Laurent Fabius, President of the Constitutional Council, has faced criticism from the right and far right for decisions made by the council in January regarding certain articles of the immigration law. The council rejected some articles for being unrelated to the initial law and others for not being in line with the Constitution, particularly those establishing a form of national preference for certain social benefits. These decisions have sparked accusations of a “coup d’Etat” from figures such as Laurent Wauquiez, president of the Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes region. In response to these criticisms, Fabius emphasizes the importance of upholding the rule of law.
In April, the Constitutional Council rejected a proposed referendum initiative aimed at reforming access to social benefits for migrants. According to Fabius, this decision is crucial because while the Constitution allows for conditions on social benefits for foreign residents, these conditions cannot prevent disadvantaged individuals from accessing national solidarity policies as outlined in the preamble of the 1946 Constitution. The proposed referendum sought to impose a five-year residency requirement or thirty months of professional activity for non-European foreigners to access social benefits, which was deemed excessive by the council. This decision reinforces the principle that social protection applies to all residents in France, regardless of nationality, and rejects the concept of “national preference.”
When asked whether the concept of national preference, a cornerstone of the National Rally’s platform, is unconstitutional, Fabius refrains from commenting on specific political movements but reiterates that a systematic application of national preference would indeed go against the Constitution. As President of the Constitutional Council, his role is to uphold constitutional principles rather than engage in political debates. This position underscores the council’s commitment to ensuring that laws and policies align with constitutional values.
In contrast to the recent decisions on immigration and social benefits, the Constitutional Council had previously validated a controversial pension reform without a parliamentary vote using various constitutional tools. This decision raised concerns about the potential for governments to bypass parliamentary scrutiny in the future. Fabius acknowledges the implications of this decision and the power it grants to governments, highlighting the need for checks and balances to protect democratic processes and uphold the separation of powers. Such rulings underscore the complexity and significance of the council’s role in safeguarding constitutional principles.
Overall, Fabius emphasizes the importance of upholding the rule of law and ensuring that all laws and policies align with constitutional values. The decisions made by the Constitutional Council reflect a commitment to protecting fundamental rights and principles enshrined in the Constitution, even in the face of political criticism. By rejecting laws that violate constitutional norms, the council plays a crucial role in maintaining the integrity of the legal system and safeguarding democratic principles. Fabius’s comments highlight the council’s dedication to upholding constitutional principles and serving as a bastion of legality and democracy in the French legal system.
