In a judgment of 21 June 2012, the Second Civil Chamber stated that the following priority constitutionality question, forwarded by the Court of Appeal in Reims, should not be referred to the Constitutional Council: Does article 7 of Act No. 91-647 of 10 July 1991 on legal aid affect the rights and freedoms guaranteed by articles 1,6 and 16 of the Declaration of Human and Citizen's Rights and article 1 of the Constitution? ». First, the question raised is not new because it does not concern the interpretation of a constitutional provision which the Constitutional Council has not yet had the opportunity to apply.

Secondly, the question raised is not serious in that, on the one hand, reserving the benefit of legal aid for the person whose action does not appear manifestly inadmissible or unfounded, is without prejudice to the principle of equality, which does not preclude the legislator from regulating different situations differently or derogating from equality on grounds of general interest, provided that, in either case, the difference in treatment resulting from it is directly related to the object of the law establishing it and that, in the exercise of this power, it does not deprive guarantees of constitutional requirements and, on the other hand, does not constitute a substantial infringement of the right to an effective remedy where the person to whom legal aid has not been granted has a right of appeal against the decision to refuse such aid, shall retain the right to bring an action before a court to support its claim and, in the event that the judge has upheld its action, to obtain reimbursement of the costs, expenses and fees it has incurred or paid, up to the amount of legal aid which it would have received in the light of its resources.

Lawyer nice, Grégory DAMY civil procedure