Estimated reading time (in minutes)

Unconstitutional censorship The Constitutional Council rendered a decision on October 24, 2012, censoring the law on social housing (Cons . const., decision no. 2012-655 DC, of ​​​​October 24, 2012, no. Lexbase: A8270IUT ). The Council received more than sixty petitions from Members of Parliament and Senators who were concerned about the Senate’s review of the bill   .

Background and Context:-

The Constitutional Council censures the law on social housing in a decision handed down on October 24, 2012 (Cons. const., decision no. 2012-655 DC, of ​​​​October 24, 2012, no. Lexbase: A8270IUT). It had been seized by more than sixty deputies and more than sixty senators. The applicants wonder about the conditions under which the bill was examined by the Senate.

Examination and declaration of unconstitutionality: –

The deputies also contested the conformity with the Constitution of articles 3, 10, 15 and 16 of the law. Since the constitutional revision of July 23, 2008 (law no. 2008-724 on the modernization of the institutions of the Fifth Republic, no. Lexbase: L7298IAK), article 42 of the Constitution (no. Lexbase: L0868AHM) provides, in its first paragraph , that “the discussion of bills and proposals of law relates, in session, to the text adopted by the committee referred to in application of article 43 or, failing that, to the text referred to the assembly  ”  .

The Constitutional Council noted that the permanent committee of the Senate referred to in application of Article 43 of the Constitution (Lexbase no.: L0869AHN) appointed a rapporteur and met to decide on the bill on the morning of Monday September 11, 2012. It appears from the minutes of this meeting that after having adopted various amendments and examined all the articles of the text, this commission concluded its work the same morning by adopting “the bill thus amended”.

Notwithstanding the adoption of this bill by the competent standing committee, the examination of the text in public session, which began on the evening of September 11, focused on the text of the bill which had been referred to the Senate. The law relating to the mobilization of public land in favor of housing and to the reinforcement of the obligations of production of social housing was therefore not discussed in accordance with the first paragraph of article 42 of the Constitution. It was therefore declared, as a whole, unconstitutional.

DAMY Law Firm