Key Benefits:
AIRPORT ACT
The Constitutional Council was Under the conditions laid down in Article 61 (2) of the Constitution, of the Law on Airports, on 6 April 2005, by Mr Jean-Marc Ayrault, Mrs Patricia Adam, Mrs Sylvie Andrieux, MM. Jean-Marie Aubron, Jean-Paul Bacquet, Jean-Pierre Balligand, Gérard Bapt, Claude Bartolone, Jacques Bascou, Christian Bataille, Jean-Claude Bateux, Jean-Claude Beauchaud, Eric Besson, Jean-Louis Bianco, Jean-Pierre Blazy, Serge Blisko, Jean-Claude Bois, Daniel Botry, Maxime Bono, Augustin Bonrepaux, Jean-Michel Boucheron, Pierre Bourguignon, Danielle Bousquet, MM. François Brottes, Jean-Christophe Cambadélis, Thierry Carcenac, Christophe Caresche, Martine Carillon-Couvreur, MM. Jean-Paul Chanteguet, Michel Charzat, Alain Claeys, Ms Marie-Françoise Clergeau, MM. Gilles Cocquempot, Pierre Cohen, Claude Darciaux, Michel Dasseux, Martine David, MM. Marcel Dehoux, Michel Delebarre, Jean Delobel, Bernard Derosier, Michel Destot, Marc Dolez, François Dosé, René Dosière, Julien Dray, Tony Dreyfus, Pierre Ducout, Jean-Pierre Dufau, William Dumas, Jean-Paul Dupré, Yves Durand, Mme Odette Duriez, MM. Henri Emmanuelli, Claude Evin, Laurent Fabius, Albert Facon, Jacques Floch, Pierre Forgues, Michel Françaix, Jean Gaubert, Nathalie Gautier, Catherine Generisson, MM. Jean Glavany, Gaëtan Gorce, Alain Gouriou, Elisabeth Guigou, Paulette Guinchard-Kunstler, Mr David Habib, Ms Danièle Hoffman-Rispal, MM. François Hollande, Jean-Louis Idiart, Françoise Imbert, MM. Serge Janquin, Armand Jung, Jean-Pierre Kucheida, Ms Conchita Lacuey, MM. Jérôme Lambert, François Lamy, Jack Lang, Jean Launay, Jean-Yves Le Bouillonnec, Gilbert Le Bris, Jean-Yves Le Drian, Jean Le Garrec, Jean-Marie Le Guen, Michel Liebgott, Martine Lignières-Cassou, MM. François Loncle, Bernard Madrelle, Bruno Le Roux, Marylise Lebranchu, MM. Michel Lefait, Patrick Lemasle, Guy Lengagne, Ms Annick Lepetit, MM. Louis-Joseph Manscour, Philippe Martin, Christophe Masse, Didier Mathus, Jean Michel, Didier Migaud, Mme Hélène Mignon, MM. Arnaud Montebourg, Henri Nayrou, Alain Neri, Mme Marie-Renée Oget, MM. Michel Pajon, Christian Paul, Germinal Peiro, Jean-Claude Pérez, Mme Marie-Françoise Pérol-Dumont, Geneviève Perrin-Gaillard, MM. Jean-Jack Queyranne, Paul Quilès, Bernard Roman, René Rouquet, Patrick Roy, Mme Ségolène Royal, M. Michel Sainte-Marie, Mme Odile Saugues, MM. Henri Sicre, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, Pascal Terrasse, Philippe Tourtelier, Daniel Vaillant, André Vallini, Manuel Valls, Michel Vergnier, Alain Vidalies, Jean-Claude Viollet, Philippe Vuilque, Jean-Pierre Defontaine, Paul Giacobbi, Simon Renucci, Mme Chantal Robin-Rodrigo, Mr Roger-Gérard Schwartzenberg and Mrs Christiane Taubira, Members of Parliament;
The Constitutional Council,
In view of the Constitution;
In light of Order No. 58-1067 of 7 November 1958 amending the Organic Law on the Council Constitutional;
Due to Organic Law No. 2001-692 of 1 August 2001 on financial laws;
Given the Civil Aviation Code;
In view of the Code of Defence, in particular Articles L. 2211-1 and following;
Seen the observations of the Government, registered April 8, 2005;
Seen reply comments, recorded on 12 April 2005;
The rapporteur was heard;
1. Considering that the requesting Members of the House of Commons defected to the Constitutional Council the Law on Airports; that, in their view, Article 6, relating to the Aéroports de Paris company, would be contrary to the principle of continuity of public service and Would disregard Article 34 of the Constitution; that they also reproach Article 9, relating to airport charges, to be tainted by negative incompetence;
On the ignorance of the principle of continuity of public service:
2. Whereas, in accordance with the third paragraph of Article L. 251-2 of the Civil Aviation Code, in its wording after Article 6 of the Act referred to: A specification approved by decree in the Council of State lays down the conditions under which the Paris Airports Company provides the public services connected with the operation of the aerodromes referred to in the first subparagraph and carries out, under the authority of the The holders of the police power, the administrative police missions entrusted to it " ;
3. Considering that, according to the applicants, neither this article nor any other provision of Title I of the law referred to provides for the guarantees necessary for the Respect for the constitutional requirements resulting from the existence and continuity of public services " ; that they consider, in particular, that the assets decommissioned and returned to full ownership of Aeroports de Paris under the law referred to should have been " Subject to a special scheme to ensure the continuity of the public service " ; that they argue that the administrative authority must be in a position " To resume without delay the direct control of the operation of the airports of Roissy-Charles-de-Gaulle and Paris-Orly If required " Reasons of general interest such as the needs of the national defence or the economic life of the country " ;
4. Considering that the decommissioning of a property belonging to the public domain cannot have the effect of depriving legal guarantees of the constitutional requirements resulting from the existence and continuity of the public services to which it remains Affected;
5. Taking the view that it follows from the provisions of Articles 2, 5 and 6 of the law that the majority of the capital of the company Aéroports de Paris will be held by the State; that, after having defined the tasks of that company, the legislator has specified that a Specifications will set out the conditions under which it will provide the public services related to aerodromes which it operates and will carry out its administrative police missions; that this specification will also define the The conditions under which the State will monitor compliance with both the obligations relating to public service missions and the contracts by which the execution of these tasks would be entrusted to third parties; that this document, which will have to be approved by decree in Council of State, will also determine the administrative sanctions liable to be imposed on the company in the event of failure to fulfil its obligations; and finally, the law referred to allows the State to oppose any form of alienation of a work or a The necessary ground for the Paris Airports Company for the proper execution or development of its public service tasks; that the legislator has thus ensured that the constitutional requirements which are attached to the Continuity of public service;
6. Considering, moreover, that, in the event of exceptional circumstances, the competent authorities of the State may, as necessary, proceed, within the framework of their administrative police powers or in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Defence, Any requisition of persons, goods and services;
7. Considering, therefore, that the principle of the continuity of the public service is not infringed by Article 6 of the law referred to;
On the lack of knowledge of Article 34 of the Constitution:
As regards the competition of Aéroports de Paris to Air navigation services:
8. Considering that, pursuant to Article L. 251-2 of the Civil Aviation Code, in its wording pursuant to Article 6 of the law referred to, Aéroports de Paris may be called upon to participate in the exercise of air navigation services provided by the State According to terms defined in a specification approved by decree in the Council of State;
9. Considering that, according to the applicants, " The legislator, by simply mentioning that the company Aéroports de Paris will have to give the state its assistance in the exercise of air navigation services, without specifying that the cost of this competition would be reimbursed to society by the state or without Determine the consistency of this contest ... or its amount ..., has disregarded the extent of its competence " ;
10. Considering that it was open to the legislator to provide that Aéroports de Paris would contribute to the exercise of air navigation services while referring to the regulatory authority, competent in application of the combined provisions of the Articles 34 and 37 of the Constitution, the care to define the terms and conditions of this competition; that the terms of reference provided for in Article 6 shall define the manner in which the State shall ensure the assistance provided by the company in the exercise of the Air navigation services; that it will also be up to this specification to determine, as appropriate, the necessary counterparties;
11. Considering, therefore, that the complaint alleging that section 6 of the law referred to is vitiated by negative incompetence must be rejected;
With regard to charges for services rendered:
12. Whereas in accordance with the I of new Article L. 224-2, inserted in the Civil Aviation Code by Article 9 of the Act referred to: " Airport public services give rise to the collection of fees for services rendered ... -The amount of the royalties takes into account the remuneration of the capital invested. It may take into account any expenses, including future expenses, related to the construction of new infrastructure or facilities before they are put into service. -It may be subject, for reasons of general interest, to limited arrangements to reduce or compensate for damage to the environment, to improve the use of infrastructures, to promote the creation of new links or to respond to The imperatives of continuity and spatial planning. -The overall product of these charges may not exceed the cost of services rendered on the airport " ;
13. Considering that, according to the applicants, these provisions establish contributions which, which may exceed the cost of services provided to users, have the character of impositions of all natures; that they argue that they do not fix the rate or the Amount as required by article 34 of the Constitution and are therefore tainted by negative incompetence;
14. Considering that, if the fixing of the rules on the basis of assessment, the rate and the procedure for the recovery of impositions of all kinds is attributed to the competence of the legislature by Article 34 of the Constitution, the Constitution does not reserve the right to The care to establish or develop the fees charged to users for the purpose of covering the expenses of a public service or the costs of establishing or maintaining a public works which find their consideration in benefits provided by The service or use of the work;
15. Considering, first, that it is for the manager of a public service to carry out, by means of the revenue of the service, the maintenance, extension and improvement of the equipment made necessary by the changing circumstances of the And in particular by increasing the number of its users; that, as a result, the taking into account, in the determination of the amount of the royalties, of the remuneration of the capital invested, and of the expenditure, including future expenditure, relating to The construction of new infrastructure or facilities before they are put into service, does not withdraw their royalty character for service rendered;
16. Considering, in the second place, that they do not further withdraw that character the fixing of different rates applicable, for the same service, to the users of a service or public work, where there exists between those users, having regard to the The nature of the service or work, the objective differences in situation warranting modulation, or where such modulation is ordered by a consideration of general interest in relation to the conditions of operation of the service or The book;
17. Taking the view, third, that limited compensation may be organised between different charges without the latter losing their character as a service rendered, since the benefits paid by them contribute to the Provision of the same aggregate service and that their total product does not exceed the cost of the benefits provided;
18. Taking the view that it follows from the very wording of Article 9 of the law that the airport charges comply with the preceding conditions; that, as a result, this Article does not establish charges but charges for services rendered; Consequence, the complaint alleging breach of Article 34 of the Constitution must be rejected;
19. Considering that there is no need for the Constitutional Council to examine any question of constitutionality,
Decides:
Sections 6 and 9 of the Airport Act are not unconstitutional.
The This decision will be published in the Official Journal of the French Republic.
Issued by the Constitutional Council at its meeting on 14 April 2005, attended by: Mr Pierre Mazeaud, President, MM. Jean-Claude Colliard, Olivier Dutheillet de Lamothe, Mme Jacqueline de Guillenchmidt, MM. Pierre Joxe and Jean-Louis Pezant, Dominique Schnapper, Pierre Steinmetz and Simone Veil.
The President,
Pierre Mazeaud
