] is informed of all the
evidence produced by the parties and invited to
submit written or oral observations; that the third
paragraph of that article provides that training
appraise When it hears the parties separately into
question the confidentiality of national defense;
that Article L. 773-4 provides that the President
of the bench ordered the closed-door When it

the Administrative Justice Code:
81. Considering that Article L. 773-2 of the

Administrative Justice Code is retained on the
organization within the Council of State to rule
on these requests in accordance with the
confidentiality of national defense, which is
ignorance punishable under Article 226-13 41310 of the Criminal Code; the first and second
paragraphs of Article L. 773-2 determine the
formations of the Court called upon to rule on
these requests at the bottom or on the legal issues
they are likely to raise; that the third paragraph of
Article L. 773-2, first, determine the methods of
35
F-218
89. Considering that Article L. 773-7 relates to

the reasons for the decisions of the State Council
and prerogatives of the latter when it notes that
technical intelligence collection is or has been
implemented unevenly or that information was
kept illegally; that the first paragraph of that
article provides that the State Council is
competent to cancel the authorization and order
the destruction of improperly collected
information; the second paragraph provides that
the Council of State, when seized by a court on a
preliminary ruling or by the person, inform the
latter or jurisdiction that illegality has been
committed, without revealing any evidence
covered by the confidentiality of national
defense; that paragraph also provides that the
bench, entering claims for damages, may order
the state to repair the damage suffered; that the
third paragraph of that section provides that when
the bench considers that the finding of illegality
could constitute an offense, it shall notify the
public prosecutor;
90. Considering that the applicant MEPs criticize
Article L. 773-6 of violating the right to a fair
hearing since the grounds for decisions of the
State Council issued when no illegality has been
committed in the implementation of intelligence
collection techniques do not allow the person to
know whether or not she made the subject of a
surveillance measure;
91. Considering that the provisions of Article L.
773-6 are not, in themselves, no infringement of
the right to fair trial; the Council of State statue
knowingly about queries concerning the
implementation
of
intelligence
gathering
techniques before it on the basis of Article L.
841-1 of the Code of Homeland Security soon in
that under Article L. 773-2 of the Administrative
Justice Code, members of the bench and
rapporteur public are allowed to know of all the
parts, including those under the secret of national
defense, is in possession of a national technical
intelligence oversight committee is specialized
intelligence services and other administrative
services, referred to in Articles L. 811-2 and L.
involved the secret; that Article L. 773-5 provides

that the bench can recover from office any means;
85. Considering that the applicant MEPs criticize
Article L. 773-3 of violating the right to a fair
trial since it does not operate a fair balance
between respect for the adversarial process and of
the secret national defense; that, according to
them, the possibility for the judge to take up any
means of office would be insufficient to
overcome the lack of respect for adversary
proceedings;
86. Considering that the provisions of Articles L.
773-3 and L. 773-4 are applicable only as and
when it involved the secret of national defense;
having regard to the possibilities of referral to the
Council of State, to information given to the
National Commission for Monitoring of
Intelligence techniques when a request is made
by a person, to the possibility, if any, given to the
said Committee to submit comments, and finally
to the possibility for the formation of the Court to
raise of any means Office, the legislature has drawn
a conciliation which is not patently unbalanced
between, on the one hand, the right of persons

concerned to exercise an effective judicial
remedy, the right to a fair trial and the adversarial
principle and, secondly, the constitutional
requirements inherent in safeguarding the
fundamental interests of the nation, which
involved the secret of national defense;
87. Considering that the provisions of Articles L. 7733, L. 773-4 and L. 773-5 of the Administrative Justice
Code must be declared to be constitutional;
Regarding Articles L. 773-6 and L. 773-7

of the Administrative Justice Code:
88. Considering that Article L. 773-6 relates to

the reasons for the decisions of the State Council
when it considers that no illegality taints the
implementation
of
technical
intelligence
collection; that in this case, the decision merely
indicates to the applicant or the national court that
no illegality was committed without confirm or
deny the implementation of technical intelligence
collection; it is the same in the absence of
illegality relating to the retention of information;
(2015) 2 LAW
36
(2015) 2 LAW
F-219
811-4 of the Code of internal security; that under

Article L. 773-3, the national technical
intelligence oversight committee is informed of
any request on the basis of Article L. 841-1,
receives communication of all parts produced by
the parties and invited to submit written or oral
observations; that under Article L. 773-5, the
bench can recover from office any means; thus,
by adopting Article L. 773-6 and L. 773-7, the
Article L. 841-1 of the Code of internal

security;
- Article 5, Articles L. 851-1, L. 851-2, L. 851-3,
L. 851-4, L. 851-5, L. 851-6 and L. 852-1
Code of Homeland Security;
- Article 6, Articles L. 853-1, L. 853-2, L. 853-3
of the Code of internal security;
- Article 10, Articles L. 773-2, L. 773-3, L. 7734, L. 773-5, L. 773-6 and L. 773-7 of the Code
of Administrative Justice.
Article 3. This Decision shall be published in
the Official Journal of the French Republic.
Deliberated by the Constitutional Council in its
meeting of July 23, 2015, composed of Messrs
Jean-Louis DEBR, President, Mrs Claire BAZY
MALAURIE, Nicole Belloubet, MM. Guy
CANIVET, CHARASSE Michel Renaud
DENOIX SAINT MARC, Lionel Jospin and
Nicole MAESTRACCI.
[French Official Gazette No. 0171 of 26 July 2015
page 12751, text 4, ECLI: FR: CC: 2015: 2015.713.
DC]
legislature made a conciliation which is not patently

unbalanced between, on the one hand, the right of
interested persons to exercise judicial review

effective and the right to a fair trial and, secondly,
the secret of national defense;
92. Considering that the provisions of Articles L. 7736 and L. 773-7 of the Administrative Justice Code must
be declared to be constitutional;
93. Considering that it is not necessary for the

Constitutional Council to raise matters of any
other issues of compliance with the Constitution,
H E L D:
Article 1. The following provisions of the Law on
Intelligence are contrary to the Constitution:
- Article 2, Article L. 821-6, the last sentence of
the first paragraph of Article L. 821-7, the
second sentence of the first paragraph of
Article L. 832-4, the words "with the exception
of those mentioned in Article L. 854-1" in the
third paragraph of Article L. 833-2 of the
words "and L. 821-6" in seventh paragraph
Article L. 833-9 and the words: "Subject to the
provisions of Article L. 854-1 of this Code, 'in
the first paragraph of Article L. 841-1 of the
Code of internal security;
- Article 6, Article L. 854-1 of the Code of
internal security;
- In Article 10, the words "and Article L. 854-1
of the code of internal security 'in Article L.
773-1 of the Code of Administrative Justice;
- Paragraph IV of Article 26.
Article 2. The following provisions of the Act
comply with the Constitution:
- Article 2, Articles L. 811-3, L. 811-4, L. 821-1
and L. 821-5, the surplus of Article L. 821-7,
L. 822 items L. 831-1 and -2 and the surplus of
*****
AN APPEAL
We request all our readers, friends and wellwishers to liberally subscribe to/ contribute for
and advertise in this unique type of journal
and also aid in increasing its circulation. We
also request that scholarly articles on any
aspect of law and society, preferably with
comparative international study, be sent to us.
Life subscription for this journal: Rs. 12,000/- and
the annual subscription for 2015: Rs. 1200/-. Any
annual subscription will count for one volume i.e.
January to December of the year, and back-numbers
of the year, subject to availability, will be supplied to
the subscriber. - I.M. Sharma, Editor.
ADVERTISEMENT TARIFF:
Full inner cover page

: Rs. 12,000/Ordinary full page
: Rs. 10,000/Cheques/DDs to be sent in favour of:
LAW ANIMATED WORLD,
H. No. 6-3-243/156, M.S. Makta,

Opp. Raj Bhavan, HYDERABAD - 500 082.
(for outstation cheques please add Rs. 75/- bank charges)
37
F-220
In Re: Law prohibiting cultivation of genetically modified maize [FR-CC]
(2015) 2 LAW F-220 (FR-CC)
LAURENT, Mr Antoine LEFVRE, Mr

Dominique de LEGGE, Mr Philippe LEROY, Mr
Michel MAGRAS, Ms Hlne MASSON-MARET,
Mr Jean-Franois MAYET, Ms Colette MLOT,
Mr Albric de MONTGOLFIER, Mr Philippe
NACHBAR, Mr Louis NGRE, Mr Philippe
PAUL, Mr Jackie PIERRE, Mr Rmy
POINTEREAU, Mr Ladislas PONIATOWSKI, Ms
Catherine
PROCACCIA,
Mr
Jean-Pierre
RAFFARIN, Mr Henri de RAINCOURT, Mr
Bruno RETAILLEAU, Charles REVET, Mr
Bernard SAUGEY, Mr Ren-Paul SAVARY, Mr
Michel SAVIN, Mr Bruno SIDO, Ms Esther
SITTLER, Ms Catherine TROENDL and Mr
Jean-Pierre VIAL, Senators;
And on 12 May 2014 by Mr Christian JACOB, Mr
lie ABOUD, Mr Bernard ACCOYER, Mr Yves
ALBARELLO, Mr Julien AUBERT, Mr Sylvain
BERRIOS, Mr Etienne BLANC, Ms Valrie
BOYER, Mr Dominique BUSSEREAU, Mr
Guillaume
CHEVROLLIER,
Mr
Philippe
COCHET, Mr Franois CORNUT-GENTILLE, Ms
Marie-Christine
DALLOZ,
Mr
Grald
DARMANIN, Mr Bernard DEBR, Mr Bernard
DEFLESSELLES, Ms Sophie DION, Mr Daniel
FASQUELLE, Ms Marie-Louise FORT, Mr Yves
FOULON, Mr Marc FRANCINA, Mr Laurent
FURST, Mr Sauveur GANDOLFI-SCHEIT, Ms
Annie GENEVARD, Mr Guy GEOFFROY, Mr
Franck GILARD, Mr Claude GOASGUEN, Mr
Jean-Pierre GORGES, Mr Philippe GOSSELIN, Ms
Arlette
GROSSKOST,
Mr
Christophe
GUILLOTEAU, Mr Michel HEINRICH, Mr
Michel HERBILLON, Mr Antoine HERTH, Mr
Patrick HETZEL, Mr Gunhal HUET, Ms Valrie
LACROUTE, Mr Marc LAFFINEUR, Mr Jacques
LAMBLIN, Mr Jean-Franois LAMOUR, Mr Alain
LEBOEUF, Mr Philippe LE RAY, Ms Genevive
LEVY, Mr Jean-Franois MANCEL, Mr Thierry
MARIANI, Mr Herv MARITON, Mr Alain
MARLEIX, Mr Olivier MARLEIX, Mr Philippe
MARTIN, Mr Jean-Claude MATHIS, Mr Pierre
MOREL-A-L'HUISSIER, Mr Jacques MYARD,
Mr
Jean-Frdric
POISSON,
Mr
Axel
PONIATOWSKI, Ms Josette PONS, Mr Frdric
REISS, Mr Franck RIESTER, Mr Paul SALEN, Mr
Franois SCELLIER, Mr Thierry SOLRE, Mr
Jean-Charles TAUGOURDEAU, Mr Michel
CONSTITUTIONAL COUNCIL OF
FRANCE AT PARIS
Wednesday, 28 May 2014

Law prohibiting the cultivation of varieties of

genetically modified maize
Under the terms provided for by Article 61-2 of
seized of an application relating to the Law
prohibiting the cultivation of varieties of genetically
modified maize on 6 May 2014 by Mr Jean-Claude
GAUDIN, Mr Grard BAILLY, Mr Philippe BAS,
Mr Ren BEAUMONT, Mr Michel BCOT, Mr
Jol BILLARD, Mr Jean BIZET, Ms Franoise
BOOG, Mr Pierre BORDIER, Mr Jol BOURDIN,
Ms Marie-Thrse BRUGUIRE, Mr FranoisNol BUFFET, Mr Franois CALVET, Mr
Christian CAMBON, Mr Jean-Pierre CANTEGRIT,
Mr Jean-Nol CARDOUX, Mr Jean-Claude
CARLE, Ms Caroline CAYEUX, Mr Grard
CSAR, Mr Pierre CHARON, Mr Alain
CHATILLON, Mr Jean-Pierre CHAUVEAU, Mr
Grard CORNU, Mr Raymond COUDERC, Mr
Jean-Patrick COURTOIS, Ms Isabelle DEBR, Mr
Francis DELATTRE, Mr Robert DEL PICCHIA,
Mr Grard DRIOT, Mr Philippe DOMINATI, Ms
Marie-Annick DUCHNE, Mr Alain DUFAUT, Mr
Andr DULAIT, Mr Hubert FALCO, Mr Andr
FERRAND, Mr Alain FOUCH, Mr Jean-Paul
FOURNIER, Mr Yann GAILLARD, Mr Ren
GARREC, Ms Colette GIUDICELLI, Mr Alain
GOURNAC, Mr Francis GRIGNON, Mr Charles
GUEN, Mr Pierre HRISSON, Mr Michel
HOUEL, Mr Alain HOUPERT, Mr Benot HUR,
Mr Jean-Franois HUSSON, Mr Jean-Jacques
HYEST, Ms Sophie JOISSAINS, Mr Roger
KAROUTCHI, Ms Elisabeth LAMURE, Mr Grard
LARCHER, Mr Robert LAUFOAULU, Mr Daniel

ours - IMS.
(2015) 2 LAW
38
(2015) 2 LAW
F-221
2. Considering first that, pursuant to Article 55 of

the Constitution: "Treaties or agreements duly
ratified or approved shall, upon publication,
prevail over Acts of Parliament, subject, with
respect to each agreement or treaty, to its
application by the other party"; that whilst these
provisions grant treaties a status higher than laws,
under the terms stipulated by them, they do not
require or imply that compliance with this
principle is compulsory within the ambit of
proceedings involving the constitutional review
of legislation; that the legal ground pertaining to
the incompatibility of a legislative provision with
the international law and European commitments
of France cannot be used as base for an objection
of unconstitutionality; that the examination of
such a challenge based on EU law or on the EU
treaties falls under the jurisdiction of ordinary
and administrative courts;
3. Considering on the other hand that pursuant to
Article 88-1 of the Constitution: "The Republic
shall participate in the European Union,
constituted by States which have freely chosen to
exercise some of their powers in common, by
virtue of the treaties on the European Union and
on the Functioning of the European Union, as
derived from the Treaty signed in Lisbon on 13
December 2007"; that accordingly, the
transposition into internal law of a European
Union directive is required under constitutional
law;
4. Considering that it is for the Constitutional
Council to ensure compliance with this
requirement, where it is seized of a law
concerning the transposition into national law of
a European Union directive under the terms
provided for by Article 61 of the Constitution;
that nonetheless, the review that it carries out to
this effect is subject to a twofold limit; that in the
first place, the transposition of a directive cannot
run contrary to a rule or principle that is inherent
in the constitutional identity of France, unless the
constituent power has consented to it; that
secondly since it is required to rule before the law
is promulgated within the deadline provided for
TERROT, Mr Jean-Marie TETART, Mr Dominique

TIAN, Mr Jean-Pierre VIGIER and Mr Philippe
VITEL, Members of the National Assembly.
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COUNCIL,

Having regard to Ordinance no. 58-1067 of 7
November 1958 as amended, concerning the Basic
Law on the Constitutional Council;
Having regard to Directive 2001/18/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 12
March 2001 on the deliberate release into the
environment of genetically modified organisms and
repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC;
Having regard to Regulation (EC) No. 178/2002 of
the European Parliament and of the Council of 28
January 2002 laying down the general principles
and requirements of food law, establishing the
European Food Safety Authority and laying down
procedures in matters of food safety;
Having regard to Regulation (EC) No. 1829/2003 of
September 2003 on genetically modified food and
feed;
Having regard to the observations of the
Government, registered on 19 May 2014;
Having heard the Rapporteur;
1. Considering that the applicant Senators and
Members of the National Assembly have referred
to the Constitutional Council the Law prohibiting
the cultivation of varieties of genetically modified
maize; that they assert that this prohibition runs
contrary to the principle of primacy of European
law, Articles 55 and 88-1 of the Constitution and
the provisions of various European Union
directives and regulations, including in particular
Article 23 of Directive 2001/18/EC and Article
34 of Regulation 1829/2003; that the applicant
Senators also assert that the definitive and general
prohibition imposed by these provisions violates
the precautionary principle; that, in their view,
the provisions of this Law violate the requirement
that the law be accessible and intelligible, in
particular in failing to define the terms
"genetically modified";
39
F-222
under Article 61 of the Constitution, the

Constitutional Council cannot make a reference
to the Court of Justice of the European Union on
the basis of Article 267 of the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union; that
consequently, it will only be able to rule that a
legislative provision is incompatible with Article
88-1 of the Constitution if it is manifestly
incompatible with the directive that it is intended
to transpose; that in any case, it is for the ordinary
and the administrative courts to review the
compatibility of the law with France's European
commitments
and,
depending
on
the
circumstances, to make a preliminary reference to
the Court of Justice of the Union;
5. Considering that in the present case, the law
must in actual fact protect those to whom the law

applies against an interpretation in breach of the
Constitution or against the risk of arbitrary
rulings, and may not allocate to the administrative
authorities or the courts responsibility for setting
rules, which according to the Constitution may
only be determined by law; that, contrary to the
assertions of the applicant Senators, the provisions of
paragraph I of the single Article of the Law referred,
which provides that "the cultivation of varieties of
genetically modified maize shall be prohibited" are not
unintelligible; that accordingly, the objection must
be rejected;
8. Considering that according to all of the above,
the provisions of the single Article of the Law
referred, which do not violate any other
requirement of constitutional law, must be ruled
constitutional;
referred does not have the objective of transposing a

European Union directive; that accordingly, the
objection alleging that Article 88-1 of the Constitution
has been violated must be rejected;
HELD:
Article 1. The Law prohibiting the cultivation of

varieties of genetically modified maize is constitutional.
Article 2.- This decision shall be published in the
Journal Officiel of the French Republic.
session of 28 May 2014, sat on by: Mr Jean-Louis
DEBR, President, Ms Claire BAZY MALAURIE,
Ms Nicole BELLOUBET, Mr Guy CANIVET, Mr
Michel CHARASSE, Mr Renaud DENOIX de
SAINT MARC, Mr Valry GISCARD d'ESTAING,
Mr
Hubert
HAENEL
and
Ms
Nicole
MAESTRACCI.
*****
6. Considering secondly that, pursuant to Article

5 of the Charter for the Environment: "When the
occurrence of any damage, albeit unpredictable in
the current state of scientific knowledge, may
seriously and irreversibly harm the environment,
public authorities shall, with due respect for the
principle of precaution and the areas within their
jurisdiction, ensure the implementation of
procedures for risk assessment and the adoption
of temporary measures commensurate with the
risk involved in order to preclude the occurrence
of such damage"; that the provisions of paragraph
I of the single Article of the Law referred have
the objective of prohibiting the cultivation of
varieties of genetically modified maize without
any temporal limit; that accordingly, the objection
PLEASE NOTE
We are bringing out an October Revolution
special issue in November 2015 merging issues
Nos. 21 and 22 of the journal and for publication
in it we hereby request scholarly articles on any
aspect of Socio-economic Justice in post-colonial
India or New concepts and ideologies of
Socialism in the World to be sent to reach us on
or before 30 October 2015. - I.M. Sharma, Editor
alleging that the permanent prohibition of the

cultivation of these varieties of maize violates the
precautionary principle is misconstrued;
7. Considering thirdly that the objective of

constitutional standing that the law should be
accessible and intelligible, which results from
Articles 4, 5, 6 and 16 of the 1789 Declaration of
the Rights of Man and the Citizen, requires the
legislature to adopt legislation that is sufficiently
precise and framed in unequivocal terms; that it
(2015) 2 LAW
LAW ANIMATED WORLD,

6-3-1243/156, M.S. Makta, Opposite
Raj Bhavan, HYDERABAD - 500 082.
Ph: 040 - 23300284; E-mail: mani.bal44@gmail.com
40
(2015) 2 LAW
In Re: Law on immigration, integration and citizenship [FR-CC]
(2015) 2 LAW F-223 (FR-CC)
DOMINATI, Mr Michel DOUBLET, Ms MarieAnnick DUCHNE, Mr AlainDUFAUT, Mr

Andr DULAIT, Mr Ambroise DUPONT, Mr
Louis DUVERNOIS, Mr Jean-Paul EMORINE,
Mr Andr FERRAND, Mr Louis-Constant
FLEMING, Mr Michel FONTAINE, Mr Bernard
FOURNIER, Mr Jean-Paul FOURNIER, Mr
Christophe-Andr
FRASSA,
Mr
Yann
GAILLARD, Mr Ren GARREC, Mr Jacques
GAUTIER, Mr Patrice GLARD, Mr Bruno
GILLES, Ms Colette GIUDICELLI, Mr Alain
GOURNAC, Mr Francis GRIGNON, Mr
Franois GROSDIDIER, Mr Charles GUEN,
Mr Pierre HRISSON, Mr Michel HOUEL, Mr
Alain HOUPERT, Mr Jean-Franois HUMBERT,
Mr Benot HUR, Mr Jean-Jacques HYEST, Ms
Sophie
JOISSAINS,
Ms
Christiane
KAMMERMANN, Mr Roger KAROUTCHI, Mr
Marc LAMNIE, Ms lisabeth LAMURE, Mr
Grard LARCHER, Mr Daniel LAURENT, Mr
Jean-Ren LECERF, Mr Antoine LEFVRE, Mr
Jacques LEGENDRE, Mr Dominique de
LEGGE, Mr Jean-Pierre LELEUX, Mr JeanClaude LENOIR, Mr Philippe LEROY, Mr
Grard LONGUET, Mr Roland du LUART, Mr
Michel MAGRAS, Mr Philippe MARINI, Mr
Jean-Franois MAYET, Ms Colette MLOT, Mr
Alain MILON, Mr Albric de MONTGOLFIER,
Mr Philippe NACHBAR, Mr Jackie PIERRE, Mr
Xavier PINTAT, Mr Rmy POINTEREAU, Mr
Christian
PONCELET,
Mr
Ladislas
PONIATOWSKI, Mr Hugues PORTELLI, Ms
Sophie PRIMAS, Ms Catherine PROCACCIA,
Mr Jean-Pierre RAFFARIN, Mr Henri de
RAINCOURT, Mr Andr REICHARDT, Mr
Bruno RETAILLEAU, Mr Charles REVET, Mr
Bernard SAUGEY, Mr Ren-Paul SAVARY, Mr
Michel SAVIN, Mr Bruno SIDO, Ms Esther
SITTLER, Mr Andr TRILLARD, Ms Catherine
TROENDLE, Mr Franois TRUCY, Mr Hilarion
VENDEGOU and Mr Jean-Pierre VIAL,
Senators;
And on the same day by Mr Christian JACOB,
Mr
Bernard
ACCOYER,
Mr
Yves
ALBARELLO, Mr Benoist APPARU, Mr Julien
AUBERT, Mr Olivier AUDIBERT TROIN, Mr
FRANCE AT PARIS
Thursday, 11 April 2013

***
Decision no. 2013-666 DC of 11 APRIL 2013

Law aiming to prepare the transition towards
a streamlined energy system and laying down
miscellaneous provisions on tariff rates for
water and on wind turbines
In the conditions provided for by Article 61-2 of
seized of an application relating to the Law
aiming to prepare the transition towards a
streamlined energy system and laying down
miscellaneous provisions on tariff rates for water
and on wind turbines on 13 March 2013 by Mr
Jean-Claude GAUDIN, Mr Pierre ANDR, Mr
Grard BAILLY, Mr Philippe BAS, Mr Ren
BEAUMONT, Mr Christophe BCHU, Mr
Michel BCOT, Mr Jol BILLARD, Mr Jean
BIZET, Mr Pierre BORDIER, Ms Natacha
BOUCHART, Mr Jol BOURDIN, Ms MarieThrse BRUGUIRE, Mr Franois-Nol
BUFFET, Mr Jean-Pierre CANTEGRIT, Mr
Jean-Nol CARDOUX, Mr Jean-Claude CARLE,
Ms Caroline CAYEUX, Mr Grard CSAR, Mr
Pierre CHARON, Mr Alain CHATILLON, Mr
Jean-Pierre CHAUVEAU, Mr Marcel-Pierre
CLACH, Mr Christian COINTAT, Mr Grard
CORNU, Mr Raymond COUDERC, Mr JeanPatrick COURTOIS, Mr Philippe DALLIER, Ms
Isabelle DEBR, Mr Francis DELATTRE, Mr
Robert del PICCHIA, Mr Grard DRIOT, Ms
Catherine DEROCHE, Ms Marie-Hlne DES
ESGAULX, Mr ric DOLIG, Mr Philippe
F-223

ours - IMS.
41
F-224
Jean-Pierre BARBIER, Mr Franois BAROIN,

Mr Jacques-Alain BNISTI, Mr Xavier
BERTRAND, Mr Jean-Claude BOUCHET, Mr
Xavier BRETON, Mr Dominique BUSSEREAU,
Mr
Yves
CENSI,
Mr
Guillaume
CHEVROLLIER, Mr Alain CHRTIEN, Mr Eric
CIOTTI, Mr Franois CORNUTGENTILLE, Mr
Edouard COURTIAL, Mr Jean-Michel COUVE,
Mr Grald DARMANIN, Mr Bernard
DEFLESSELLES, Mr Rmi DELATTE, Mr
Jean-Pierre DOOR, Mr Dominique DORD, Ms
Marianne DUBOIS, Mr Daniel FASQUELLE,
Mr Yves FOULON, Mr Marc FRANCINA, Mr
Laurent FURST, Mr Sauveur GANDOLFISCHEIT, Ms Annie GENEVARD, Mr Bernard
GRARD, Mr Claude GOASGUEN, Mr Philippe
GOSSELIN, Ms Anne GROMMERCH, Ms
Arlette GROSSKOST, Mr Jean-Claude GUIBAL,
Mr Christophe GUILLOTEAU, Mr Michel
HEINRICH, Mr Michel HERBILLON, Mr
Antoine HERTH, Mr Patrick HETZEL, Mr
Gunhal HUET, Mr Sbastien HUYGHE, Ms
Valrie LACROUTE, Mr Marc LAFFINEUR,
Mr Jean-Franois LAMOUR, Ms Laure de LA
RAUDIRE, Mr Alain LEBOEUF, Ms Isabelle
LE CALLENNEC, Mr Marc LE FUR, Mr Bruno
LE MAIRE, Mr Dominique LE MNER, Mr
Pierre LEQUILLER, Mr Philippe LE RAY, Ms
Genevive LEVY, Ms Vronique LOUWAGIE,
Mr Lionnel LUCA, Mr Thierry MARIANI, Mr
Herv MARITON, Mr Olivier MARLEIX, Mr
Philippe MARTIN, Mr Alain MARTY, Mr
Franois de MAZIRES, Mr Pierre MORANGE,
Mr Pierre MOREL-A-L'HUISSIER, Mr Jean-Luc
MOUDENC, Mr Jacques MYARD, Ms
Dominique NACHURY, Mr Yves NICOLIN, Mr
Edouard PHILIPPE, Mr Jean-Frdric POISSON,
Mr Axel PONIATOWSKI, Ms Josette PONS, Mr
Bernard REYNS, Ms Sophie ROHFRITSCH,
Mr Martial SADDIER, Mr Paul SALEN, Mr
Franois SCELLIER, Ms Claudine SCHMID, Mr
Andr SCHNEIDER, Mr Fernand SIR, Mr ric
STRAUMANN, Mr Claude STURNI, Mr Lionel
TARDY, Mr Jean-Charles TAUGOURDEAU,
Mr Guy TEISSIER, Mr Michel TERROT, Mr
Jean-Marie TETART, Mr Dominique TIAN, Ms
(2015) 2 LAW
Catherine VAUTRIN, Mr Patrice VERCHRE,

Mr Jean-Pierre VIGIER, Mr Philippe VITEL, Mr
Michel
VOISIN
and
Ms
Marie-Jo
ZIMMERMANN, Members of Parliament.
November 1958 as amended, concerning the
basic law on the Constitutional Council;
Having regard to the Energy Code;
Having regard to the Environmental Code;
Having regard to the Town Planning Code;
Having regard to Law no. 2005-781 of 13 July
2005 on the programme setting energy policy
guidelines;
Government, registered on 27 March 2013;
Having regard to the observations in response
presented by the Members of Parliament who
filed the second application, registered on 3 April
2013;
Members of Parliament have referred to the
Constitutional Council the Law aiming to prepare
the transition towards a streamlined energy
system and laying down miscellaneous provisions
on tariff rates for water and on wind turbines; that
the applicant Senators object to the procedure
followed in adopting Article 2 thereof and the
constitutionality of that Article along with
Articles 24, 26 and 29 of the Law; that the
applicant Members of Parliament object to the
procedure followed in adopting Articles 24, 26
and 29; that they also dispute the constitutionality
of Articles 2, 14, 24, 26 and 29 thereof;
- ARTICLE 2:
With regard to the procedure:
2. Considering that the applicant Senators argue

that the adoption of Article 2 of the bill in an
entirely new text introduced by an amendment
during a further reading in the National Assembly
entailed that the legislative provision which was
42
(2015) 2 LAW
finally adopted could only be examined following

one single reading, whereas these provisions
"required more detailed consideration, due to their
technical nature and novel status"; that in doing so
it violated the constitutional requirement that
parliamentary debates should be clear and sincere;
3. Considering that it follows from the scheme of
Article 45 of the Constitution, and in particular its
first subparagraph, according to which "Every
Government or Private Member's Bill shall be
considered successively in the two Houses of
Parliament with a view to the passing of an
identical text" that any additions or amendments
which may be made after the first reading by
Members of Parliament or by the Government
must be directly related with a provision under
discussion; that however, amendments intended
to ensure compliance with the Constitution, to
coordinate the text with other legislation during
examination or to correct a material error are not
subject to this requirement;
4. Considering that the National Assembly
adopted the bill during its first reading on 4
October 2012 and the Senate rejected the text on
30 October 2012 by a resolution asserting that the
bill adopted by the National Assembly was
procedurally inadmissible; that following the
breakdown of the procedure before the mixed
joint committee on 19 December 2012, the
National Assembly was referred regarding a
further reading of the bill containing the text
which it had previously approved; that the
competent permanent committee accordingly
adopted an amendment providing for a global
redrafting of Article 2 of the bill; that this
amendment had the objective of amending a
provision under discussion at this stage of the
procedure; that it follows that it was adopted
according to a procedure which complies with the
Constitution and does not violate the
constitutional requirement that parliamentary
debates should be clear and sincere;
F-225
"Performance class on domestic network energy

consumption", including Articles L. 230-1 to L.
230-30, and that, according to Article L. 230-1
established with effect from 1 January 2015 a
"performance measurement device"; that Article
L. 230-3 defines the formula for calculating the
annual quantity of energy known as the "base
volume" for each energy network and for each
residential consumption site, irrespective of
whether the residence is a principal or occasional
residence; that the Article makes provision for a
bonus, to be applied on the portion of network
energy consumption below the base volume, and
a penalty, to be applied on the portion of network
energy consumption above that volume; that
Article L. 230-4 makes the same provision for
multi-property buildings allocated in whole or in
part to residential usage; that Article L. 230-5
charges a body with responsibility for collecting
and updating the data necessary in order to
calculate base volumes, determining the bonus
and penalty volumes and allocating the
performance class; that Article L. 230-6 lays
down the procedures governing the calculation of
penalties and the conditions under which they
may be imposed, along with those applicable to
payment of the bonus; that this Article also
provides for control of the bonus and penalty
rates applicable to portions of consumption of
network energy; that Article L. 230-7 provides
for a reduction in penalty rates for consumers
entitled to certain special tariff rates; that Article
L. 230-10 lays down the conditions governing the
setting of the bonus and penalty rates each year;
that Article L. 230-11 establishes a fund for
offsetting bonus and penalty payments against
domestic consumption of network energy; that
Articles L. 230-12 to L. 230-26 set out the
conditions under which suppliers of network
energy are to ensure, acting under State control,
the collection of penalties and the payment of
bonuses;
Members of the National Assembly argue in the
first place that in delegating to the secondary
legislator the power to determine certain
The substantive content:
5. Considering that Article 2 introduces into the

Energy Code a new Title II-a entitled
43
F-226
coefficients used in order to calculate reference

volumes and in the annual setting of bonus and
penalty rates, Parliament acted in excess of its
powers; that the legal rule enacted by the
contested Article would be a source of legal
uncertainty in that it would not enable consumers
to know in advance the consumption threshold
above which a portion of their energy
consumption would cease to be eligible for a
bonus and would be subject to a penalty, or the
actual amount of the bonus which they would
receive or the penalty which could be imposed on
them in line with their actual consumption of
network energy during the course of the calendar
year; that it would violate the objective that the
law should be accessible and intelligible
according to Articles 4, 5, 6 and 16 of the 1789
Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen;
that, according to the applicant Senators, the
failure to establish a special purposes account
when creating new tax revenue in order to ensure
financial coverage for a specific cost violates the
requirements laid down under Article 21 of the
Organic Law of 1 August 2001 on finance laws;
Members of the National Assembly argue in the
second place that the bonus and penalty system
established under Article 2 violates the principle
of equality in the payment of public dues; that it
results in particular in unequal treatment of
energy consumers depending upon their location
within the same municipality, their personal
circumstances depending upon whether or not
they reside in their home due to their work or
absence thereof, the nature and surface area of
their dwelling or the type of energy consumed for
heating; that they argue that Parliament could not
reserve the application of this provision solely to
network energy consumed by private individuals,
thereby excluding on the one hand the
consumption of other polluting energy sources,
such as heating oil, liquefied petroleum gas or
wood and on the other hand the consumption of
energy from the agricultural, industrial and
tertiary sector; that the principle of equality in the
payment of public dues would also be violated by
(2015) 2 LAW
the difference in treatment established for homes

situated in multi-property buildings depending
upon whether or not it is possible to measure the
individual consumption of each residence and
depending upon whether or not these buildings
include secondary residences;
8. Considering that the applicants argue thirdly
that the provisions of Article 2 imply the
implementation of the processing of personal data
by registering information relating to address,
mode of heating, number of persons present in
the property and the status of the property as a
principal or occasional residence for around 35
million individuals; that they argue that the
legislation provides for the implementation of this
processing of personal data by a body without
specifying the conditions applicable to such
action or laying down guarantees in order to
protect the private life of the individuals whose
data are thereby registered; that this results in a
disproportionate violation of the right to the
protection of private life;
9. Considering that Article 13 of the 1789
Declaration provides: A common contribution is
essential for the maintenance of the public forces
and for the cost of administration. This should be
equitably distributed among all the citizens in
proportion to their means; that, in particular, to
ensure the principle of equality is upheld,
Parliament must base its judgment on objective
and rational criteria according to the proposed
objectives; that this judgment must however not
jeopardize equality in the payment of public dues;
10. Considering that, according to Article 34 of
the Constitution, it is for Parliament to determine,
in accordance with constitutional principles and
taking account of the characteristics of each tax,
the rules according to which taxpayers are to be
subject to that tax; that the principle of equality
does not preclude the establishment of specific
taxes with the objective of incentivising taxpayers
to adopt conduct which complies with objectives
of general interest, provided that the rules laid
down to that effect are justified having regard to
the said objectives;
44
(2015) 2 LAW
11. Considering that according to Article L. 2301 of the Energy Code as in force following the
enactment of Article 2 of the Law referred, the
bonus and penalty system pursues the objective
"of encouraging domestic consumers to reduce
their consumption of network energy";
12. Considering that, according to paragraph I of
Article L. 230-2 of the Energy Code established
by Article 2, the bonus and penalty system only
applies to the consumption of network energy, i.e.
"electricity, natural gas and network heating";
that, according to the provisions adopted,
Parliament intended to take account, on the one
hand, of the high costs of the investments
necessary in order to develop both the
distribution of such energy and, in relation to
electricity, the new production capacities, and on
the other hand the specific procedures according
to which such energy is to be distributed; that the
principle of equality in the payment of public
dues does not require that the provisions of
Article 2 be extended to other energy which does
not present these characteristics;
13. Considering in the first place that the bonus
and penalty system provided for under Article 2
is reserved solely to domestic consumption; that
on the one hand, the exclusion of all business
consumption is not related to the objective of
controlling the costs of production and
distribution of network energy; that on the other
hand, the exclusion of the tertiary sector is of
such a nature that, in particular in properties in
collective use, premises equipped with identical
heating and insulation equipment, which are
subject to the same tariff rules for the
consumption of electricity and gas and, in certain
cases, use a collective common heating system,
are excluded from or are included in the bonus
and penalty system due to the sole fact as to
whether or not they are used for domestic
purposes; that neither the provisions of Article 2
nor any other provision lay down a regime for
businesses which has effects equivalent to a
progressive tariff system or a bonus and penalty
system pursuing the objective set by Parliament
F-227
of incentivising each consumer to reduce his

network energy consumption; that Article 6 of the
Law referred is limited to stipulating the filing of
a report on "the procedures according to which
the bonus and penalty system for domestic
network energy consumption may be applied to
the tertiary sector"; that having regard to the
objective pursued, the differences in treatment
resulting from the choice to reserve the rule
provided for under Article 2 solely to domestic
consumption violate the principle of equality in
the payment of public dues;
14. Considering secondly that Article 2
introduces into Article L. 230-4 of the Energy
Code the procedures according to which the
bonus or penalty is calculated and allocated
within multi-property buildings equipped with
common heating equipment fuelled by network
energy;
15. Considering that, on the one hand, Article L.
241-9 of the Energy Code provides that any
collective property equipped with a common
heating system must include, insofar as
technologically permitted, a device intended to
determine the quantity of heat and hot water
supplied to each property occupied on a
residential basis; that paragraph III of Article 2 of
the Law referred postpones to 1 January 2015 the
deadline for the commissioning of these meters;
that paragraph V of Article L. 230-4 is applicable
in the event that it is technically impossible to
install a device enabling the quantity of heat and
hot water supplied to each property occupied on a
residential basis to be determined; that it provides
that, in such properties, bonus and penalty
payments are to be allocated in principle on a pro
rata basis in line with the contribution to the
category of costs including collective heating;
that however almost 90% of properties located in
multi-property buildings equipped with collective
heating, that is more than 4 million properties, are
not currently equipped with such a meter; that,
with regard to properties located in multiproperty buildings which have not installed a
meter by 1 January 2015 whilst not being subject
45
F-228
to the aforementioned technical impossibility, the

division of the bonus and penalty payments
between the properties will not be determined on
the basis of the objective pursued;
16. Considering on the other hand that letter b) of
paragraph I of Article L. 230-4 provides that the
determination of the base volume used in order to
calculate the bonus and penalty payments within
those properties shall take account of the total
number of units consumed throughout the
properties fuelled by common installations which
are main residences and the base volumes to
which properties that are occasional residence are
entitled; that however, pursuant to paragraph IV
of that Article: "The allocation of bonus and
penalty payments between properties in the
building shall take account of individual
consumption levels for each property, as
measured by the equipment referred to under
Article L. 241-9"; that accordingly, in these
multi-property buildings in which properties are
equipped with these meters, in contrast to the
regime applicable to individual residential
consumption sites under Article L. 230-3 of the
Energy Code, the allocation of bonus and penalty
payments does not take account of the units of
consumption for each property, nor, as regards
the granting of a bonus, the distinction between
main residences and occasional residences;
17. Considering that, accordingly, in multiproperty residential buildings equipped with
common heating installations, the provisions of
Article 2 of the Law do not lay down the
conditions for allocating bonus and penalty
payments having regard to the objective of
ensuring that each domestic consumer is
responsible for his own consumption of network
energy; that these provisions do not ensure that
the principle of equality in the payment of public
dues is respected for consumers resident in such
multi-property buildings on the one hand and
domestic consumers residing in an individual
residential consumption site on the other hand;
18. Considering that according to the above, the
provisions of Article 2 of the Law violate the
(2015) 2 LAW
principle of equality in the payment of public

dues; that they must be ruled unconstitutional,
without any requirement to examine the other
grounds for challenge; that any remaining
provisions of Title I which are not separable from
it must also be ruled unconstitutional; that the
same applies for the two last subparagraphs of
paragraph I of Article 8 and the two last
subparagraphs of paragraph I of Article 12; that,
consequently, in the last subparagraph of
paragraph III of Article 12, the reference "to
Articles L. 232-1, L. 232-2 and L. 232-3 of the
Energy Code" must be replaced by the reference
"to Article L. 232-1 of the Energy Code";
- ARTICLE 14:
19. Considering that Article 14 concerns the

cessation of electricity consumption; that
subparagraph 1 of paragraph I thereof introduces
a new Article L. 271-1 into the Energy Code in
particular in order to enable cessation operators
"to implement the cessation of consumption,
irrespective of whether the agreement of the
electricity supplier to the sites concerned has
been obtained, and to exploit such electricity on
the energy markets or according to the adjustment
mechanism referred to under Article L. 321-10,
and to implement a payment regime by the
cessation operator to the suppliers of electricity to
the sites to which the supply has been cut off";
Members of Parliament, in enabling cessation
operators to cut off consumption irrespective of
the agreement of the electricity supplier, the
provisions of Article L. 271-1 of the Energy Code
establish an authoritarian dispossession procedure
by a private body without any involvement of a
public authority; that they accordingly violate the
right of ownership guaranteed under Article 17 of
the 1789 Declaration; that this provision grants
the cessation operators a policing power over
electricity supply, without any involvement of a
public authority; that Parliament cannot grant
such a power to a private body without violating
the requirements resulting from Article 12 of the
1789 Declaration; that in delegating to the
46
(2015) 2 LAW
secondary legislator the power to determine the

methodology used in order to establish the rules
enabling electricity which has been cut off to be
exploited, Parliament finally acted in excess of its
powers;
21. Considering in the first place that pursuant to
Article 34 of the Constitution, statutes shall lay
down the basic principles of "systems of
ownership, property rights and civil and
commercial obligations";
22. Considering that Article L. 271-1 of the
Energy Code authorises the Conseil d'tat to
adopt a decree, acting on a proposal by the
Energy Regulation Board, laying down the
"methodology used in order to establish the rules
enabling energy which has been cut off to be
exploited on the energy markets or according to
the adjustment mechanism referred to under
Article L. 321-10"; that this Article provides that
these rules must include a regime regulating
payments to the suppliers of electricity from sites
which have been cut off that is "established
taking account of the quantities of electricity
introduced by or on behalf of the suppliers of the
sites which have been cut off and which are
exploited by the cessation operator on the energy
markets or according to the adjustment
mechanism"; that Parliament accordingly defined
and set out the financial mechanisms established
by the contested provisions in order to guarantee
remuneration to the suppliers of electricity to
sites where consumption has been cut off; that it
did not therefore act in excess of its powers;
23. Considering secondly that property is
included under the human rights provided for by
Articles 2 and 17 of the 1789 Declaration; that
pursuant to Article 17: "Since property is an
inviolable and sacred right, no one shall be
deprived thereof except where public necessity,
legally determined, shall clearly demand it, and
then only on condition that the owner shall have
been previously and equitably indemnified"; that
even if there is no violation of the right to
property pursuant to Article 17, it nonetheless
follows from Article 2 of the 1789 Declaration
F-229
that the limits placed on this right must be

justified by a reason of general interest and be
proportionate with the objective pursued;
24. Considering that electricity is an asset with a
special nature which cannot be stored and the flux
of which conveyed through the network must at
all times be balanced; that cutting off, which
enables imbalances between the production and
consumption of electricity to be corrected, does
not have the effect of hindering the actual
consumption of electricity by the customers of
electricity suppliers in the sites concerned, but
exclusively of avoiding higher consumption in
particular in the event of imbalances within the
network; that the contested provisions do not
have either the objective or effect of depriving a
supplier of electricity of remuneration for the
electricity that it has introduced into the network
and has been consumed; that it follows from the
above that these provisions do not cause any
violation to the right of ownership guaranteed
under Articles 2 and 17 of the 1789 Declaration;
25. Considering thirdly that the contested
provisions do not have the objective of vesting
cessation operators with administrative policing
powers; that the objection alleging the violation
of Article 12 of the 1789 Declaration must in any
case be rejected;
provisions of subparagraph 1 of paragraph I of
Article 14, which do not violate any other
requirement of constitutional law, must be ruled
constitutional;
- ARTICLES 24, 26 AND 29:
27. Considering that Articles 24, 26 and 29 amend

the provisions of the Energy Code, the
Environmental Code and the Town Planning Code
on wind turbines in cities and in overseas
departments with the goal of facilitating their
establishment;
28. Considering that the applicant Members of the
National Assembly argue that Articles 24, 26 and
29, which were introduced by an amendment during
the first reading, do not have any relationship with
the initial text and must be ruled unconstitutional
47
F-230
(2015) 2 LAW
with regard to Article 45 of the Constitution; that

the applicant Members of the Chamber of Deputies
and Senators argue moreover that Article 24
violates the principle of the free administration of
local government bodies and that Articles 26 and 29
violate the Environmental Charter, in particular
Article 6;
paragraph of Article L. 553-1 of the Environmental

Code with a phrase stipulating that authorisation to
exploit wind energy "shall take account of the parts of
The inclusion of Articles 24, 26 and 29

in the Law referred:
33. Considering that, according to the applicants,

the provisions of Article 24 of the Law violate the
principle of the free administration of local
government bodies by establishing "quasi
supervision" by regional councils of community
councils and municipal councils and by depriving
the communities of tax revenue associated with the
installation of wind turbines;
34. Considering that Article 34 of the Constitution
reserves to Parliament the power to determine the
fundamental principles of the free administration of
local government bodies, their powers and their
resources; that whilst, pursuant to Articles 72 and
72-2 of the Constitution, local government bodies
"shall be administered freely by elected councils"
and "shall benefit from the resources of which they
may freely dispose", they shall do so "in accordance
with the conditions laid down by law";
35. Considering that, by abolishing wind turbine
development areas, the provisions of Article 24 of
the Law referred have the effect of no longer
subjecting the obligation to buy electricity
generated to the establishment of wind turbines in
these areas, which does not in itself have an effect
on municipalities' income; that the abolition of wind
turbine development areas does not have the effect
of violating the powers of the municipalities and
public inter-municipal cooperation bodies to levy
their own taxes where their territory falls inside the
perimeter of the regional wind turbine plans; that it
does not have the effect of establishing "quasisupervision" by the region of the municipalities, as
wind turbines may be established at any time
outwith the areas specified in the regional wind
turbine plan; that accordingly, the objection
alleging the violation of the principle of the free
administration of local government bodies must be
rejected;
the regional territory which are favourable to the

development of wind energy as laid down in the regional
wind energy plan referred to under subparagraph 3 of
paragraph I of Article L. 222-1, if such a plan exists";
29. Considering that pursuant to the second phrase

of the first subparagraph 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";
30. Considering that the bill was initially comprised
of eight Articles at the time it was filed with the
bureau of the National Assembly, the first House to
be apprised of it; that these eight Articles were
divided into two Titles, the first on progressive
energy tariffs and the second on accompanying
measures;
31. Considering that Articles 24, 26 and 29 were
included by amendment during the first reading
before the National Assembly; that these Articles,
which are intended to facilitate the establishment of
wind turbines in the metropolitan territory and in
the overseas departments, aim to accelerate "the
transition towards a streamlined energy system"
against the backdrop of the "inevitable rise in
energy prices"; that they are therefore related to the
initial bill; that they were adopted according to a
procedure which is constitutional;
The objection alleging the breach of the principle of
the free administration of local government bodies:
32. Considering that Article 24 of the Law referred

has the objective of abolishing the wind turbine
development areas created under the aforementioned
Law of 13 July 2005 and amendment the provisions
on obligations to purchase electricity generated
from wind turbines; that paragraph I of Article 24
repeals Article L. 314-9 of the Energy Code on the
procedures for determining the wind turbine
development areas and amends Articles L. 314-1
and L. 314-10 of the Code; that paragraph II of
Article 24 moreover completes the last subLaw Animated World, 30 September 2015
The objection alleging the violation of

the Environmental Charter:
48
(2015) 2 LAW
F-231
36. Considering that Article 26 of the Law

referred, regarding exceptions to the principle of
the spread of urbanisation in continuity with
existing buildings, replaces the first subparagraph
of Article L. 156-2 of the Town Planning Code
applicable to the coast in the departments of
Guadeloupe, Guyana, Martinique, Reunion and
Mayotte with the goal of facilitating the
establishment of wind turbines in the coastal
municipalities of these departments;
37. Considering that by repealing the second phrase
of the first subparagraph of paragraph 3 of Article
L. 341-1 of the Energy Code, Article 29 abolishes
the rule according to which only wind turbine units
including at least five masts may benefit from an
obligation to purchase;
38. Considering that, according to the applicants, in
relaxing the conditions applicable to the
establishment of wind turbines in overseas
municipalities, the provisions of Article 26 of the
Law referred will result in an increased
development of wind turbines in overseas
departments; that in abolishing the aforementioned
"five masts" rule and favouring "the expansion of
the urban sprawl in these territories", the provisions
of Article 29 risk causing damage to the landscape;
that the provisions violate the Environmental
Charter, including in particular Article 6 thereof;
39. Considering that pursuant to Article 6 of the
Environmental Charter: "Public policies must promote
continues to be subject in particular to the

remaining town planning rules and the legislation
on installations classified on environmental
protection grounds; that Parliament did not violate
the requirements of Article 6 of the Environmental
Charter;
provisions of Articles 24, 26 and 29 of the Law
referred, which do not violate any other requirement
of constitutional law, must be ruled constitutional;
42. Considering that there are no grounds for the
Constitutional Council to raise any question of
compatibility with the Constitution ex officio,
HELD :
Article 1. The following provisions of the Law
aiming to prepare the transition towards a
streamlined energy system and laying down
miscellaneous provisions on tariff rates for water
and on wind turbines are unconstitutional:
Title I including Articles 1 to 6;
the last two subparagraphs of paragraph I of
Article 8;
the last two subparagraphs of paragraph I of
Article 12.
Consequently, the reference in the last
subparagraph of paragraph III of Article 12 "to
Articles L. 232-1, L. 232-2 and L. 232-3 of the
Energy Code" shall be replaced by the reference
"to Article L. 232-1 of the Energy Code".
sustainable development. To that effect, they shall

reconcile the protection and enhancement of the
environment with sustainable development and social
progress"; that it is for Parliament to determine the
Article 2. Subparagraph 1 of paragraph I of Article

14 and Articles 24, 26 and 29 of the Law are
constitutional.
Article 3. This decision shall be published in

the Journal officiel of the French Republic.
session of 11 April 2013, sat on by: Mr JeanLouis DEBR, President, Mr Jacques BARROT,
Ms Claire BAZY MALAURIE, Mr Nicole
BELLOUBET, Mr Guy CANIVET, Mr Michel
CHARASSE, Mr Renaud DENOIX de SAINT
MARC, Mr Valry GISCARD d'ESTAING, Mr
Hubert
HAENEL
and
Ms
Nicole
MAESTRACCI.
manner in which it is to be implemented, in

accordance with the principle of reconciliation
struck by these provisions;
40. Considering that in providing in Article 26 of
the Law referred for the possibility of exceptions to
the principle of the spread of urbanisation in
continuity with existing buildings and in abolishing
through Article 29 the rule according to which only
wind energy generating units including at least five
masts may benefit from an obligation to buy,
Parliament intended to promote the establishment of
wind turbines and the development of renewable
energy; that the establishment of wind turbines
*****
49
F-232
(2015) 2 LAW F-232 (FR-CC)
PRINTZ, Messrs Daniel RAOUL, Franois

REBSAMEN, Daniel REINER, Thierry REPENTIN,
Michel SERGENT, Ren-Pierre SIGN, JeanPierre SUEUR, Simon SUTOUR, Ms Catherine
TASCA, Messrs Michel TESTON, Ren
TEULADE, Richard YUNG, Mmes Nicole
BORVO COHEN-SEAT, Eliane ASSASSI, MarieFrance BEAUFILS, Evelyne DIDIER, Messrs Guy
FISCHER, Thierry FOUCAUD, Ms Brigitte
GONTHIER-MAURIN, Mr Robert HUE, Ms
Marie-Agns LABARRE, Messrs Jack RALITE,
Ivan RENAR, Ms Odette TERRADE, Mr Bernard
VERA, Robert TROPEANO, Jean Pierre
CHEVNEMENT, Mme Anne-Marie ESCOFFIER,
Messrs Jacques MZARD, Jean-Michel BAYLET,
Ms Franoise LABORDE, Messrs Raymond
VALL, Yvon COLLIN, Senators, and on the same
day by Mr Jean-Marc AYRAULT, Ms Patricia
ADAM, Ms Sylvie ANDRIEUX, Messrs Jean-Paul
BACQUET, Dominique BAERT, Grard BAPT,
Jacques BASCOU, Christian BATAILLE, Ms
Delphine BATHO, Ms Marie-Nolle BATTISTEL,
Ms Chantal BERTHELOT, Mr Jean-Louis
BIANCO, Ms Gisle BIMOURET, Messrs Serge
BLISKO,
Patrick
BLOCHE,
Jean-Michel
BOUCHERON, Ms Marie-Odile BOUILL, Mr
Christophe
BOUILLON,
Ms
Monique
BOULESTIN, Mr Pierre BOURGUIGNON, Ms
Danielle BOUSQUET, Messrs Franois BROTTES,
Alain CACHEUX, Jrme CAHUZAC, Thierry
CARCENAC, Christophe CARESCHE, Laurent
CATHALA,
Bernard
CAZENEUVE,
Guy
CHAMBEFORT, Jean-Paul CHANTEGUET,
Grard CHARASSE, Alain CLAEYS, Jean-Michel
CLMENT, Ms Marie-Franoise CLERGEAU, Mr
Gilles
COCQUEMPOT,
Ms
Catherine
COUTELLE, Ms Pascale CROZON, Mr Frdric
CUVILLIER, Ms Claude DARCIAUX, Mr Pascal
DEGUILHEM, Ms Michle ELAUNAY, Messrs
Bernard DEROSIER, Michel DESTOT, Julien
DRAY, Tony DREYFUS, Jean-Pierre UFAU,
William DUMAS, Ms Laurence DUMONT, Messrs
Jean-Paul DUPR, Yves DURAND, Olivier
DUSSOPT,
Christian
ECKERT,
Henri
EMMANUELLI,
Laurent FABIUS, Albert
FACON, Ms Martine FAURE, Mr Herv FRON,
Ms Aurlie FILIPPETTI, Mr Pierre FORGUES, Ms
Valrie FOURNEYRON, Messrs Jean-Louis
FRANCE AT PARIS
Wednesday, 9 June 2011

***
Decision n 2011-631 DC of 9 June 2011
Law on immigration, integration and citizenship
In the conditions provided for by Article 61-2 of

seized of an application relating to the Law on
immigration, integration and citizenship on 17
May 2011 by Mr Jean-Pierre BEL, Ms Michle
ANDR, Messrs Alain ANZIANI, David
ASSOULINE, Bertrand AUBAN, Claude BRITDBAT, Ms Marie-Christine BLANDIN, Ms
Maryvonne BLONDIN, Mr Yannick BODIN, Ms
Nicole BONNEFOY, Messrs Yannick BOTREL,
Didier BOULAUD, Ms Alima BOUMEDIENETHIERY, Mr Martial BOURQUIN, Ms Bernadette
BOURZAI, Mr Michel BOUTANT, Ms Nicole
BRICQ, Messrs Jean-Pierre CAFFET, Jean-Louis
CARRRE, Ms Franoise CARTRON, Mr Bernard
CAZEAU, Ms Monique CERISIER-ben-GUIGA,
Messrs Yves CHASTAN, Roland COURTEAU,
Yves DAUDIGNY, Jean-Pierre DEMERLIAT, Ms
Christiane
DEMONTS,
Messrs
Jean
DESESSARD, Claude DOMEIZEL, Bernard
FRIMAT, Charles GAUTIER, Serge GODARD,
Didier GUILLAUME, Edmond HERV, Ronan
KERDRAON, Ms Bariza KHIARI, Messrs Yves
KRATTINGER, Serge LAGAUCHE, Jacky LE
MENN, Ms Raymonde LE TEXIER, Ms Claudine
LEPAGE, Messrs Jean-Jacques LOZACH, Roger
MADEC, Marc MASSION, Rachel MAZUIR,
Jean-Pierre MICHEL, Grard MIQUEL, JeanJacques MIRASSOU, Ms Rene NICOUX, Messrs
Franois PATRIAT, Bernard PIRAS, Ms Gisle

ours - IMS.
(2015) 2 LAW
50
(2015) 2 LAW
GAGNAIRE,
Guillaume
GAROT,
Jean
GAUBERT, Paul GIACOBBI, Jean-Patrick GILLE,
Jol GIRAUD, Daniel GOLDBERG, Marc GOUA,
Ms lisabeth GUIGOU, Mr David HABIB, Ms
Danile HOFFMAN-RISPAL, Ms Sandrine
HUREL, Ms Monique IBORRA, Ms Franoise
IMBERT, Messrs Michel ISSINDOU, Serge
JANQUIN, Henri JIBRAYEL, Rgis JUANICO,
Ms Marietta ARAMANLI, Ms Conchita LACUEY,
Messrs Jrme LAMBERT, Franois LAMY, Jack
LANG, Ms Colette LANGLADE, Messrs Jean
LAUNAY, Jean-Yves LE BOUILLONNEC,
Gilbert LE BRIS, Jean-Yves LE DAUT, JeanMarie LE GUEN, Ms Annick LE LOCH, Mr Bruno
LE ROUX, Ms Marylise LEBRANCHU, Ms
Catherine LEMORTON, Ms Annick LEPETIT,
Messrs Bernard LESTERLIN, Serge LETCHIMY,
Albert LIKUVALU, Jean MALLOT, Ms Jacqueline
MAQUET, Ms Jeanny MARC, Messrs Jean-Ren
MARSAC, Philippe MARTIN, Ms Martine
MARTINEL, Ms Frdrique MASSAT, Mr Didier
MATHUS, Ms Sandrine MAZETIER, Messrs
Michel MNARD, Klber MESQUIDA, Jean
MICHEL, Pierre MOSCOVICI, Pierre-Alain
MUET, Philippe NAUCHE, Henri NAYROU,
Alain NRI, Ms Dominique ORLIAC, Mr Christian
PAUL, Ms George PAU-LANGEVIN, Messrs
Germinal PEIRO, Jean-Luc PRAT, Ms MarieFranoise PROL-DUMONT, Ms Sylvia PINEL,
Ms Martine PINVILLE, Mr Franois PUPPONI,
Ms Catherine QUR, Messrs Jean-Jack
QUEYRANNE, Dominique RAIMBOURG, Ms
Marie Line REYNAUD, Messrs Alain RODET,
Marcel ROGEMONT, Bernard ROMAN, Ren
ROUQUET, Michel SAINTE MARIE, Michel
SAPIN, Ms Odile SAUGUES, Mr Christophe
SIRUGUE, Ms Christiane TAUBIRA, Mr JeanLouis TOURAINE, Ms Marisol TOURAINE,
Messrs Philippe TOURTELIER, Jean-Jacques
URVOAS, Daniel VAILLANT, Jacques VALAX,
Andr VALLINI, Manuel VALLS, Michel
VERGNIER,
Andr
VZINHET,
Alain
VIDALIES, Jean-Michel VILLAUM, JeanClaude VIOLLET, Philippe VUILQUE, Ms Marie
Hlne AMIABLE, Mr Franois ASENSI, Ms
Martine BILLARD, Messrs Alain BOCQUET,
Patrick BRAOUEZEC, Jean-Pierre BRARD, Ms
Marie-George BUFFET, Messrs Jean-Jacques
F-233
CANDELIER, Andr CHASSAIGNE, Jacques

DESALLANGRE, Marc DOLEZ, Ms Jacqueline
FRAYSSE, Messrs Andr GERIN, Pierre
GOSNAT, Jean-Paul LECOQ, Roland MUZEAU,
Daniel PAUL, Jean-Claude SANDRIER, Michel
VAXS, Yves COCHET, Nol MAMRE,
Franois de RUGY, Ms Anny POURSINOFF, Mr
Alfred MARIE-JEANNE and Ms Huguette
BELLO, Members of Parliament.
November 1958 as amended, concerning the basic
law on the Constitutional Council;
Having regard to the basic law no. 2009-403 of 15
April 2009 on the application of Articles 34-1, 39
and 44 of the Constitution;
Having regard to Regulation (EC) no. 562/2006 of
March 2006 establishing a Community Code on the
rules governing the movement of persons across
borders (Schengen Borders Code);
European Parliament and of the Council of 16
December 2008 on common standards and
procedures in Member States for returning illegally
staying third-country nationals;
Having regard to Council Directive 2009/50/EC of
25 May 2009 on the conditions of entry and
residence of third-country nationals for the purposes
of highly qualified employment;
European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June
2009 providing for minimum standards on sanctions
and measures against employers of illegally staying
third-country nationals;
Having regard to the Civil Code;
Having regard to the Code on the Entry and
Residence of Foreigners and the Right of Asylum;
Having regard to the Criminal Code;
Having regard to Decision no. 2003-484 DC of the
Constitutional Council of 20 November 2003;
Having regard to decree no. 95-50096 of the Cour
de Cassation (second civil chamber) of 18
December 1996;
51
F-234
Having regard to the observations of the President

of the National Assembly, registered on 25 May
2011;
Government, registered on 27 May 2011;
presented by the applicant Senators registered on 31
May 2011;
presented by the applicant Members of Parliament
registered on 31 May 2011;
Members of Parliament have referred the Law on
immigration, integration and citizenship to the
Constitutional Council; that they claim that
Articles 2, 4, 10, 12, 13, 16, 26, 33, 37, 40, 44,
47, 51, 56, 57, 58, 70, 94, 95 and 98 thereof are
unconstitutional; that the applicant Members of
Parliament moreover object to the procedure
according to which the law was adopted as a
whole; that they have requested the Constitutional
Council to verify whether Articles 73 to 88 are
constitutional;
- WITH RESPECT TO THE
ADOPTION PROCEDURE:
2. Considering, in the first place, that the
applicant Members of Parliament aver that the
failure to convene the Conference of the
Presidents of the National Assembly during the
ten days after the tabling of the draft bill and the
accompanying impact study precluded the
possibility of objecting to the sincerity of the
latter; that, consequently, it had disregarded the
requirement of sincerity of parliamentary debate;
3. Considering that the third and fourth
subparagraphs of Article 39 of the Constitution
provide that: "The tabling of Government Bills
before the National Assembly or the Senate, shall
comply with the conditions determined by an
organic law. - 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 organic law have not been complied with.
(2015) 2 LAW
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"; that the first subparagraph
of Article 8 of the aforementioned basic law of 15
April 2009 provides that: "Draft bills shall be
subject to an impact study. The documents setting
out the results of this impact study shall be
appended to the draft laws upon transmission to
the Conseil d'tat. They shall be filed with the
bureau of the first assembly to take action at the
same time as the draft bills to which they refer";
that, according to the first subparagraph of Article
9 of the same organic law, the Conference of
Presidents of the Assembly for the bureau to
which the draft bill was submitted shall have a
time-limit of ten days after it was tabled in order
to determine whether or not the rules on the
impact studies have been complied with;
4. Considering that the draft bill was tabled on 31
March 2010 at the bureau of the National
Assembly; that a meeting of the Conference of
Presidents was held on 6 April 2010, within the
time-limit of ten days after it was tabled; that the
latter did not conclude that the rules on the
impact study had not been complied with; that the
objection averring the failure to hold a meeting of
the Conference of Presidents that could have
objected to the impact study fails on point of fact;
5. Considering, secondly, that according to the
applicant Members of Parliament, the scheduling
during the first reading before the National
Assembly of a programmed legislative timetable
with an insufficient duration of thirty hours and
the lack of any supplementary time determined
on the basis of the twelfth subparagraph of
Article 49 of the Regulations of the National
Assembly had the effect, taking account of the
extent of the amendments made in the committee
stage and the number of amendments tabled
during the session, of violating the requirements
of a clear and sincere parliamentary debate;
52
(2015) 2 LAW
6. Considering, first, that in this case, the fixing at

thirty hours of an initial programmed legislative
timetable was not manifestly disproportionate
having regard to the requirements of a clear and
sincere parliamentary debate;
7. Considering, secondly, that pursuant to Article
49 of the Regulations of the National Assembly,
it is for the Conference of Presidents to decide
whether to grant supplementary debating time;
that it emerges from the parliamentary debates
that since no request was made for supplementary
debating time during the meeting of that
conference, which was especially convened for
that purpose, the latter was not able to decide to
schedule additional debating time; that,
accordingly, the objection averring the failure to
set a timetable for additional debating time must
rejected;
8. Considering, thirdly, that the applicant
Members of Parliament consider that the
adoption, during the examination by the National
Assembly of the text drafted by the Joint
Committee, of an amendment intended to ensure
the constitutionality of an article of a draft bill,
notwithstanding the rejection of a prior motion
for dismissal based in particular on the
unconstitutionality of the draft bill, disregarded
the requirement that there be a sincere debate;
9. Considering that it follows from the scheme of
Article 45 of the Constitution, and in particular its
first subparagraph, according to which: "Every
F-235
objection averring that the requirement for a sincere

parliamentary debate was disregarded must be
rejected;
- WITH RESPECT TO ARTICLE 2:
10. Considering that Article 2 amends Article 2124 of the Civil Code, which subjects
naturalisation to the requirement of assimilation
into the French community; that it completes this
Article with a second subparagraph, according to
which: "Upon conclusion of the control procedure
regarding his assimilation, the interested party
shall sign the charter of rights and duties of
French citizens. This charter, which has been
approved by decree of the Conseil d'tat, recalls
the essential principles, values and symbols of the
French Republic";
by reserving the approval of this charter to the
administrative authorities, these provisions grant
the administrative authorities the power to set the
rules concerning fundamental rights and
citizenship; that in this way they do not respect
the scope of Parliament's jurisdiction and "the
constitutional requirement that legislation be
clear and intelligible";
Constitution, it is for the law to determine the rules
concerning civil rights and the fundamental guarantees
granted to citizens in order to regulate the exercise of
public freedoms as well as citizenship;
13. Considering that it is for the legislature to

exercise in full the jurisdiction granted to it under
the Constitution, including in particular Article
34; that the full exercise of this jurisdiction and
the constitutional law requirement that the law be
intelligible and accessible as resulting from
Articles 4, 5, 6 and 16 of the 1789 Declaration of
the Rights of Man and the Citizen require that it
adopt sufficiently precise precisions and
unequivocal formulae; that it must in actual fact
protect those to whom the law applies against an
interpretation in breach of the Constitution or
against the risk of arbitrary rulings, and may not
allocate to the administrative authorities or the
courts responsibility for setting rules which
Government or Private Member's Bill shall be

considered successively in the two Houses of Parliament
with a view to the passing of an identical text", that the
additions or amendments which may be made

after the first reading by Members of Parliament
and by the Government must be directly related
to a provision that is under discussion; that,
nonetheless, this obligation does not apply to
amendments intended in particular to secure
compliance with the Constitution; that,
notwithstanding the rejection of a prior motion
for dismissal, the adoption of an amendment intended
to secure compliance with the Constitution does not
breach constitutional requirements relating to
parliamentary procedure; that, accordingly, the
53
F-236
determination has been granted under the

Constitution solely to law;
14. Considering that the contested provisions are not
19. Considering that paragraph II of Article 10

amends Article L. 221-2 of the Code on the Entry
and Residence of Foreigners and on the Right of
Asylum relating to the definition of the waiting
areas; that it incorporates a second subparagraph
into this Article, which provides that: "If it is
clear that a group of at least ten foreign nationals
is entering into France other than through a
border crossing in the same place or at a variety
of places no more than ten kilometres distant
from one another, the waiting area shall, for a
maximum period of twenty six days, be deemed
to extend from the place or places where the
interested parties were discovered until the
closest border crossing";
the imprecise nature of these provisions has the
effect of permitting "the transformation of
potentially the entire national territory into a
waiting area"; that, accordingly, they do not offer
sufficient guarantees against arbitrary action,
impair the effective exercise of the right of
asylum and violate the principle of the
indivisibility of the Republic;
21. Considering, first, that the contested provisions
obscure or ambiguous; that they are limited to reserving

the task of approving a charter, the sole objective of
which is to "recall the essential principles, values and
symbols of the French Republic" to a decree of the
Conseil d'tat; that they do not delegate the power to
determine the rules established by the Constitution or
which it requires be determined by law; that,
consequently, the objection fails on point of fact;
15. Considering that Article 2 does not violate the

Constitution;
16. Considering that paragraph 6 of section 1 of

Chapter III of Title I bis of Book I of the Civil
Code includes provisions common to several
procedures for acquiring French citizenship; that
Article 4 of the law referred completes this
paragraph with Article 21-27-1, which provides
that: "When acquiring French citizenship by decision of
the public authorities or by declaration, the interested
party shall indicate to the competent authority the
citizenship or citizenships that he already holds, the
citizenship or citizenships that he will retain in addition
to French citizenship as well as the citizenships that he
intends to renounce";
are intended, having regard to the rules on entry into

France, to deal with difficulties in the treatment of the
situation in which a group of people that have just
arrived in France other than through a border crossing;

this Article establishes a distinction between
French citizens depending upon whether they
acquired citizenship by birth or by some other
means; that in addition, the obligation to declare
the citizenship or citizenships which the person
acquiring French citizenship will retain or those
which he intends to renounce would impose an
excessive burden on those persons;
18. Considering that the contested provisions are
that the extension of the waiting area to between

the place where the interested parties were
discovered and the nearest border crossing has
the effect of permitting the application of the
rules contained in Title II of Book II of the Code
on the Entry and Residence of Foreigners and on
the Right of Asylum solely to foreign nationals
from the group whose arrival justified the
implementation of this measure; that this extension
limited to specifying that the persons acquiring French

citizenship by declaration or decision of the public
authorities shall indicate to the French authorities
whether or not they will retain another citizenship; that
it does not establish any difference in treatment between
persons holding French citizenship; that they do not
violate any other constitutional requirement; that,
accordingly, they are not unconstitutional;
(2015) 2 LAW
has no impact on the legal arrangements applicable to

other foreign nationals located in this area but who do
not belong to the group; that, accordingly, the
objections averring the violation of the principle of the
indivisibility of the Republic and the effective exercise of
the right of asylum must be rejected;
54
(2015) 2 LAW
22. Considering, secondly, that all members of

the group concerned must have been identified
within the perimeter defined by law, which
cannot be extended; that the border crossings are
precisely defined and published according to
aforementioned Article 34(b) of the Regulation of
March 2006; that the waiting area is only
established for a period of twenty six days, which
cannot be extended or renewed; that the contested
measures may only be implemented, under the
control of the competent courts, if it is clear that a
group has just arrived in France; that, under these
conditions, the legislature has adopted sufficiently
F-237
request the Constitutional Council to rule these

provisions unconstitutional or, at the very least, to
create an exception where the grounds for
procedural inadmissibility were ascertained after
the first hearing;
Declaration provides: "A society in which the
observance of the law is not assured, nor the
separation of powers defined, has no constitution
at all"; that this provision guarantees the right of
interested parties to obtain effective judicial
remedy; that moreover, the proper administration
of justice amounts to an objective of
constitutional significance pursuant to Articles
12, 15 and 16 of the 1789 Declaration;
27. Considering that the contested provisions
have the objective of establishing the
applicability of the case law of the Cour de
cassation, both in respect of administrative
detention as well as custody in the waiting area,
and to extend to all irregularities this case law,
according to which the conditions governing the
questioning of foreign nationals may only be
challenged during the proceedings pending in
relation to the first application for an extension of
the detention of the foreign national and may no
longer be brought before the court when hearing a
new application for extension; that the
irregularities which may no longer be raised after
the first hearing for extension are those eligible to
be raised during that hearing; that by requiring
that these irregularities be raised during the first
hearing before the Custodial Judge, the contested
provisions pursue the goal with constitutional
status of the proper administration of justice,
without violating the right to effective judicial
relief; that, consequently, Articles 12 and 57 are
not unconstitutional;
precise and targeted provisions in order to provide

guarantees against the risk of arbitrary action;
23. Considering that paragraph II of Article 10 does

not violate the Constitution;
- WITH RESPECT TO ARTICLES 12 AND 57:
24. Considering that Article 12 completes Article

L. 222-3 of the Code on the Entry and Residence
of Foreigners and on the Right of Asylum in
respect of the procedure regulating the
examination by the Custodial Judge of an
application to hold a foreign national in a waiting
area; that it completes this Article by a
subparagraph which provides that: "No
irregularity committed prior to the hearing
concerning the first extension of detention in the
waiting area may be raised during the hearing
relating to the second extension, failing which the
objection will be ruled procedurally inadmissible
ex officio"; that Article 57 introduces Article L.
552-8 into the same Code, establishing the same
rule of procedural inadmissibility in relating to
the extension of administrative detention;
the procedural inadmissibility of irregularities
raised after the first hearing on the extension of
custody in the waiting area or of administrative
detention disregards the requirements specified
under Article 66 of the Constitution, which
requires that the judicial authorities be able to
exercise their task of upholding personal freedom
in all circumstances; that they consequently
28. Considering that Article 13 also amends

Article L. 222-3 of the Code on the Entry and
Residence of Foreigners and the Right of
Asylum; that Article 13(2) inserts a third
subparagraph into this Article pursuant to which:
"The provision of guarantees as to his subsequent
55
F-238

the extension from four to six hours of the timelimit for the detention by the judicial authorities
of a person whose release has been ordered by the
Custodial Judge violates Article 66 of the
Constitution;
appearance by the foreign national is not by itself

capable of justifying the refusal to extend his
detention in a waiting area";
by removing the right for the Custodial Judge to
take account exclusively of the guarantees by the
foreign national as to his subsequent appearance
for the purposes of deciding on his release, this
provision violates the judge's role as the guardian
of individual freedom; that it is also claimed to
violate the principle according to which the
deprivation of freedom amounts to an exceptional
measure and should not become a principle;
30. Considering that pursuant to Article L. 221-1
of the same Code, the detention in a waiting area
of a foreign national who has arrived in France
may be ordered both if he was not authorised to
enter into France and also if he requests
admission on the grounds of asylum; that,
accordingly, in preventing a decision with the
effect of permitting that foreign national to enter
into France from being grounded exclusively on
the fact that he provided guarantees as to his
subsequent appearance, the contested provision
does not violate any constitutional requirement;
that Article 13 does not violate the Constitution;
33. Considering that, in the aforementioned

decision of 20 November 2003, the Constitutional
Council upheld the provisions from which those
amended by Articles 16 and 58 of the law
referred originated; that, due to their limited
effect, the latter cannot be deemed to violate the
aforementioned constitutional requirements; that,
accordingly, Articles 16 and 58 are not
unconstitutional;
- WITH RESPECT TO ARTICLES 26, 40 AND 70:
34. Considering that Article 26 amends the first

phrase of Article L. 313 11(11) of the Code on
the Entry and Residence of Foreigners and the
Right of Asylum; that this phrase provides for the
automatic issue of a temporary residence card
designated for "private life and family" purposes
to a foreign national ordinarily resident in France
whose state of health requires medical provision,
the lack of which could entail exceptionally
serious consequences for him; that, in the current
formulation of this phrase, the issue of the
aforementioned card is conditional upon the
prerequisite that it is impossible for the foreign
national to "benefit effectively from appropriate
treatment in his country of origin"; that Article 26
on the one hand replaces this condition with that
of the "lack" of appropriate treatment in his
country of origin, whilst on the other hand
introduces an exception for "exceptional
humanitarian circumstances assessed by the
administrative authorities after an opinion has
been obtained from the general director of the
regional health authority"; that Article 40 of the
law referred, which amends Article L. 511 4 of
the same Code, infers the consequences of this
amendment in the event that the obligation to
leave France cannot be imposed upon a seriously
ill foreign national; that Article 70, which amends
- WITH RESPECT TO ARTICLES 16 AND 58:
31. Considering that Articles 16 and 58 amend

respectively Articles L. 222-5 and L. 222-6 of the
Code on the Entry and Residence of Foreigners
and the Right of Asylum, applicable to the
procedure for the extension of custody in the
waiting area, and Article L. 552-10 of the same
Code, applicable to the procedure for extending
administrative custody; that they increase from
four to six hours the time-limit during which the
foreign national is nonetheless detained by the
judicial authorities, if the Custodial Judge has
decided to put an end to the custody in the
waiting area or the administrative detention, in
order to enable the Public Prosecutor, if he
appeals against that decision, to apply to the first
president of the court of appeal seeking a ruling
that his appeal has suspensory effect;
(2015) 2 LAW
56
(2015) 2 LAW
F-239
this, it vested the power to assess this individual

situation in the administrative authorities, after
obtaining an opinion from the director general of
the regional health agency, the latter in turn
having received medical advice; that in these
circumstances, only the interested party may
provide the administrative authority with the
information regarding his state of health that may
be capable of justifying his request; that
accordingly, the contested provisions are precise
and unequivocal; that it follows from the above
that the objections averring the violation of the
requirement that the law be accessible and
intelligible and the violation of the private sphere
must be rejected; that Articles 26, 40 and 70 are
Articles L. 521 3 and L. 532 4 of the Code,

provides to the same effect in the first place if the
seriously ill foreign national cannot be issued
with an expulsion order other than "in cases
involving conduct of such a nature as to infringe
the fundamental interests of the State, or which is
related to activities of a terrorist nature, or which
constitutes express and deliberate incitement to
discrimination, hatred or violence against a
specific person or group of persons" and,
secondly, in the event that the seriously ill foreign
national is placed under house arrest in order for
the expulsion order issued against him to be
enforced;
these provisions do not comply with the
constitutional law requirement that the law be
intelligible and accessible; that in particular, they
consider that the lack of precision in the concept
of "exceptional humanitarian circumstances" will
have the effect of causing interpretative
differences that are contrary to the principle of
equality; that they also consider that, due to its
lack of precision, the procedure that results in the
assessment of this concept being left to the
administrative authorities will translate into a
violation of medical confidentiality of such a
nature as to violate the right to respect for one's
private life;
36. Considering that, on the one hand, in adopting
the criterion of the "lack" of appropriate treatment
in the country of origin or of return, the legislator
intended to put an end to the uncertainties and
interpretative differences arising out of the
appreciation of the socio-economic conditions in
which the interested party could "effectively
benefit" from appropriate treatment in this
country; that on the other hand, by creating an
exception for cases involving exceptional
humanitarian circumstances, it intended to be
able to take account of individual situations in
which, notwithstanding the existence of
appropriate treatment in the country of origin or
of return, the maintenance of the interested party
in France was justified; that, in order to achieve
37. Considering that Article 33 completes the first

subparagraph of Article L. 623 1 of the Code on
Right of Asylum; that it specifies that "if a
foreign national who has contracted marriage has
concealed his intentions from his spouse"
provision is also made for a term of imprisonment
of up to five years and a 15 000 euro fine as
punishment for the contracting of a marriage or
the recognition of a child for the sole purposes of
obtaining leave to reside or to benefit from
protection against deportation, either in person or
through a third party, or for the sole purposes of
acquiring French citizenship, either in person or
through a third party;
these provisions establish an unconstitutional
difference in treatment between French citizens
and foreign nationals;
39. Considering that Article 6 of the Declaration
of 1789 provides that the law must be the same
for all, whether it protects or punishes; that the
principle of equality does not prevent the
legislator from resolving different situations in
different ways, or from derogating from equality
on the grounds of the general interest, provided
that in both cases the resulting difference in
57
F-240
treatment is directly related to the objective of the

law establishing it;
40. Considering that in adopting the
aforementioned provisions, the legislator limited
itself to recalling that the fact that a foreign
national has concealed from his spouse, who is in
good faith, his intention only to contract marriage
for the purpose of obtaining leave to reside or to
benefit from protection against deportation or to
obtain French citizenship is punished; that it does
not establish any difference in treatment; that
accordingly, the objection averring the violation
of the principle of equality must be rejected; that
Article 33 is not unconstitutional;
authorisation to reside on the grounds

that his application was manifestly
groundless or fraudulent,
"3. If there is a risk that the foreign national
will not comply with this obligation";
43. Considering that the applicants aver that the
legislator adopted provisions that were manifestly
incompatible with the directive which the law is
intended to transpose;
44. Considering that the first subparagraph of
Article 88 1 of the Constitution provides: "The
Republic shall participate in the European Union,
constituted by States which have freely chosen to
exercise some of their powers in common, by
virtue of the treaties on the European Union and
on the Functioning of the European Union, as
derived from the Treaty signed in Lisbon on 13
December 2007"; that accordingly, the
transposition into internal law of a Community
directive is required under constitutional law;
45. Considering that it is for the Constitutional
Council to ensure compliance with this
requirement, where it is seized of a law
concerning the transposition into national law of
a Community directive in the conditions provided
for under Article 61 of the Constitution; that
nonetheless, the review that it carries out to this
effect is subject to a twofold limit; that in the first
place, the transposition of a directive cannot run
contrary to a rule or principle that is inherent in
the constitutional identity of France, unless the
constituent power has consented to it; that
secondly since it is required to rule before the law
is promulgated within the time-limit provided for
under Article 61 of the Constitution, the
Constitutional Council cannot make a reference
to the Court of Justice of the European Union on
the basis of Article 267 of the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union; that
consequently, it will only be able to rule that a
legislative provision is incompatible with Article
88-1 of the Constitution if it is manifestly
incompatible with the directive that it is intended
to transpose; that in any case, it is for the ordinary
and the administrative courts to review the
41. Considering that Article 37 has the objective

of transposing the provisions of the
aforementioned Directive 2008/115/EC; that to
this effect it amends the wording of Article L.
511-1 of the Code on the Entry and Residence of
Foreigners and on the Right of Asylum relating to
the procedures for deporting foreign nationals in
an irregular situation;
With regard to the absence of time-limit for
voluntary departure from the country:
42. Considering that the amended Article L. 5111 provides in paragraph II that the foreign
national shall be granted a time-limit of thirty
days starting from the service upon him of the
notice to leave the country, and that in
exceptional circumstances and having regard to
his personal situation the administrative
authorities may grant him a time-limit for
voluntary departure in excess of thirty days; that
the same provision however provides that "the
administrative authorities may rule by decision
supported by reasons that the foreign national is
obliged to leave France forthwith:
"1. If the conduct of the foreign national
constitutes a threat to public order,
"2. If the foreign national has been refused
the issue or renewal of his residence
permit, his receipt for an application for a
residence card or his temporary
(2015) 2 LAW
58
(2015) 2 LAW
compatibility of the law with France's European

commitments
and,
depending
on
the
circumstances, to make a preliminary reference to
the Court of Justice of the Union;
46. Considering that Article 7(4) of the
aforementioned Directive 2008/115/EC on
voluntary departure provides that, "If there is a
risk of absconding, or if an application for a legal
stay has been dismissed as manifestly unfounded
or fraudulent, or if the person concerned poses a
risk to public policy, public security or national
security, Member States may refrain from
granting a period for voluntary departure, or may
grant a period shorter than seven days"; that
Article 3(7) of the same directive provides that
"risk of absconding" means "the existence of
reasons in an individual case which are based on
objective criteria defined by law to believe that a
third-country national who is the subject of return
procedures may abscond";
47. Considering that the contested provision
releases the administration from the requirement
to grant a time-limit for the foreign national to
leave voluntarily if there is a risk that he will not
comply with the obligation incumbent upon him
to leave the country; that it provides that "absent
special circumstances, this risk shall be deemed
to subsist in the following cases:
"a) if the foreign national who is not able to
establish that he entered France lawfully
has not applied for the issue of a
residence permit;
"b) if the foreign national remains in France
in excess of the duration of his visa or, if
he is not under an obligation to obtain a
visa, upon expiry of a time-limit of three
months starting from the time he entered
France if he has not applied for the issue
of a residence permit;
"c) if the foreign national remains in France
for longer than one month after the
expiry of his residence permit, his receipt
for an application for a residence card or
his provisional authorisation to reside and
has not applied for a renewal;
F-241
"d) if the foreign national has failed to

comply with a previous deportation
order;
"e) if the foreign national has forged,
falsified or obtained a residence permit or
an identity or travel document in a name
other than his own;
"f) if the foreign national does not present
sufficient assurances as to his subsequent
appearance, in particular on the grounds
that he cannot establish that he possesses
currently valid identity or travel
documents, or that he has concealed
elements of his identity, or that he has not
declared his place of actual or permanent
residence, or that he has previously failed
to comply with the obligations provided
for under Articles L. 513-4, L. 552-4, L.
561 1 and L. 561-2";
48. Considering that, in estimating that, absent
special circumstances, in the six cases listed
under paragraph II of Article L. 511-1 there is a
risk that the foreign national will not comply with
the obligation incumbent upon him to leave the
country, the legislator has laid down objective
criteria that are not manifestly incompatible with
the directive which the law was intended to
implement; that, accordingly, the contested
provisions do not violate Article 88-1 of the
Constitution;
With regard to the prohibition on return:
49. Considering that paragraph III of Article L.

511-1 as amended provides that the administrative
authority may issue a decision supported by
reasons associating the obligation to leave France
with a prohibition on return;
50. Considering that the applicants aver that the
legislator has failed to comply with the
requirements resulting from Article 8 of the 1789
Declaration, the rights to a defence and the
principle of a fair hearing, as well as the fourth
recital of the Preamble to the 1946 Constitution,
according to which: "All persons who are
persecuted on the grounds of their actions in
59
F-242
not preclude the filing of an asylum application at

the border;
55. Considering fourthly that a measure issued in
this manner is not manifestly incompatible with
Article 11 of Directive 2008/115/EC which it is
intended to transpose;
56. Considering that Article 37 of the law referred is
support of freedom shall have a right of asylum in

the territories of the Republic";
51. Considering that pursuant to paragraph III(7)
of Article L. 511-1: "The prohibition on return
and its duration shall be decided by the
administrative authorities taking account of the
duration of the foreign national's presence in
France, the nature and length of his links with
France, the fact as to whether or not he has
already been subject to a deportation order and
the threat for public order that his presence in
France constitutes"; that the prohibition on return
may also be revoked by the administrative
authorities; that, absent special circumstances
relating to the situation or conduct of the
interested party, such revocation is automatic
where he complies with the time-limit imposed
upon him in respect of the obligation to leave the
territory concerned;
52. Considering, first, that the prohibition on
return with which the obligation to leave the
country may be associated amounts to a policing
measure and not a penalty with the nature of a
punishment pursuant to Article 8 of the 1789
Declaration; that accordingly, the objection
averring the violation of this provision is
groundless;
53. Considering secondly that, except in relation
to decisions imposing a penalty with the nature of
a punishment, the rules and principles with
constitutional status do not in themselves require
that the executive decisions issued by an
administrative authority involve a prior procedure
in which the interested party may be heard; that it
follows that the objection averring the violation
of the rights to a defence and the principle of a
fair hearing must be rejected;
54. Considering thirdly that the application for
the revocation of the prohibition on return is only
admissible if the foreign national who submits it
establishes that he resides outwith France; that
this requirement is not of such a nature as to
violate the right of asylum since, as provided for
under Article L. 213-2 of the aforementioned
Code, the refusal of entry into the country does
(2015) 2 LAW
- WITH RESPECT TO ARTICLES 44, 47,

51 AND 56:
57. Considering that Articles 44, 47, 51 and 56

have the objective of transposing Directive
2008/115/EC; that to this effect they amend the
wording of Articles L. 551-1, L. 561-1 L. 5613, L. 552-1 and L. 552-7 of the Code on the Entry
and Residence of Foreigners and the Right of
Asylum and introduce Articles L. 552-4-1 and L.
562-1 to L. 562-3;
58. Considering that the applicants aver that,
insofar as they provide for a time-limit of five
days before a Custodial Judge is required to
authorise the holding of a foreign national in
administrative custody, Articles 44 and 51 violate
Article 9 of the 1789 Declaration and Article 66
of the Constitution; that they also argue that,
insofar as they amend the wording of Article L.
561-2 of the Code on the Entry and Residence of
Foreigners and the Right of Asylum, Article 44
and Article 47 violate the objective laid down by
the Directive which the legislation is intended to
transpose; that the provisions of Article 47 also
violate individual freedom or at the very least the
freedom of movement; that they also object that
Article 56 violates Article 9 of the 1789
Declaration in requiring a rigour that is not
necessary having regard to individual freedom;
With regard to the objection averring the
violation of the objectives of the Directive:

referred amends Article L. 551-1 of the Code on
Right of Asylum; that this Article as amended
provides that, unless he is placed under house
arrest in accordance with Article L. 561-2, any
60
(2015) 2 LAW
F-243
- With regard to the objection averring

the violation of individual freedom:
foreign national that cannot immediately leave

France may be detained by the administrative
authorities in facilities which do not fall under the
authority of the prison administration for up to
five days;

Constitution provides that: 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"; that, when
exercising this power, the legislator may
determine the procedures governing the
intervention by the judicial authorities that differ
in line with the nature and scope of the measures
affecting individual freedom that it intends to
enact; that the individual freedom which Article
66 of the Constitution provides is to be protected
by the judicial authorities may not be deemed to
be safeguarded unless the courts intervene within
as short a period as possible;
64. Considering that no rule with constitutional status
60. Considering that Article 47 reforms Article L.

561-2: "In the situations provided for under
Article L. 551 1, the administrative authorities
may decide to place under house arrest a foreign
national for whom the implementation of the
obligation to leave the country remains a
reasonable prospective and who provides
effective assurances as to his subsequent
appearance precisely in order to avoid the risk
referred to under paragraph II of Article L. 511 1
that he fail to comply with that obligation. The
three last subparagraphs of Article L. 561 1 shall
apply, upon condition that the maximum duration
of the house arrest may not exceed forty five
days, and may be renewed once";
grants foreign nationals rights of access to and residence

in the national territory that are general and absolute in
nature; that the conditions governing their entry and
residence may be restricted by administrative policing
measures that grant the public authorities enhanced
powers and are based on specific rules; that the
objective of combating illegal immigration contributes
to safeguarding public order, which is a requirement
with constitutional status;
61. Considering that Article 15(1) of Directive

2008/115/EC provides that: "Unless other
sufficient but less coercive measures can be
applied effectively in a specific case, Member
States may only keep in detention a third-country
national who is the subject of return procedures in
order to prepare the return and/or carry out the
removal process, in particular when: (a) there is a
risk of absconding or, (b) the third-country
national concerned avoids or hampers the
preparation of return or the removal process. Any detention shall be for as short a period as
possible and only maintained as long as removal
arrangements are in progress and executed with
due diligence"; that according to these provisions,
detention is only possible if house arrest will not
be sufficient in order to avoid the risk that the
interested party not comply with the obligation to
leave the country that applies to him;
65. Considering that, in accordance with the

French conception of the separation of powers,
the fundamental principles recognised by the law
of the Republic include that according to which,
except for matters that are by their nature
reserved to the ordinary courts, the annulment or
amendment of decisions taken in exercising
prerogatives of public order by the authorities
vested with executive powers, their agents, the
local authorities of the Republic or the public
bodies placed under their authority or control
shall ultimately fall under the jurisdiction of the
administrative courts;
66. Considering that the detention of a foreign

contained in Articles 44 and 47 are not manifestly
incompatible with the objectives of the Directive
which the law referred is intended to transpose;
national who cannot immediately leave the country

must respect the principle, resulting from Article 66 of
the Constitution, according to which individual freedom
should not be limited with unnecessarily rigour; that it
61
F-244
is incumbent upon the legislator to ensure that a
application must be made to the Custodial Judge

in order to extend detention; that the judge
deciding on provisional detention is to rule within
twenty four hours of the application;
70. Considering moreover that the Article L. 554-1
balance is struck between, on the one hand, the

prevention of public order offences that is necessary in
order to safeguard rights and principles with
constitutional status, as well as the requirements of the
proper administration of justice, and on the other hand,
the exercise of the freedoms guaranteed under the
Constitution; that these include individual freedom
of the Code on the Entry and Residence of Foreigners

and the Right of Asylum, which has not been
amended, reiterates that a foreign national may only
be detained for the period of time that is strictly
necessary for his departure, and that the
administration must exercise all diligence to this effect;
which Article 66 of the Constitution specifies be

protected by the ordinary courts; that the
violations of the exercise of these freedoms must
be adapted to, necessary for and proportionate
with the objectives pursued;
67. Considering that Article 34 of the Constitution
71. Considering that the law referred also has the

objective, under Articles 48 et seq, of amending
the rules governing administrative disputes
concerning deportation; that it provides in
particular that the interested party may apply to
the administrative courts seeking an annulment of
the decision obliging him to leave the country,
the decision relating to his residence, the decision
refusing a voluntary time-limit for departure, the
decision specifying the country of destination
and, where appropriate, the accompanying
decision to prohibit his return to France; that if he
is detained, the foreign national may not only
contest the deportation order, but may also
request the annulment of the decision to detain
him within forty eight hours of its notification;
that the administrative courts must decide at the
latest seventy two hours after the application is
received; that the interested party shall be
released if this order is annulled; that the same
applies if the obligation to leave France or the
decision not to grant a time-limit for voluntary
departure is annulled;
72. Considering that the legislature intended for
the administrative courts to rule quickly, in
accordance with the rules governing the division
of competences between the different court
systems, on the legality of the administrative
measures relating to the deportation of foreign
nationals before the intervention of the ordinary
courts; that in making such provision for disputes,
the goal of the legislator was to ensure that the
legality of these measures was examined as a
matter of priority and, in the interest of the proper
provides that statutes shall determine the rules

concerning the fundamental guarantees granted to
citizens for the exercise of their civil liberties; that
legislator is free at any time, when ruling on matters
within its competence, to adopt new provisions that are
in its view appropriate, and to amend previous
legislation or repeal it and, depending on the
circumstances, replace it with other provisions,
provided that when exercising this power, it does not
deprive these constitutional requirements of legal
guarantees;
- With regard to house arrest provided for

under Article L. 561-2, as amended:
68. Considering that the contested Article

provides that the administrative authority may place
under house arrest a foreign national who could be
detained in facilities which do not fall under the
authority of the prison administration if the
implementation of the obligation to leave the

country remains reasonably foreseeable and if he
provides assurances as to his subsequent
appearance; that since such a measure does not
entail any deprivation of individual freedom, the
objection averring the violation of Article 66 of
the Constitution is groundless;
- With regard to the extension of detention
beyond five days:
69. Considering that Articles 44 and 51 provide

that a foreign national who is not able to leave
France immediately may be detained by the
administrative authorities for a period of up to
five days and extend from forty eight hours to
five days the period following which an
(2015) 2 LAW
62
(2015) 2 LAW
F-245
that, if the judge orders that the detention be

continued, the extension order shall commence
starting from the expiry of the time-limit of
twenty days for a further period with a maximum
duration of twenty days;
administration of justice, to permit a more

effective treatment of the deportation procedures
for foreign nationals in an irregular situation; that
in providing that the ordinary courts could only
be seised for the purposes of extending the period
of detention following the expiry of a period of
five days starting from the decision to detain the
individual, it struck a balance that is not
unreasonable between the protection of individual
freedom and the objectives with constitutional
status of the proper administration of justice and
the protection of public order;
73. Considering that when the foreign national has
75. Considering that the contested provisions do

not amend the aforementioned provisions
according to which the foreign national may only
be detained for the period of time strictly
necessary for his departure, and that the
administration must exercise all diligence to this
effect; that, as held in recital 66 to the
aforementioned decision of 20 November 2003,
the judicial authorities retain the right to order the
termination of the extension to detention at any
time, either ex officio or pursuant to an
application by the foreign national, if justified by
the legal situation and the facts of the case; that,
subject to this reservation, the objections averred
must be rejected;
been placed under administrative detention following

expiry of a provisional custody order, the constitutional
protection of individual freedom requires that the
duration of the provisional custody be taken into
account when determining the deadline before which
the ordinary courts must intervene; that if the
provisional custody is renewed by the Public

Prosecutor, its duration may be extended to forty
eight hours; that, nonetheless, the contested
provisions could not permit a foreign national
who has been deprived of his freedom to be
actually brought before a judge after expiry of the
time-limit of seven days calculated from the start
of the period in provisional custody without
violating Article 66 of the Constitution; that,
- With regard to the extension of detention

for a maximum duration of eighteen months:

contained in the fourth subparagraph of Article
56 of the law referred which amend the fourth
subparagraph of Article L. 552-7 of the Code on
Right of Asylum have the effect of permitting the
extension to eighteen months of the duration of a
foreign national's administrative detention; that
this measure is applicable to foreign nationals
who have been banned from entering the country
due to terrorist acts provided for under Title II of
Book IV of the Criminal Code or to those who
have been expelled due to conduct associated
with terrorist activities with which they have been
charged; that the maximum duration of detention
is in the first instance set at six months; that it
cannot be renewed if there are reasonable
prospects that the deportation order will be
enforced and that the decision to place him under
house arrest would not enable the foreign national
to be controlled sufficiently; that by permitting an
extension by twelve months of the administrative
detention of a foreigner "when, despite the efforts
subject to this reservation, Articles 44 and 51 do not

violate Article 66 of the Constitution;
- With regard to the extension of detention for

a maximum duration of forty five days:

law referred, which amends Article L. 552-7 of
the Code on the Entry and Residence of
Foreigners and the Right of Asylum, an
application may be made to the judge deciding on
provisional detention if a period of twenty days
has passed following the expiry of the time-limit
of five days specified under Article L. 552-1, and
in situations of absolute urgency or involving a
particularly serious threat to public order, or if it
is impossible to enforce the deportation order due
to the loss or destruction of the interested party's
travel documents, his concealment of his identity
or the intentional obstruction of his deportation;
63
F-246
of the administration, the deportation order

cannot be enforced either due to a lack of
cooperation by the foreign national or due to the
delays incurred in order to obtain the necessary
travel documents from the consulate concerned",
these provisions violate individual freedom in a
manner contrary to Article 66 of the Constitution;
that, accordingly, the last phrase of the fourth
subparagraph of Article L. 552-7 of the same
Code, as drafted according to Article 56 of the
law referred, must be ruled unconstitutional;
82. Considering that Article 94 extends to foreign

nationals who are prohibited from entering the
country the penalty of three years' imprisonment
provided for under the first subparagraph of
Article L. 624-1 of the Code on the Entry and
Residence of Foreigners and the Right of Asylum
for foreigners who fail to comply with their
obligations relating to deportation;
these new provisions amounts to a manifest error
in the transposition of Articles 15 and 16 of
Directive 2008/115/EC in that they punish
foreign nationals who fail to comply with their
obligations relating to deportation; that they
indicate that the Court of Justice of the European
Union has ruled that this Directive precludes
legislation providing for the sentencing of an
illegally resident third country national to a term
of imprisonment on the sole grounds that he
remains within the territory of the State without
justification in breach of an order to leave the
State within a certain time-limit;
84. Considering that the contested provisions do
not have the objective of transposing Directive
2008/115/EC; that, accordingly, the objection
averring the violation of Article 88-1 of the
Constitution is groundless;
referred is not unconstitutional;
- With regard to the objection averring the

violation of the freedom of movement:
77. Considering that the applicants object that

Article L. 561-2, as drafted according to Article
47, violates the freedom of movement;
78. Considering that it is for the legislator to
ensure that a balance is struck between, on the
one hand, the prevention of public order offences
and, on the other hand, the respect for the rights
and freedoms granted to all persons resident in
the Republic; that these rights and freedoms
include the freedom of movement;
79. Considering that the house arrest provided for
under the contested legislation operates as a substitute
for an order for detention in facilities which do not fall
under the authority of the prison administration; that,
where it is subject to a review by the

administrative courts as to its necessity, such a
measure does not disproportionately violate the freedom
of movement;
80. Considering that it follows that, with the

exception of the last phrase of the fourth
subparagraph of Article L. 552-7 of the Code on
Right of Asylum, and subject to the reservations
specified under recitals 73 and 75, Articles 44, 51
and 56 of the law referred, as well as Article L.
561-2 of the aforementioned Code, are
constitutional;
86. Considering that Article 95(2) completes

Article L. 731 2 of the Code on the Entry and
Residence of Foreigners and the Right of Asylum
with a subparagraph drafted as follows: "Legal
aid may not be applied for in relation to an appeal
filed against a decision of the French Office for
the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons
to reject an application for review if, during his
previous application, the applicant was heard by
the office as well as by the National Court for the
Right of Asylum assisted by a legal aid lawyer";
- WITH RESPECT TO ARTICLES 73 TO 88:
81. Considering that the applicants do not raise

any objection against these Articles; that there is
no need to examine them ex officio;
(2015) 2 LAW
87. Considering that the applicants argue that the

withdrawal of entitlement to legal aid in cases
64
(2015) 2 LAW
F-247
93. Considering, in the first place, that by

permitting hearings to be held by means of audiovisual communication, the legislator intended to
contribute to the proper administration of justice
and the efficient use of public funds; that it has
provided that the room used for the hearing must
be specifically fitted out to this effect, open to the
public and located in the relevant premises of the
Ministry of Justice; that the hearing must be
conducted live and the confidentiality of the
transmission must be ensured; that the interested
party has the right to be notified of his case file in
its entirety; that, if he is assisted by counsel, the
latter be physically present with him; that a report
or audio-visual or sound registration of the
hearing be made; that it results from these
measures as a whole that the contested provisions
sufficiently guarantee the conduct of a fair and
equitable trial;
94. Considering secondly that the National Court
for the Right of Asylum, which has jurisdiction
over the entire territory of the Republic, has its
seat in the metropolitan territory; that, under these
circumstances, the difference in treatment between
involving the review of an asylum application

violates the right to effective judicial relief; that
they add that it is manifestly incompatible with
Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December
2005 on minimum standards on procedures in
Member States for granting and withdrawing
refugee status;
88. Considering that legal aid may be applied for
by any foreign national who files an initial
asylum request; that it may also be applied for
during a review of the application if legal aid was
not awarded when the initial application was
filed; that the contested provisions, which also
guarantee the foreign national that he will be
heard once by the National Court for the Right of
Asylum with the assistance of a lawyer, do not
violate the right to effective relief before a court;
89. Considering secondly that the contested
provisions do not have the objective of ensuring
the transposition of a directive; that, accordingly,
the objection averring that they violate Article
88-1 of the Constitution is groundless;
persons located within the metropolitan territory and

others does not violate the principle of equality;

91. Considering that Article 98 completes Article

L. 733 1 of the Code on the Entry and Residence
of Foreigners and the Right of Asylum; that it
permits the National Court for the Right of
Asylum to use audio-visual means of
communication in order to hear applicants who
wish to submit observations in support of their
appeal; that it orders, in particular, that "an
applicant who is resident in metropolitan France
and refuses to be heard by a means of audiovisual communication shall be summoned, at his
request, to appear before the court";
by reserving the right to require that they be
heard in person by the court solely to individuals
located in the metropolitan territory, these
provisions are contrary to the principle of
equality as well as the right to a fair and equitable
procedure;
96. Considering that there are no grounds for the

Constitutional Council to raise any question of
compatibility with the Constitution ex officio,
HELD:
Article 1. - In Article 56 of the Law on

immigration,
integration
and
citizenship, the last phrase of the
fourth subparagraph of Article L.
552-7 of the Code is ruled
unconstitutional.
Article 2. - Articles 44 and 51 of the same Law,
and the remainder of Article 56 are
ruled constitutional, subject to the
reservations contained in recitals 73
and 75.
65
F-248
Case of Mr. Ahmed S. (Revocation of citizenship) [FR-CC]
(2015) 2 LAW F-248 (FR-CC)
Article 3. - The following provisions of the same Law

are ruled constitutional:
Articles 2, 4, 12, 13, 16, 26, 33, 40,
57, 58, 70, 73 to 88, 94, 95 and 98;
subparagraph II of Article 10;
in Article 47, amending Article L.
561-2 of the Code on the Entry and
Residence of Foreigners and on the
Right of Asylum:
Article 4. - This decision shall be published in the
Journal Officiel of the French Republic.
session on 9 June 2011, sat on by: Mr Jean-Louis
DEBR, President, Mr Jacques BARROT, Mrs
Claire BAZY MALAURIE, Mr. Guy CANIVET,
Mr. Michel CHARASSE, Mr. Renaud DENOIX
de SAINT MARC, Mrs Jacqueline de
GUILLENCHMIDT, Mr. Hubert HAENEL and
Mr. Pierre STEINMETZ.
FRANCE AT PARIS
Wednesday, 28 May 2014

***
Decision no. 2014-439 QPC of 23 January 2015
Mr Ahmed S. [Revocation of citizenship]
On 31 October 2014 the Constitutional Council,
in the conditions provided for by Article 61-1 of
the Constitution, received an application for a
priority preliminary ruling on the issue of
constitutionality raised by the Conseil d'tat
(decision no. 383664 of 31 October 2014) on
behalf of Ahmed S., raising the conformity of
Article 25(1) and Article 25-1 of the Civil Code
with the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the
Constitution.
November 1958 as amended, concerning the basic
law on the Constitutional Council;
Having regard to the Civil Code;
Having regard to Law no. 96-647 of 22 July 1996
on stricter punishment of terrorist offences and
attacks against persons vested with public authority
or responsible for a public service obligation and
laying down provisions on the investigating police,
along with decision no. 96-377 DC of the
Constitutional Council of 16 July 1996;
Having regard to Law no. 2003-1119 of 26
November 2003 on the control of immigration,
stays by foreign nationals in France and nationality;
Having regard to Law no. 2006-64 of 23 January
2006 to combat terrorism and laying down
*****
Read and subscribe to:
FRONTIER
Editor: TIMIR BASU
A radical leftist weekly being published
since the last 45 years from Calcutta
Annual subscription:
Associate Membership:
Life subscription :
Rs. 300/Rs. 600/- (annual)

Rs. 4000/-.
Advertisement Tariff
Outer Cover:
Inner cover :
Full page :
Half page:
Rs. 6000/Rs. 5000/Rs. 4000/Rs. 2000/-.
For details contact:
FRONTIER, 61 Mott Lane,

KOLKATA - 700 013 (W.B.)
Ph: 033 - 22653202; E-mail: frontierweekly@hotmail.com

frontierweekly@yahoo.co.in; Website: www.frontierweekly.com
(2015) 2 LAW
66

ours - IMS.
(2015) 2 LAW
F-249
falling under Article 25 of which the person

concerned is accused occurred prior to the
acquisition of French nationality or within ten
years of the date of acquisition.
miscellaneous provisions on security and border

controls;
Having regard to the Regulation of 4 February 2010
on the procedure applicable before the
Constitutional Council with respect to applications
for priority preliminary rulings on the issue of
constitutionality;
Having regard to the observations on behalf of the
applicant by Nurettin Meseci Esq., Attorney at the
Paris Bar, registered on 24 November and 9
December 2014;
Having regard to the observations in intervention
filed on behalf of association "SOS soutien sans
papiers" [SOS Support Undocumented Workers] by
Henri Braun Esq., Attorney at the Paris bar and
Nawel Gafsia Esq., Attorney at the Val-de-Marne
bar, registered on 24 November 2014;
Having regard to the observations of the Prime
Minister, registered on 24 October and 9 December
2014;
Having regard to the request for recusal submitted
on behalf of the applicant by Meseci Esq.,
registered on 12 November 2014;
Having regard to the documents produced and
appended to the case file;
Having heard Meseci Esq. on behalf of the
applicant, Braun Esq. on behalf of the intervener
association and Mr Xavier Pottier, appointed by the
Prime Minister, at the public hearing on 13 January
2015;
1. Considering that Article 25 of the Civil Code
enables the French nationality of a naturalised
French national to be revoked by Decree, subject
to confirmation by the Conseil d'tat, unless the
revocation of nationality would render the person
stateless; that Article 25(1) of the Civil Code
stipulates as one of the grounds for revocation the
conviction of the individual "for an act classified
as a crime or offence amounting to an attack
against the fundamental interests of the Nation or
for a crime or offence constituting an act of
terrorism";
2. Considering that pursuant to Article 25-1 of the
Code: "Revocation shall only occur if the conduct
"It may only be ordered within ten years of the

commission of such acts.
"If the conduct of which the person concerned is
accused falls under Article 25(1), the periods
referred to in the two preceding subparagraphs
shall be extended to fifteen years";
3. Considering that, according to the applicant, in

enabling the French nationality of the perpetrators
of acts of terrorism who have been naturalised as
French nationals to be revoked, the contested
provisions violate the principle of equality, the
principles that punishment must be necessary and
proportionate and the objective that the law
should be accessible and intelligible; that,
according to the intervener association, the
deprivation of citizenship would also violate the
right to respect for private life and the "principle
of legal certainty";
4. Considering that the application for a priority
preliminary
ruling
on
the
issue
of
constitutionality relates to the phrase "or for a
crime or offence constituting an act of terrorism"
featured in Article 25(1) and Article 25-1 of the
Civil Code;
THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION
FOR A PRIORITY PRELIMINARY RULING ON
THE ISSUE OF CONSTITUTIONALITY:
5. Considering that, according to the combined

provisions of Articles 23-2 and 23-4 of the
aforementioned Ordinance of 7 November 1958,
a provision that has not already been upheld as
constitutional in the reasons and operative part of
a decision by the Constitutional Council may be
referred to the Constitutional Council, unless
there has been a change in circumstances; that the
phrase "or for a crime or offence constituting an
act of terrorism" featured in Article 25(1) of the
Civil Code was introduced by the aforementioned
Article 12 of the Law of 22 July 1996; that the
Constitutional Council specifically examined this
provision in recitals 20 to 23 of the
67
F-250
(2015) 2 LAW
aforementioned decision of 16 July 1996; that

however, the Constitutional Council did not rule
that this provision was constitutional in the
operative part of its decision; that the application
for a priority preliminary ruling on the issue of
constitutionality is therefore admissible;
THE COMPATIBILITY OF THE CONTESTED

PROVISIONS WITH THE RIGHTS AND
FREEDOMS GUARANTEED BY THE
CONSTITUTION:
THE ARGUMENTS RELATING TO THE

TRANSMISSION OF PRELIMINARY
REFERENCES TO THE COURT OF JUSTICE
OF THE EUROPEAN UNION:

Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen
provides that the law must be the same for all,
whether it protects or punishes; that the principle
of equality neither prevents the legislator from
settling different situations in different ways, nor
does it depart from equality in the general
interest, provided that in both cases the resulting
difference in treatment is directly related to the
subject matter of the law providing for the
different treatment;
- The objection alleging the violation

of the principle of equality:
6. Considering that the applicant has requested

the Constitutional Council to transmit two
preliminary references to the Court of Justice of
the European Union concerning the compatibility
of the contested provisions with the principles of
equality and non-discrimination on the grounds of
nationality established by the Charter of
Fundamental Rights of the European Union and
the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
Union;
11. Considering that only persons who have

acquired French nationality and are also nationals
of another country may be deprived of French
nationality; that Article 25 of the Civil Code sets
out a closed list of grounds for deprivation; that
the
contested
provisions
contained
in
subparagraph 1 of this Article provide that a
person who has been convicted or a crime or
offence constituting an act of terrorism may be
deprived of his or her nationality; that the
decision on revocation must be adopted by decree
subject to confirmation by the Council of State;
7. Considering that, on the one hand, a challenge

alleging that a legislative provision is
incompatible with the commitments of France
under international and European law cannot be
deemed to be a challenge to their
constitutionality; that accordingly it is not for the
Constitutional Council, when seized pursuant to
Article 61-1 of the Constitution, to examine the
compatibility of the contested provisions with the
treaties or with European Union law; that the
examination of such a challenge and the
transmission of those preliminary references fall
under the jurisdiction of the ordinary and
administrative courts;
12. Considering that Article 25-1 of the Code

specifies the time limits applicable to the
revocation of nationality; that the procedure will
only be triggered if the conduct of which the
person concerned is accused occurred prior to the
acquisition of French nationality or within ten
years of the date of acquisition; that in addition, it
may only be ordered within ten years of the time
when the acts in question were committed; that
the third subparagraph of this Article extends the
two time limits to fifteen years if the conduct of
which the person concerned is accused is covered
by Article 25(1);
8. Considering on the other hand that the

assessment of the compatibility of the contested
provisions with the rights and freedoms
guaranteed by the Constitution does not imply
that a prior ruling must be made concerning the
interpretation of a provision of EU law;
9. Considering that, accordingly, the arguments
concerning the transmission of a preliminary
reference to the Court of Justice of the European
Union must be rejected;
13. Considering that persons who have acquired

French nationality and those to whom French
68
(2015) 2 LAW
nationality was granted at birth are in the same

position; that the Constitutional Council held in
its decision of 16 July 1996 that "the legislator
was able to make provision, taking account of the
objective of stepping up the fight against
terrorism, that the administrative authorities may
be able for a limited period of time to revoke the
French nationality of those who have acquired it
without the resulting difference in treatment
violating the principle of equality";
F-251
punishments only as are strictly and obviously

necessary, and no one shall suffer punishment
except it be legally inflicted in virtue of a law
passed and promulgated before the commission
of the offence"; that the principles laid down by
this Article apply not only to the penalties issued
by the criminal courts but also to any penalty
with the nature of a punishment;
Constitution does not grant the Constitutional
Council any general power of appreciation and
decision making of the same nature as that of
Parliament, but solely grants it competence to
rule on the compatibility of the legislative
provisions placed before it for examination with
the rights and freedoms guaranteed under the
Constitution; that, whilst the requirement as to
whether penalties be associated with offences
falls within the power of appreciation of
Parliament, it is for the Constitutional Council to
ensure that there is no manifest imbalance
between the offence and the penalty imposed;
14. Considering that, on the one hand, since this

decision of 16 July 1996 the ability to revoke
nationality has been extended insofar as, pursuant
to the aforementioned Law of 26 November
2003, revocation may be ordered in relation to
events occurring prior to the acquisition of
nationality; that this new possibility does not
result in an extension of the period during which
French nationality may be called into question;
15. Considering that, on the other hand, following
this decision of 16 July 1996, the aforementioned
Law of 23 January 2006 increased from ten to
fifteen years the periods provided for under the
first two subparagraphs of Article 25-1 for the
offences provided for under Article 25(1); that
this fifteen-year period provided for under the
first subparagraph of Article 25-1, any extension
of which would cause a disproportionate breach
of the requirement of equality between persons
who have acquired French nationality and those
to whom French nationality was granted at birth,
only applies in relation to particularly serious
offences; that the time limit provided for under
the second subparagraph of Article 25-1 is also
limited to fifteen years for the offences falling
under Article 25(1);
16. Considering that it follows from the above
that the objection alleging a violation of the
principle of equality must be rejected;

subject the deprivation of nationality to the
precondition that the person have been convicted
of an act of terrorism; that they cannot have the
effect of rendering the person stateless; that
having regard to the very specific seriousness
inherent within acts of terrorism, the contested
provisions establish a sanction, the punitive
character of which is not manifestly
disproportionate; that accordingly, the objection
alleging a violation of the requirements laid down
in Article 8 of the 1789 Declaration must be
rejected;
- THE OTHER OBJECTIONS:
20. Considering that Parliament is at any time at

liberty, when ruling on the matters within its
competence, to amend earlier legislation or to
repeal it and replace it with new legislation as the
case may be; that when doing so, it cannot
however deprive constitutional requirements of
legal guarantees; that in particular, it would
violate the guarantee of rights proclaimed by
- The objection alleging a violation of the

principles that punishment must be
necessary and proportional:

1789 Declaration: "The law shall provide for such
69
F-252
Article 16 of the 1789 Declaration of the Rights

of Man and the Citizen if it were to impinge upon
acquired rights in a manner not justified by a
sufficient reason of general interest;
21. Considering that in stipulating the conditions
under which the acquisition of nationality may be
called into question, the contested provisions do
not encroach upon any acquired rights;
22. Considering that the deprivation of the
nationality of a person does not call into question
his or her right to a private life; that accordingly,
the objection alleging a breach of the right to
respect for private life is misconstrued;
23. Considering that the contested provisions,
which are not in any case unintelligible, do not
violate any other right or freedom guaranteed by
the Constitution; that they must be upheld as
constitutional,
(2015) 2 LAW
PLEASE NOTE
Two precious research based books on some
aspects of freedom struggle in India, published by
Marxist Study Forum, available for sale at 40%
discount for individuals.
1. REMEMBERING OUR REVOLUTIONARIES

(Price: Rs. 300/-) by Prof. Satyavrata Ghosh;
Ed: I.M. Sharma
2. EASTER REBELLION IN INDIA:

THE CHITTAGONG UPRISING
by I. Mallikarjuna Sharma, Price: Rs. 360/-.
HELD:
Article 1. The phrase "or for a crime or offence

constituting an act of terrorism" featuring in Article
25(1) and Article 25-1 of the Civil Code is constitutional.
Article 2. This decision shall be published in

the Journal Officiel of the French Republic and
notified in the conditions provided for under
Article 23-11 of the Ordinance of 7 November
1958 referred to hereinabove.
Recognized even by the British adversaries as an

amazing and daring coup which brought an electric
effect and changed the entire outlook of the Bengal
revolutionaries, the Chittagong Uprising played a
glorious role and occupies an important place in the
history of the Indian Freedom Struggle. In addition to
giving rise to an unprecedented surge of revolutionary
action by the Bengali youth, it also inspired lakhs of
people all over India and gave a great fillip to the
national movement. The historic role of the armed
revolutionaries in our struggle for independence is
generally overlooked or cast aside with mere lip service.
The same fate generally befell the Chittagong
revolutionaries too.
This book as if atones for the general wrong done to these
heroic rebels. It contains several precious and
informative articles about the Irish Easter Rebellion and
its inspiration to the Indian revolutionaries, and about
the daring deeds and glowing sacrifices of the Chittagong
revolutionaries led by Masterda Surya Sen
A book not to be missed by serious students of history or
devoted patriots of the motherland

session of 22 January 2015, sat on by: Mr Lionel
JOSPIN, serving as President, Ms Claire BAZY
MALAURIE, Ms Nicole BELLOUBET, Mr Guy
CANIVET, Mr Michel CHARASSE, Mr Renaud
DENOIX de SAINT MARC, Mr Hubert HAENEL
and Ms Nicole MAESTRACCI.
Announced on 23 January 2015.
*****
Read and subscribe to:
Analytical
MONTHLY REVIEW
Editor: SUBHAS AIKAT
Annual subscription: Rs. 350/Contact for details:
MO/Cheques/DDs to be sent in favour of:

I. MALLIKARJUNA SHARMA,
H. No. 6-3-243/156, M.S. Makta, Opp. Raj

Bhavan, HYDERABAD - 500 082 (A.P.)
CORNERSTONE PUBLICATIONS,
Ramesh Dutta Sarani, P.O. Hijli Cooperative,
KHARAGPUR - 721 306 (W.B.)
(Please add Rs. 75/- service charges)
70
AMERICAN LIES ABOUT BIN LADEN KILLING

EXPOSED BY SEYMOUR HERSH
- Niles Williamson
US embassy in Islamabad. He offered to give the

CIA bin Ladens location in return for the $25 million
bounty the US government had placed on the Al Qaeda
leaders head in the aftermath of 9/11.
In its broadcast Monday night, NBC News said

it had independently confirmed that Pakistani
intelligence sources had given bin Ladens location to
the CIA in 2010 perhaps the most important claim
made in Hershs report, and a devastating refutation of
the official Obama administration cover story. The Al
Qaeda leaders location was not discovered via

the CIAs torture program, as depicted in the
propaganda film Zero Dark Thirty. This claim
and the film were used to bolster public support
for the CIAs illegal operations and reinforce the
Obama administrations concocted narrative
The walk-in told the CIA that bin Laden had
lived with several of his wives and children
undetected in Hindukush Mountains Afghanistan
from 2001-2006 when his location was betrayed
by a local tribesman bribed by the Pakistani InterServices Intelligence agency (ISI). Bin Laden was
White House photo-op of Situation Room during

operation to assassinate Osama bin Laden
Nearly four years since the US Special Forces

raid that resulted in the murder of Osama bin Laden,
an extraordinary political exposure by Pulitzer Prizewinning investigative journalist Seymour Hersh
published Sunday in the London Review of

Books has torn the mask off the official narrative by
the US government.
The wealth of details laid out in Hershs article
calls attention to the reality that nothing that any
government official says on the record can be
taken as the truth, and that the mainstream media
operates as an echo chamber for official lies.
Hersh asserts that the accounts given by President
Barack Obama and his administration might
have been written by Lewis Carroll, author
of Alice in Wonderland. Among the claims exposed
as fabrications are that the CIA torture program
contributed to the discovery of bin Ladens hideout;
then transferred to the compound in Abbottabad,

Pakistan, where he was held as a prisoner of the ISI.
The residence was less than two miles from the

Pakistan Military Academy . Bin Ladens
location in a headquarters town of the Pakistani
military, crawling with security agents, has
always been the weakest link in the official US
narrative of the operation that killed the Al Qaeda
leader. Hershs account provides a far more
convincing explanation of why bin Laden was in
Abbottabad he was held under house arrest by
the Pakistani authorities while they discussed his
fate with their American paymasters.
According to the retired US official
interviewed by Hersh, Saudi Arabia was
financing bin Ladens upkeep in Abbottabad and
worried that if the American government
discovered that he was being held by the ISI they
would force him to give up the details of the
that the raid was carried out without the knowledge of

the Pakistani government; that the Special Operations
team intended to take bin Laden alive, and only killed
him after he resisted; and that bin Laden was given an
Islamic burial at sea from the carrier USS Carl Vinson.
Hersh writes that the 2011 operation to kill bin

Laden was initiated in August 2010 after a former
senior Pakistani intelligence officer walked into the
Courtesy: Niles Williamson and www.wsws.org; dated

12-05-2015; suitably edited; emphases in bold ours - IMS.
71
72
American Lies on bin Laden killing exposed by Seymour Hersh (Niles Williamson) (2015) 2 LAW
Saudi monarchys support for Al Qaeda. The

Pakistanis in turn worried that the Saudis might
provide the US with information on his location,
sparking a conflict with the US, these demonstrate
the fraud of the war on terror, since bin Laden was
in providing the US with information about his

location. A week after the killing, Obama would
announce that DNA analysis confirmed that bin
Laden had been killed in a drone raid in the
Hindu Kush, on Afghanistans side of the
border understood by all that if the Pakistani
role became known, there would be violent
protests. [However, later the] White House
decided to announce bin Ladens assassination on
the night that it happened in part due to the
fact that a US helicopter had crashed in bin Ladens
compound, making the operation impossible to hide.
The announcement which Hersh describes as a
series of self-serving and inaccurate statements also
being housed and financed by two of the leading US

allies in the alleged struggle against Al Qaeda. In fact,
Saudi Arabia has longstanding ties with Al Qaeda, and
members of the Saudi monarchy financed and
supported the hijackers of the September 11 attacks.
Hershs source makes absolutely clear that it

was the intention of the Obama administration from
the outset to kill bin Laden, and that this was
enthusiastically supported by all concerned, the
Pakistanis and the Saudis, for the time-honored
reason that dead men tell no tales. The raid against
provided the White House with an opportunity to rally

support for the expansion of militarism abroad and the
assault on democratic rights within the US.
The claim that bin Ladens body was subsequently
given a proper Islamic burial at sea from the USS Carl
Vinson is also exposed as a lie. Instead, what remained
of bin Ladens bullet-riddled body, including his head,
which is described as having only a few bullet holes in
it, was unceremoniously tossed into a body bag. On
bin Ladens compound, blessed by the ISI, was nothing

less than a hit ordered by Obama, the executioner-inchief. The informant had told the CIA that bin Laden
was in poor health; would not put up any resistance.
The retired official stated that the operation

against bin Laden was clearly and absolutely a
premeditated murder. A former Seal commander
the commandos helicopter trip back to Jalalabad,

Afghanistan, pieces of the body were dropped over the
Hindu Kush mountains. Hersh has come under
immediate attack from the mainstream media for
his reliance on anonymous sources. In the eyes
of the government stenographers in the corporatecontrolled media, Hershs main sin is that he uses
anonymous sources to challenge the official
narrative rather than regurgitate it. Based on the
historical record, Hersh is a far more reliable
witness than the innumerable millionaire anchorpersons and pundits apologists for American
imperialism. He was the first journalist to expose the
told Hersh, We were not going to keep bin

Laden alive to allow the terrorist to live. By law,
we know what were doing inside Pakistan is a
homicide. Weve come to grips with that. Each one
of us, when we do these missions, say to ourselves, Lets
face it. Were going to commit a murder. The
Obama administration has maintained since the

assassination that killing bin Laden was seen only
as a last resort, and that the primary mission was
to capture him alive.
According to Hersh, the US commandos moved
into the compound unopposed. There was no firefight as
claimed by US officials. Using explosives to blow
open steel security doors, the Special Forces

operatives methodically made their way to the
third-floor rooms where bin Laden was living.
abuse of Iraqi prisoners by American soldiers at Abu

Ghraib. In 2013-2014, he published two devastating
exposures of the US claims that the Syrian government
had used chemical weapons, demonstrating that it was
far more likely that the US-backed rebels were
responsible. It is far from certain that Hersh has
The Al Qaeda leader retreated to his bedroom where

two of the Navy Seals opened fire with their automatic
rifles, cutting his body to pieces. The commandos did
not shoot in self-defense, the gravely ill bin Laden never
reached for an AK-47, and he never tried to use one of
his wives as a human shield. Hersh writes that a
provided the final accounting of the events that

led to bin Ladens death. [But] his narrative is a far
more robust and believable story than theaccount spun
by the propaganda of the Obamaadministration and the
corporate media.
carefully constructed cover story would be

issued following the killing of bin Laden, in part
to avoid revealing the role of the Pakistani state
*****
72
U.S. TO USE AL QAEDA TO TAKE SYRIA

- Tony Cartalucci
In addition to Petraeus' alleged plans, the Daily

Beast reports former US Ambassador to Syria Robert
Ford also advocated supporting terrorists linked
directly to Al Qaeda, including the Ahrar al Sham
faction. However this "proposed" advocacy is an
afterthought - a matter of public perception
management - as terrorist organizations like Ahrar al
Sham and the Al Nusra Front already are receiving
significant US backing either directly or laundered
through one of America's many regional collaborators.
Ahrar al Sham's extensive video documentation online
shows the group even employing US anti-tank TOW
missiles.
Furthermore, US corporate-financier funded policy
think tanks like the Brookings Institution have already
enumerated precisely this plan. In a recent publication
on Brookings' "Order From Chaos" blog titled,
"Should the United States negotiate with terrorists?,"
it is stated:
September 11, 2001, nearly 3,000 people would die in attacks on

the World Trade Center in New York City, the Pentagon in
Washington D.C., and a downed plane over Pennsylvania. The
attack was attributed to Al Qaeda by the United States
government tipping off over a decade of global war against
"terrorism" that would leave entire nations destroyed and
millions of lives ruined.
But Now Confirmed:

US to "Use" al Qaeda to Take Syria
September 2, 2015 (Tony Cartalucci - LD) - The Daily
Beast's article, "Petraeus: Use Al Qaeda Fighters to
Beat ISIS," reveals the final piece to the "safe
haven" or "buffer zone" puzzle, providing the world
a complete picture of how the United States and its
regional allies, including Turkey, Saudi Arabia,
Israel, Jordan, and others, plan to finally overthrow
the government in Damascus, and eliminate Syria
as a functioning nation state through the use of
listed terrorist organizations responsible for over a
decade of devastating global war.
The Daily Beast reports:
Ultimately, negotiation and amnesty programs with

extremist groups must enter the U.S. counterterrorism
repertoire if reluctance to military deployment continues.
Brookings describes almost verbatim the proposal

put forth by Petraeus and Ford, indicating this plan is
more deeply rooted as a matter of policy than
indicated by the Daily Beast. Indeed, the Daily Beast's
shocking admission is not the entire truth. In reality,
the United States had already conspired since as early
as 2007 to use the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, Al
Qaeda and other hard-line sectarian militant groups to
violently overthrow Syria in a bid to wage proxy, then
eventually, direct war on Iran.
Members of al Qaedas branch in Syria have a

surprising advocate in the corridors of American
power: retired Army general and former CIA
Director David Petraeus.
The former commander of U.S. forces in Iraq
and Afghanistan has been quietly urging U.S.
officials to consider using so-called moderate
members of al Qaedas Nusra Front to fight ISIS
in Syria, four sources familiar with the
conversations, including one person who spoke
to Petraeus directly, told The Daily Beast.
Image: Terrorists fighting under the banners of Al Qaeda and

Ahrar al Sham whom former US Ambassador to Syria Robert
Ford seeks to arm and back in America's bid to overthrow the
sovereign government of Syria. .
Courtesy: Tony Cartalucci and www.activistpost.com;

suitably edited excerpts; emphases in bold ours - IMS.
73
74
(2015) 2 LAW
U.S. to use al Qaeda to take Syria (Tony Cartalucci)
In Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour

Hersh's 2007 New Yorker article, "The Redirection:
Is the Administration's new policy benefiting our
enemies in the war on terrorism?" it is stated:
To undermine Iran, which is predominantly
Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in
effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle
East. In Lebanon, the Administration has
coperated with Saudi Arabias government,
which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that
are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite
organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has
This reveals that not only did the US and its

allies seek to use Al Qaeda as a proxy in fighting
Syria and Iran, it also sought the creation of a
"Salafist principality," specifically in east Syria precisely where the "Islamic State" exists today.
Giving ISIS an Air Force: Readers might
believe that the US plans to either begin arming these
extremists groups ignorant of the fact that they have
already been armed by the West and its allies for years
or will increase existing support. both
assumptions would be wrong. Every dollar, every
weapon, and every foreign fighter on Earth the US
and its collaborators could find and feed into the
Syrian conflict has already been sourced and sent to
Syria. And like in Libya where NATO's ground forces
- essentially the US listed foreign terrorist group the
"Libyan Islamic Fighting Group" (LIFG) - failed to
take the country on their own with covert support
alone, the only other option when proxy ground forces
fail to produce results is to provide them with direct
military support .
ISIS Propaganda to Endear World to Al Qaeda
also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran

and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been
the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a
militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and
sympathetic to Al Qaeda.
(emphasis added)
Additionally, Judicial Watch, released a 7 page

document 2012, detailing the background and status
of the Syrian conflict, admitting that the Muslim
Brotherhood and Al Qaeda form the basis of the
"opposition." It then admits that:
Development of the current events into proxy
war: with support from Russia, China, and Iran,
the regime is controlling the areas of influence
along coastal territories (Tartus and Latakia),
and is fiercely defending Homs, which is
considered the primary transportation route in
Syria. On the other hand, opposition forces are
trying to control the eastern areas (Hasaka and
Der Zor), adjacent to the western Iraqi provinces
(Mosul and Anbar), in addition to neighboring
Turkish borders. Western countries, the Gulf States
and Turkey are supporting these efforts. (emphasis added)
It also admits that terrorists are entering Syria
from Iraq, hardly what one could call a "civil war,"
and clearly instead an invasion. More importantly,
the document also admits that:
(emphasis added)
The opposition forces will try to use the Iraqi
territory as a safe haven for its forces taking
advantage of the sympathy of the Iraqi border
population, meanwhile trying to recruit fighters
and train them on the Iraqi side, in addition to
harboring refugees (Syria). If the situation
unravels there is the possibility of establishing
While Al Qaeda was initially conceived by the

US and its Saudi allies in the 1980's to fight the
West's proxy wars for them, first in Afghanistan
against the Soviet Union, the last decade of using
this terrorist organization as a pretext for global
military conflict instead of as a direct proxy has
taken its toll on the public's perception. To recast Al
Qaeda as once again "freedom fighters," ISIS appears to
have intentionally waged a propaganda campaign designed
to portray itself as the most extreme, barbaric terror
organization to ever walk the Earth. Nearly 3,000 were
killed on September 11, 2001 on US soil. In the

wars that would later be predicated on this attack
and the "threat" of Al Qaeda, some 1 million Iraqis
would die, tens of thousands of Afghans perished,
as would over 4,000 US and other coalition soldiers
in over a decade of global war. During the Bush
administration, that narrative was the "War on Terror."
During the Obama administration that narrative was the
"Humanitarian War." In reality, it was a singular,
continuous agenda that has seamlessly moved forward to
where it stands at present, with the US media
attempting to convince the American public & the world's
population on the eve of another 9/11 anniversary, that Al
Qaeda are the "good guys" and now is the time to hand
them the nation of Syria.
a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern

Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the
supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to
isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered t he
strategic depth of the Shia Expansion (Iraq and Iran).
*****
74
(2015) 2 LAW
75
FORESTS CRITICAL FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

- Marco Albani
As world governments meet this week to set

goals for eradicating poverty and create
sustainable development opportunities, we are
marking Climate Week NYC with a particular
focus on forests. While forests feature prominently
There are many lessons emerging from this

work, but one is particularly important as we
approach the UN climate change conference in
Paris this fall. The lesson is that success at the
scale and speed needed requires strong
partnership and coordination between many
stakeholders, including the public and private
sectors and civil society. This is important because
the problem must be addressed from both ends from
within a number of Sustainable Development Goals

(SDGs), they are not just about environmental
conservation but an integral part of the climate and
development agendas.
the top-down (government and corporate policysetting) and from the bottom-up (project-based work
with farmers and forest communities). Initiatives to
improve forest practices and achieve sustainable
agriculture on the ground need right policy conditions
to succeed, particularly for land tenure, land-use
planning and corporate purchasing policies. And topdown policies need strong change agents to translate them
into real benefits for rural communities and the forest.
Forests are critical to climate security. According

to the latest IPCCC report, about 10% of global
greenhouse gas emissions are tied to deforestation; with
up to 20% of all the abatement potential
identified in the land-use sector. A recent review
by the Economist magazine ranked Brazils
successful reduction in deforestation as one of the most
effective climate actions of the last decade.
Forests are extremely important to food security,
water security and livelihoods 200 million people
live in forests and 1.6 billion depend on them for
their livelihoods. And as half of the watershed
area of the 100 largest cities in the world is
forested, forest protection and reforestation in
urban watersheds could improve water quality
for over 500 million urban dwellers.
The importance of forests to the human
development and climate agenda was recognized
in last years New York Declaration on Forests,
which now has about 180 nations, companies,
indigenous people and other organizations
The centrality of partnerships recognized by a

dedicated sustainable development goal, SDG 17
is thus critical for solutions. It is in this spirit that
several of the signers of the New York
Declaration are also members of the Tropical
Forest Alliance 2020 (TFA 2020) a publicprivate partnership in which partners take
voluntary actions to reduce the tropical
deforestation Collaborative partnerships are
inherently difficult to engage in for established
institutions, and require the right level of commitment,
mindset and resourcing to succeed. For this, the TFA
2020 has established a secretariat to accelerate

the progress of this collaborative effort.
Similarly, the signers of the Indonesia Palm
Oil Pledge, an initiative that seeks to find
solutions for sustainable palm oil, have now
established a small management team to
spearhead the implementation of the pledge, and
are actively engaging the Indonesian government
on regulatory reforms to support and
institutionalize sustainable practices in the palm
oil industry. These two partnership examples show a
true commitment to reducing deforestation. Many
more are needed.
*****
committed to halve deforestation by 2020 and stop it by

2030, while at the same achieving ambitious
reforestation and forest restoration target. The

New York Declaration on Forests was unprecedented
in the critical mass of forest nations, global agricultural
commodity companies and consumer goods companies
that got behind its goals. One year later, we are
seeing how these commitments are starting to translate
into concrete initiatives that engage governments, and
producer and consumer companies.
Courtesy: Marco Albany, Huffington Post and the World

Economic Forum; this article dated 24 September 2015;
suitably edited;emphases in bold ours - IMS.
75
76
Law Animated World {30 September 2015} Postal Reg. No. HD/1098/2014-16
LOVE AND THE GENTLE HEART

- Dante Aligheri*
Statue of Dante Between Mountain of Purgatory and Florence
Dante Alligheri Dante in Verona, Antonio Cotti
Florence
Dante in Michelinos painting 1465
ALL MY THOUGHTS
All my thoughts always speak to me of love,
Yet have between themselves such difference
That while one bids me bow with mind and sense,
A second saith, 'Go to: look thou above';
The third one, hoping, yields me joy enough;
And with the last come tears, I scarce know whence:
All of them craving pity in sore suspense,
Trembling with fears that the heart knoweth of.
And thus, being all unsure which path to take,
Wishing to speak I know not what to say,
And lose myself in amorous wanderings:
Until (my peace with all of them to make),
Unto mine enemy I needs must pray,
My lady Pity, for the help she brings
***
BEAUTY AND DUTY
***
TWO ladies to the summit of my mind

Have clomb, to hold an argument of love.
The one has wisdom with her from above,
For every noblest virtue well designed:
The other, beauty's tempting power refined
And the high charm of perfect grace approve:
And I, as my sweet Master's will doth move,
At feet of both their favors am reclined.
Beauty and Duty in my soul keep strife,
At question if the heart such course can take
And 'twixt the two ladies hold its love complete.
The fount of gentle speech yields answer meet,
That Beauty may be loved for gladness sake,
And Duty in the lofty ends of life.
WOE OF EXILE AND LONGING TO RETURN

... Tu lascerai ogne cosa diletta
pi caramente; e questo quello
strale
che l'arco de lo essilio pria saetta.
Tu proverai s come sa di sale
lo pane altrui, e come duro calle
lo scendere e 'l salir per l'altrui
scale ...
Se mai continga che 'l poema
sacro
al quale ha posto mano e cielo e
terra,
s che m'ha fatto per molti anni
macro,
vinca la crudelt che fuor mi serra
del bello ovile ov'io dormi'
agnello,
nimico ai lupi che li danno
guerra;
con altra voce omai, con altro
vello
ritorner poeta, e in sul fonte
del mio battesmo prender 'l
cappello ...
Love and the gentle heart are one thing,

just as the poet says in his verse,
each from the other one as well divorced
as reason from the minds reasoning.
Nature craves love, and then creates love king,
and makes the heart a palace where hell stay,
perhaps a shorter or a longer day,
breathing quietly, gently slumbering.
Then beauty in a virtuous womans face
makes the eyes yearn, and strikes the heart,
so that the eyes desires reborn again,
and often, rooting there with longing, stays,
Till love, at last, out of its dreaming starts.
Womans moved likewise by a virtuous man.
... You shall leave everything you

love most:
this is the arrow that the bow of
exile
shoots first. You are to know the
bitter taste
of others' bread, how salty it is,
and know
how hard a path it is for one who
goes
ascending and descending others'
stairs ... {Paradiso, XVII (55-60)}
If it ever comes to pass that the
sacred poem
to which both heaven and earth
have set their hand
so as to have made me lean for
many years
should overcome the cruelty that
bars me
from the fair sheepfold where
I slept as a lamb,
an enemy to the wolves that make
war on it,
with another voice now and other
fleece
I shall return a poet and at the
font
of my baptism take the laurel
crown ... {Paradiso, XXV, 1-9}
[Durante degli Alighieri, or simply Dante (b. May-June 1265,

Florence; d. 13/14 September 1321, Ravenna), a major Italian poet
of the late Middle Ages. His Divine Comedy, is widely considered
the greatest literary work composed in Italian, and a masterpiece
of world literature. In the late Middle Ages, the vast majority of
poetry was written in Latin, and so accessible only to affluent and
educated audiences. However, Dante defended the use of the
vernacular in literature. As such, Dante played an instrumental role
in establishing the national language of Italy. He has been called
The Father of the Italian language, and he inspired several other
languages poets like Milton, Chaucer, Shakespeare, Tennyson et
al too Wikipedia.]
*****
*****
Owned, Printed and Published by I. Balamani, 6-3-1243/156, M.S. Makta, Opposite Raj Bhavan,
Hyderabad - 500082; Editor: I. Mallikarjuna Sharma; Ph: 23300284; E-mail: mani.bal44@gmail.com
andprinted at Pragati Offset Pvt. Ltd., Red Hills, Hyderabad-500 004 {Ph: 23304835, 23380000}
76

TTL 30 09 15 Law

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

TTL 30 09 15 Law

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

(2015) 2 LAW

RNI No. APENG/2005/18975

Annual Subscription Rs. 1200/-

ISSN 2277 8829

A world law fortnightly published from Hyderabad, India.

Editor: I. Mallikarjuna Sharma

Volume 11: Part 2

10. Case of Mr. Ahmed S.

11. Bin Laden killing: American

Annual Subscription: Rs. 1200/Abroad: $ 180 (postage extra)

Please donate Rs. 50/- or more.

ALL FUNDAMENTALISM DESPICABLE

Maha or Rudra Kali

Wailing kins of Dadri victim

INCLUSIVE GROWTH : HOW CAN WE ACHIEVE?

twentieth century, when especially in the

It is a lesson that needs relearning today, as the

and improves living standards depends on an array of

The Inclusive Growth and Development

(the areas most commonly featured in discussions

their institutions and creating incentives to promote

Courtesy: Klaus Schwab & Richard Samans, and World

Law Animated World, 30 September 2015

AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF MARTYR RAMPRASAD BISMIL

Continued from Law Animated World, 15 September

Law Animated World, 30 September 2015

Autobiography of Martyr Ramprasad Bismil

cattle used to wander away to distant places, then

He was always in suit and boot, which he would

I was really apprehensive that perhaps never again in

The man in cahoots with police offered to bring food for

But the compassion and play of the Almighty is

close to that halting place. On being permitted, he

zealot. He knew not to sit calm without doing things. He

THE IMPORTANCE OF PROFESSOR KALBURGI

The murder of Professor

was done without the support of large research

Kalburgi's work also shows how state universities

(symptomatic of the superficiality of our times, his

He had worked extensively on Lingayat

had angered many of the Lingayat mathas in the past,

have been able to elicit controversies that stir the

None of his writings have been translated into

Courtesy: Chandan Gowda & www.bangaloremirror.com/;

would be to make his writings available to readers

Malleshappa Madivalappa Kalburgi (28-11-1938/30-8-2015)

shot dead by caste/religious fanatics, just for his fearless,

Law Animated World, 30 September 2015

DONT APPEASE THE IRANIAN REGIME !

Western apologists and appeasers of Iranian

Dont Appease the Iranian Regime,

distance the likelihood of positive change and

We have spent our lives advocating for peace,

languish behind bars (including several Americans)

Today in Iran, political prisoners are tortured.

Sayeh Saeedi Sirjani

Ahmad Mostafalou (jailed,

Shadi Paveh (father executed)

Soheila Dorostkar (brother

executed, his body never recovered)

(jailed and tortured)

(jailed and tortured)

(jailed and tortured)