Pension Reform Appeals: Guide To Constitutional Council

Despite the failure of the motions of censure, Marine Le Pen, Mathilde Panot and Charles de Courson intend to seize the Constitutional Council. What Elisabeth Borne’s entourage also announced to speed up the procedure.

We are seizing the Constitutional Council…” The day after the adoption of the pension reform and the failure of the motions of censure in the National Assembly (including one with 9 votes), Marine Le Pen confirmed the will of the National Rally to appeal to the French institution chaired by Laurent Fabius.”We consider that there have been serious violations of the Constitution, in particular in the legislative vehicle”, justified the leader of the far right, at the microphone from Europe 1 this Tuesday morning.

Same option chosen on the far left by the LFI group, just like Charles de Courson (Liot group), at the origin of the cross-partisan censure motion voted by 278 deputies (out of 574). For that, they have fifteen days to bring together at least 60 parliamentarians.

The Prime Minister Takes The Lead

A new way to block the road to the government? Not so sure. To pull the rug out from under any legal challenge, Elisabeth Borne’s entourage announced Monday evening that the Prime Minister was going to seize “directly the Constitutional Council” for an examination “as soon as possible” of the text of the pension reform. Objective: that “all the points raised during the debates can be examined”.

Thanks to article 61.3 of the Constitution, the government can thus ask the Constitutional Council to examine the text urgently, which reduces the period to eight days and not to one month as usual, knowing that any referral to this Council allows to suspend the promulgation of the law.

What Potential Flaws?

It is up to the nine members of the Constitutional Council, appointed by the President of the Republic, the National Assembly and the Senate, to then consider the text of the pension reform in order, possibly, to censor it in part or in its entirety if it This is deemed unconstitutional. At the center of the complaints: the legislative vehicle used by the executive for its reform, i.e. a bill for the amending financing of Social Security (PLFRSS). This allowed the use of Article 47.1 of the Constitution, which limited the debates to fifty days in Parliament.

On the form, another point will be debated: the government has also triggered 44.3 in the Senate in order to force the upper house to decide by a single vote on part or even all of the bill.

This article is originally published on

Previous post Israel’s Holiday Warning For Specific Destinations
Next post Jewish Diaspora Resists Far-Right Drift In Israel