Advanced Search

Decision No. 2011-625 Dc March 10, 2011

Original Language Title: Décision n° 2011-625 DC du 10 mars 2011

Subscribe to a Global-Regulation Premium Membership Today!

Key Benefits:

Subscribe Now for only USD$40 per month.
Learn more about this text ...

Text information

Folders Laws




JORF No. 0062 of 15 March 2011 page 4630
text n ° 3



Decision No. 2011-625 DC of 10 March 2011

NOR: CSCL1107169S ELI: Not available "text-decoration: none;" id="JORFARTI000023708025 " Name="JORFARTI000023708025">



INLAND SECURITY PERFORMANCE AND PROGRAMMING ACT



The Constitutional Council has been seized, under the conditions set out in section 61, second Paragraph, of the Constitution Law of orientation and programming for the performance of internal security, on 15 February 2011, by Mr Jean-Marc AYRAULT, Mrs Sylvie ANDRIEUX, MM. Gérard BAPT, Claude BARTOLONE, Jacques BASCOU, Christian BATAILLE, Mrs Delphine BATHO, Marie-Noëlle BATTISTEL, MM. Serge BLISKO, Patrick BLOCHE, Daniel BOISSERIE, Mme Marie-Odile BOUILLE, Monique BOULESTIN, MM. Pierre BOURGUIGNON, François BROTTES, Alain CACHEUX, Thierry CARCENAC, Guy CHAMBEFORT, Jean-Michel CLEMENT, Gilles COCQUEMPOT, Pierre COHEN, Mrs Pascale CROZON, MM. Frédéric CUVILLIER, Pascal DEGUILHEM, François DELUGA, Bernard DEROSIER, Michel DESTOT, René DOSIÈRE, Julien DRAY, Jean-Pierre DUFAU, William DUMAS, Jean-Louis DUMONT, Mme Laurence DUMONT, MM. Jean-Paul DUPRE, Olivier DUSSOPT, Christian ECKERT, Hervé FERON, Pierre FORGUES, Mme Valérie FOURNEYRON, M. Jean-Louis GAGNAIRE, Mme Geneviève GAILLARD, MM. Jean-Patrick GILLE, Joël GIRAUD, Jean GLAVANY, Daniel GOLDBERG, Marc GOUA, Mme Elisabeth GUIGOU, Mr David HABIB, Mme Danièle HOFFMAN-RISPAL, Sandrine HUREL, Françoise IMBERT, MM. Michel ISSINDOU, Serge JANQUIN, Henri JIBRAYEL, Régis JUANICO, Mrs Marietta KARAMANLI, MM. Jérôme LAMBERT, Jack LANG, Mrs Colette LANGLADE, Mr Jean-Yves LE BOUILLONNEC, Mrs Annick LE LOCH, Mr Bruno LE ROUX, Mrs Catherine LEMORTON, Annick LEPETIT, MM. Bernard LESTERLIN, Albert LIKUVALU, François LONCLE, Jean MALLOT, Mrs Jeanny MARC, Marie-Lou MARCEL, MM. Jean-René MARSAC, Philippe MARTIN, Mrs Frédérique MASSAT, Mr Didier MATHUS, Mrs Sandrine MAZETIER, MM. Pierre-Alain MUET, Philippe NAUCHE, Henri NAYROU, Alain NERI, Ms George PAU-LANGEVIN, MM. Germinal PEIRO, Jean-Luc PERAT, Mme Marie-Françoise PEROL-DUMONT, Martine PINVILLE, MM. Philippe PLISSON, François PUPPONI, Mme Catherine QUERE, MM. Jean-Jack QUEYRANNE, Dominique RAIMBOURG, Simon RENUCCI, René ROUQUET, Alain ROUSSET, Michel SAPIN, Jean-Louis TOURAINE, Jean-Jacques URVOAS, André VALLINI, Manuel VALLS, Michel VAUZELLE, Michel VERGNIER, André VEZINHET, Alain VIDALIES, Jean-Claude VIOLLET, Mrs Marie-Hélène AMIABLE, Mr François ASENSI, Mrs Martine BILLARD, MM. Alain BOCQUET, Patrick BRAOUEZEC, Jean-Pierre BRARD, Mme Marie-George BUFFET, MM. Jean-Jacques CANDELIER, André CHASSAIGNE, Jacques DESALLANGRE, Marc DOLEZ, Mme Jacqueline FRAYSSE, MM. André GERIN, Pierre GOSNAT, Maxime GREMETZ, Jean-Paul LECOQ, Roland MUZEAU, Daniel PAUL, Jean-Claude SANDRIER, Michel VAXÈS, Yves COCHET, Noël MAMÈRE, François de RUGY, Mme Anny POURSINOFF, Huguette BELLO et M. Alfred MARIE-JEANNE, MEPs,
et, le Jean-Pierre BEL, Mrs Jacqueline ALQUIER, Michèle ANDRE, MM. Serge ANDREONI, Bernard ANGELS, Alain ANZIANI, David ASSOULINE, Bertrand AUBAN, Claude BERIT-DEBAT, Mrs Marie-Christine BLANDIN, Maryvonne BLONDIN, Mr Yannick BODIN, Mrs Nicole BONNEFOY, Mr Yannick BOTREL, Mrs Alima BOUMEDIENE-THIERY, Mr Martial BOURQUIN, Mme Bernadette BOURZAI, M. Michel BOUTANT, Mme Nicole BRICQ, M. Jean-Pierre CAFFET, Mme Claire-Lise CAMPION, M. Jean-Louis CARRÈRE, Mme Françoise CARTRON, MM. Bernard CAZEAU, Yves CHASTAN, Pierre-Yves COLLOMBAT, Yves DAUDIGNY, Marc DAUNIS, Mme Christiane DEMONTÈS, M. Jean DESESSARD, Mme Josette DURRIEU, MM. Jean-Luc FICHET, Bernard FRIMAT, Ms Samia GHALI, MM. Serge GODARD, Jean-Pierre GODEFROY, Didier GUILLAUME, Edmond HERVE, Mme Annie JARRAUD-VERGNOLLE, MM. Claude JEANNEROT, Ronan KERDRAON, Virginie KLÈS, MM. Yves KRATTINGER, Serge LAGAUCHE, Serge LARCHER, Jacky LE MENN, Roger MADEC, Jacques MAHEAS, Rachel MAZUIR, Jean-Jacques MIRASSOU, Mme Renée NICOUX, M. François PATRIAT, Mme Gisèle PRINTZ, MM. Marcel RAINAUD, Daniel RAOUL, Thierry REPENTIN, Mrs Patricia SCHILLINGER, Mr Jean-Pierre SUEUR, Mrs Catherine TASCA, MM. Michel TESTON, René TEULADE, Jean-Marc TODESCHINI, Richard YUNG, Guy FISCHER, Nicole BORVO COHEN-SEAT, Michelle DEMESSINE, MM. Gérard LE CAM, Bernard VERA, Annie DAVID, Marie-France BEAUFILS, MM. Jean-François VOGUET, Jack RALITE, Mme Marie-Agnès LABARRE, Brigitte GONTHIER-MAURIN, Eliane ASSASSI, Evelyne DIDIER, Mireille SCHURCH, MM. Ivan RENAR, Robert HUE, Jean-Claude DANGLOT, Ms Isabelle PASQUET, Odette TERRADE, MM. Thierry FOUCAUD and Michel BILLOUT, senators.
The Constitutional Council,
Given the Constitution;
Given theAct No. 58-1067 of 7 November 1958 Organic Law on the Constitutional Council;
Given the Organic Law n ° 2001-692 of 1 August 2001 as amended on financial laws, together with the decision of the Constitutional Council n ° 2001-448 DC of 25 July 2001;
Seen the code of entry and Stay of foreigners and the right to asylum;
Seen general territorial community code ;
Given the Penal Code, set the Decision of the Constitutional Council n ° 2007-554 DC of 9 August 2007;
Seen the Code of Criminal Procedure ;
Seen the transport code;
Seen Order No. 45-174 of February 2, 1945 as amended relative to childhood delinquent;
Seen under Act No. 78-17 of 6 January 1978 relating to computers, files and freedoms;
Due to Act No. 83-629 of 12 July 1983 regulating private security activities ;
Seen law n ° 95-73 of 21 January 1995 of orientation and security programming, together with the decision of Constitutional Council No. 94-352 DC of 18 January 1995;
Vu The Act 2003-239 of 18 March 2003 for internal security, together with the decision of the Constitutional Council n ° 2003-467 DC of 13 March 2003;
Seen Law n ° 2004-575 of June 21, 2004 for confidence in the digital economy;
In view of the Government's observations, recorded on February 25, 2011;
Seen memoirs in Reply submitted by Members of Parliament and Senators, recorded on 2 and 3 March 2011;
The rapporteurs were heard;
1. Considering that the requesting members of the House of Commons and Senators defend the Constitutional Council the Law on Guidance and Programming for the performance of internal security; that they challenge its Articles 1, 4, 11, 18, 37, 38, 41, 43, 53, 58, 60, 61, 90, 92 and 101;
On Article 1:
2. Considering that Article 1 provides: The attached report on the objectives and means of internal security by 2013 is approved ' ;
3. Considering that, according to the applicants, the law referred to cannot be described as a programming law, so that its article 1, devoid of a normative character, does not recognise the Constitution;
4. Considering that under the twentieth paragraph of Article 34 of the Constitution: Programming laws determine the objectives of the State's action " ; that, by approving the annexed report on the objectives and means of internal security, Article 1 of the Law implements this provision; that it is not contrary to the Constitution;
On Article 4:
5. Considering that Article 4 of the Act is referred to insert after the fourth paragraph of paragraph 7 of paragraph IArticle 6 of the Law of 21 June 2004 mentioned above two paragraphs under which:
" When the requirements of the fight against the dissemination of images or representations of minorsArticle 227-23 of the Criminal code justifies it, the administrative authority shall notify the persons mentioned in 1 of this I of the electronic addresses of the communication services to the public online which infringes the provisions of this article, to which these persons Must prevent access without delay.
" A decree of the Council of State lays down the rules for the application of the preceding paragraph, in particular those according to which, where appropriate, the additional costs arising from the obligations placed on the operators' shall be compensated. ' ;
6. Taking the view that the applicants submit, first, that the institution of a blocking device for electronic addresses giving access to certain websites constitutes an inappropriate or counterproductive measure and an excessive cost to the The objective pursued in the fight against the dissemination of child pornography; that, on the other hand, in the absence of judicial authorisation, the infringement of freedom of communication by the impossibility of access to these sites would be Disproportionate;
7. Considering, first, that the Constitutional Council does not have a general discretion and a decision of the same nature as that of the Parliament; that it cannot ascertain whether the objectives which the legislator had been assigned could have been Achieved by other means, provided that the procedures adopted by the law are not manifestly inappropriate for the intended purpose; that, by establishing a mechanism to prevent access to communication services to the public on line Pornographic images depicting minors the legislator did not commit There is no manifest error of assessment; that by providing that the additional costs resulting from the obligations placed on the operators would, if necessary, be compensated it did not disregard the constitutional requirement of the proper use of public funds ;
8. Considering, second, that the contested provisions confer on the administrative authority only the power to restrict, for the protection of Internet users, access to online communication services when and To the extent that they disseminate images of child pornography; that the decision of the administrative authority is liable to be challenged at any time and by any person concerned before the competent court, where appropriate in interim ; that, under these conditions, these provisions ensure a conciliation which is not Not disproportionate between the objective of constitutional protection of public order and the freedom of communication guaranteed by Article 11 of the Declaration of Human Rights and the Citizen of 1789;
On Article 11:
9. Considering that Article 11 codifies Articles 230-6 to 230-11 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by amending them, the of Section 21 of the above-mentioned Act of 18 March 2003 relating to background files;
10. Considering that the applicants submit that, if, in its decision of 13 March 2003, the Constitutional Council has already declared in conformity with the Constitution the provisions codified in Article 11 of the Act referred to, a change in the Circumstances, which have taken place since that decision, justifies the review of those provisions; that they claim, in this regard, that the National Commission on Informatics and Freedoms has, in its report submitted to the Prime Minister on 20 January 2009 on Control of the system for the treatment of the infringements found, estimated that, in a Significant proportion, the fact sheets were inaccurate and the follow-up and correction provisions of this file were " Manifestly ineffective ", whereas the number of registered persons is considerable; which they also denounce, as unjustified and unintelligible, the difference in the system of erasure of data introduced by Article 230-8 of the Code of Criminal procedure, between the data collected on the occasion of a procedure which gave rise to an unseable classification, according to whether the classification decision is motivated by a shortage of charges or for another reason;
11. Considering that, in its decision of 13 March 2003, the Constitutional Council declared Article 21 and Article 25 of the Act of 18 March 2003 for internal security in conformity with the Constitution on the reservations mentioned in the Recitals 26, 34, 35, 38 and 43 of his decision; that he held that the law of 6 January 1978 relating to computers, files and freedoms applies to the treatment in question and that any person registered in the file must be able to exercise Its right of access and rectification of data concerning it under the conditions laid down by Article 39 of that Act; that, where such data are consulted in administrative inquiries, they may constitute only one element of the decision taken by the administrative authority, under the control of the judge; that the use of That data cannot allow the acquisition of French nationality to be called into question where, under the law, it is of full law; that it cannot further prohibit the renewal of a residence permit where, under Of the law, the law is of right or when it is ordered by the respect of the law That, in the case of minors, it is for the decree to determine a period of conservation which reconciles, on the one hand, the need to identify the perpetrators of offences and, on the other hand, that of To seek the educational and moral rehabilitation of juvenile offenders;
12. Considering that the changes made to the provisions of Article 21 of the Act of 18 March 2003 above on occasion From their introduction to Articles 230-6 to 230-11 of the Code of Criminal Procedure strengthen the control of the judicial authority over the data recorded in the history files; that Article 230-8 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that the The prosecutor of the Republic or the magistrate responsible for monitoring the And the updating of the salaries shall, within one month, decide on the follow-up to be given to requests for erasure or rectification; that this Article also provides that all data relating to persons And maintained in the background files in spite of a decision of acquittal, acquittal, non-suit or no further classification, whatever the reason, shall be the subject of a statement prohibiting access to such data in the framework An administrative inquiry; that the difference in the data retention regime, Which is the result of the power given to the public prosecutor to order erasure where the subsequent classification of the proceedings is justified by an insufficiency of charges, is based on the absence of interest to retain, in that case, such Data in file;
13. Taking the view that it follows from the foregoing that, on the same reservations as those mentioned in recital 11, the provisions of Articles 230-6 to 230-11 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which are not obscure or ambiguous, are in conformity with the Constitution;
On section 18:
14. Considering that Article 18Article 10 of the aforementioned Law of 21 January on Videoprotection; Complete the list of cases in which such a device can be implemented on the public road by the competent public authorities; that it strengthens the supervisory powers of the departmental commissions for videoprotection and the Commission National Computer and Freedom of Information and Certain cases the consultation of " National Commission on Videoprotection ;
15. Considering that the eleventh preambular paragraph of Article 10, paragraph II, as a result of article 18 of the Act referred to, relaxes the regime for the implementation of video surveillance devices by private legal entities; Which it provides: " After informing the mayor of the municipality concerned, the other legal entities may implement on the public road a system of videoprotection for the purpose of ensuring the protection of the approaches to their buildings and installations, in the premises Likely to be exposed to acts of terrorism or particularly exposed to risks of aggression or robbery " ;
16. Considering that Article 18 (b) and (c) allows for the delegation of the exploitation and viewing of video surveillance to private persons; that the last sentence of the second subparagraph of Article 10, paragraph III, of the The law of 21 January 1995 as amended provides: ' The viewing of the images may be carried out by the agents of the public authority or the employees of the legal person who is the holder of the authorisation or by those of the public or private operators acting on their behalf under an agreement " ; that under the third and fourth subparagraphs of that paragraph III: " Where a public authority or a legal entity does not itself operate its public-channel video protection system, the agreement it enters into with a public or private operator shall be approved by the State representative in the department and, Paris, by the prefect of the police, after informing the mayor of the municipality concerned, and in accordance with a standard convention fixed by regulation after notice of the national commission provided for in Article 10-2. In addition, the employees of the private operator responsible for the operation of the system are subject to the provisions of Title I of the law N ° 83-629 of 12 July 1983 regulating private security activities, with the exception of Articles 3 to 3-2 and 10, and are bound by professional
. Where a public authority does not operate the system itself, the employees of the private person who carry out the system under its control and on its behalf shall not have access to the recordings of the images taken on the public channel " ;
17. Considering that, according to the applicants, by allowing private persons to carry out public road surveillance, these provisions constitute a delegation to these persons of tasks inherent in the exercise by the State of its tasks of Sovereignty and ignorance of the constitutional requirements relating to the protection of individual liberty and privacy;
18. Considering that Article 12 of the 1789 Declaration states that: The guarantee of human and citizen rights requires a public force: this force is therefore established for the benefit of all, and not for the particular usefulness of those to whom it is entrusted." ;
19. Considering that by allowing any legal person to implement monitoring devices beyond the approaches " Immediate " Of its buildings and installations and by entrusting to private operators the operation of videoprotection systems on the public channel and viewing the images on behalf of public persons, the contested provisions permit To invest private persons in general public surveillance missions; that each of these provisions makes it possible for the delegation to be delegated to a person deprived of the general administrative police powers inherent in the exercise Of " Public force " Necessary for the guarantee of rights; that, as a consequence, must be declared to be contrary to the Constitution the twelfth paragraph of 1 ° and the b and c of 2 ° of Article 18; that, consequently, the first paragraph of Article 18 of the Law The first paragraph of Article 10 of the Act of 21 January 1995 shall be replaced by the first paragraph of Article 10 of the Act of 21 January 1995 by the ten paragraphs provided for in this 1 °;
Article 37:
20. Considering that Article 37, in its paragraph I, inserts Article 132-19-2 into the Penal Code; that, under this new article, for offences of wilful violence against persons, aggravated by their consequences on the victim, The quality of the offence or the quality of the author, modus operandi or the place of commission of the offence and provided for in Articles 222-9, 222-12 and 222-13, at 3 ° of Article 222-14, at 4 ° of Article 222-14-1 and in Article 222-15 -1, the penalty Minimum imprisonment is set at 18 months or two years depending on whether the offence is punishable by Seven or ten years' imprisonment; that under the same article, in consideration of the circumstances of the offence, the personality of the author or the guarantees of insertion or reinsertion presented by the author, the court may pronounce A penalty less than those thresholds or a sentence other than imprisonment; that paragraph II of Article 37 amends the order of 2 February 1945 to extend to minors the application of Article 132-19-2 of the Penal Code;
21. Considering that, according to the applicants, article 37, paragraph I, is contrary to the principles of necessity and individualization of the penalties guaranteed by Article 8 of the 1789 Declaration; that paragraph II would also be contrary to the Fundamental principle recognized by the laws of the Republic in the field of juvenile justice;
With regard to paragraph I:
22. Considering that Article 8 of the 1789 Declaration provides: " The law must establish only strictly and obviously necessary penalties ... " ; that under Article 34 of the Constitution: The law sets out the rules concerning ... the determination of the crimes and the penalties applicable to them " ; that Article 61 of the Constitution does not confer on the Constitutional Council a general power of assessment and decision of the same kind as that of Parliament, but only gives it the power to rule on compliance with the Constitution. Constitution of the laws referred to its examination; that, if the necessity of the penalties attached to the offences falls within the discretion of the legislator, it is for the Constitutional Council to ensure that there is no manifest disproportion between The offence and penalty incurred;
23. Considering, first, that the contested provision applies only to infringements of the physical integrity of persons, characterised by at least one or more aggravating and punishable circumstances of at least seven years Imprisonment; thus, it establishes the principle of minimum sentences of at least 18 months or two years' imprisonment for offences of a particular gravity;
24. Considering, second, that, in each case, the court may, by a specially reasoned decision, impose a sentence below those thresholds or a sentence other than imprisonment in respect of the circumstances of the offence, of the The personality of its author or of the guarantees of insertion or reinsertion presented by the latter; thus the legislature has not changed the power of the court to order, under the conditions laid down by the Articles 132-40 and 132-41 of the Criminal Code, that it be stayed, at least partially, at the execution of the sentence, the person Being placed under the probation regime; nor has it deviated from the special provisions of second Article 122-1 of the Penal Code which Provide that, where the offender was, at the time of the offence, suffering from a psychic or neuropsychic disorder which has altered his discernment or obstructed the control of his actions, the court shall take that circumstance into account when it Determines the sentence and fixes the plan;
25. Considering that it follows that article 37, paragraph I, is in conformity with the Constitution;
With regard to paragraph II:
26. Considering that the reduction in the criminal responsibility of minors as a function of age, such as the need to seek the educational and moral rehabilitation of child offenders through measures adapted to their age and personality, By a specialized court or according to appropriate procedures, have been consistently recognized by the laws of the Republic since the beginning of the twentieth century; that these principles include their expression in the Act of 12 April 1906 on the Criminal majority of minors, the Act of 22 July 1912 on children's courts and The order of 2 February 1945 on juvenile delinquency; that, however, the Republican legislation prior to the entry into force of the 1946 Constitution does not enshrb the rule that binding measures or sanctions Should always be avoided in favour of purely educational measures; in particular, the original provisions of the ordinance of 2 February 1945 did not rule out the criminal responsibility of minors and did not exclude, if necessary, That they be pronounced in respect of measures such as placement, Supervision, detention or, for minors over thirteen years of age, detention; that this is the scope of the fundamental principle recognised by the laws of the Republic in the field of juvenile justice;
27. Considering that, by establishing the principle of minimum penalties applicable to minors who have never been convicted of crimes or offences, the impugned provision disregards the constitutional requirements of juvenile criminal justice; that, Paragraph II of Article 37 must be declared contrary to the Constitution;
Article 38:
28. Considering that Article 38 amends Articles 221-3 and 221-4 of the Penal Code ; that it extends to the authors of Murder or murder committed " On a magistrate, an official of the national police, a member of the gendarmerie, a member of the staff of the prison administration or any other person who is the depositary of the public authority, on the occasion of the exercise or because of his or her Functions ", the provisions under which the sitting court may, by special decision, either bring the security period up to thirty years or, if it pronounces life imprisonment, decide that none of the measures listed Article 132-23 of the same Code shall not be granted to the convicted person;
29. Considering that, according to the applicants, those provisions, while retaining only the quality of the victims to the exclusion of the circumstances in which the crime was committed, disregard the principle of the need for the penalties guaranteed by Article 8 of the Declaration of 1789;
30. Considering that the execution of custodial sentences in corrections and criminal matters has been designed, not only to protect society and to ensure the punishment of the convicted person, but also to promote the latter's amendment and to prepare Eventual reintegration;
31. Considering that, according toArticle 720-4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in the event that the Court of Assize has decided that none of the Measures listed inArticle 132-23 of the Criminal Code could not be granted to a person sentenced to life imprisonment, The sentencing court may Grant one of these measures if the convicted person has been incarcerated for a period of at least 30 years; that this provision must be heard as open to the prosecution service and the convict's right to refer the case to the court That such a procedure may be renewed where appropriate; that, in the light of those requirements, the contested provisions, which it is for the judge to apply in the case of murder or murder committed on the occasion of the exercise or because of the The character of the depositary of the public authority, are not manifestly contrary The principle of the need for penalties; thus the provisions of section 38 of the law referred to are not contrary to the Constitution;
On section 41:
32. Considering that Article 41 inserts an article 8-3 in the order of 2 February 1945, according to which: The prosecutor of the Republic may prosecute a minor in court for children in accordance with the procedure laid down inArticle 390-1 The code of criminal procedure if further investigations into the facts are not necessary and investigations into the minor's personality have been carried out, if necessary in the course of a procedure initiated within six months Previous or a procedure that gave rise to a Conviction in the previous six months.
" The convocation specifies that the minor must be assisted by a lawyer and, if no choice of a lawyer by the minor or his legal representatives, the prosecutor of the Republic or the judge of the children shall appoint a lawyer Office.
" The convocation shall also be notified as soon as possible to the parents, guardian, person or service to which the minor is
. It shall be found in the minutes signed by the minor and the person or representative of the service referred to in the preceding paragraph, who shall receive copies of it " ;
33. Considering that, according to the applicants, those provisions, which permit the convening of a minor before the Juvenile Court in accordance with the procedures of the criminal procedure applicable to the adults, are aware of the fundamental principle recognised by the The laws of the Republic in the field of juvenile criminal justice, which they denounce in particular the absence of an age limit and the threshold of gravity of the offence prosecuted for the implementation of this procedure, the possibility of imposing on the minor Subpoena within a period of less than ten days and the absence of guarantees Children's Court has up-to-date information on the minor's personality;
34. Considering that the contested provisions allow the prosecutor of the Republic to have a juvenile directly summoned by a judicial police officer before the juvenile court without pre-trial investigation by the judge of the children; These provisions apply to any minor regardless of his age, the state of his criminal record and the seriousness of the offences prosecuted; that they do not guarantee that the court will have up-to-date information on the personality of the A minor enabling him to seek his educational and moral rehabilitation; They ignore the constitutional requirements for the criminal justice of minors; that section 41 must be declared unconstitutional;
On section 43:
35. Considering that Article 43, in its paragraph I, opens the possibility for the prefect to take a decision restricting the freedom to go and to come to the public road of minors aged 13 between twenty-three hours and six hours, at double Condition that this measure be taken in the interests of minors and in order to prevent a " Manifest risk to their health, safety, education or morals " ; that this article, in its paragraph II, which amends Article 15 (1) of the Order of 2 February 1945, provides that the Juvenile Court may make a reasoned decision, in respect of educational sanctions, " Prohibiting the minor from travelling to and from the public road between twenty-three hours and six hours without being accompanied by one of his parents or the holder of the parental authority, for a maximum period of three months, renewable once " ; that Article III provides that the general decisions taken on the basis of paragraph I, and individual decisions taken on the basis of paragraph II, provide for the arrangements for the care of the minor and his surrender Immediately to his or her parents or to his or her legal representative; that he punishes the fine provided for the third class tickets for the latter " Not to have ensured the respect ... of the measure " ; that this article, in its paragraph IV, requires the prosecutor of the Republic to inform the prefect, so that he may seize the President of the General Council as appropriate, alternative measures to the prosecution and judgments which have become final when These measures and judgments relate to offences committed by minors residing in the territory of the department;
36. Considering that, according to the applicants, the latter provision, by providing for a specific procedure for informing the prefect concerning measures and judgments concerning minors, disregards the fundamental principle recognised by the laws of the The criminal justice system for minors and, in particular, the principle of reducing the criminal liability of minors according to age;
37. Considering that the contested provision subordinates the transmission of information relating to the minor by the Public Prosecutor of the Republic to the prefect, at the request of the Prefect, with a view, where appropriate, to refer the case to the President of the General Council for the Implementing a contract of parental responsibility; that it has neither the purpose nor the effect of amending the system of criminal liability of minors; that, therefore, the complaint alleging breach of the principle of mitigation of liability Minors in relation to age must be rejected;
38. Considering, moreover, that, according to Article 9 of the 1789 Declaration, every man is presumed innocent until he has been convicted; that, in principle, the legislature cannot establish a presumption of guilt in principle. However, on an exceptional basis, such presumptions may be established, in particular in respect of contractual matters, provided that they are not irrebuttable, that respect for the rights of the Defence and the facts reasonably induce the likelihood of Accountability;
39. Taking the view, in the present case, that the last paragraph of Article 43 (III) punishes a contraventional penalty for the minor's legal representative not to have ensured that the minor's representative has complied with the decision provided for in the paragraph I or paragraph II; that by allowing the legal representative to be punished by reason of an offence committed by the minor, he has the effect of instituting, against the legal representative, an irrebuttable presumption of guilt;
40. Considering that it follows from the foregoing that the last paragraph of article 43, paragraph III, of the law referred to must be declared unconstitutional; that the other provisions of article 43 are in conformity with the Constitution
Article 53:
41. Taking the view that Article 53, on the one hand, inserts Article L. 443-2-1 into the trade code and, on the other hand, amends Article L. 443-3; that, under the new Article L. 443-2-1, a fine of EUR 15 000 is imposed ' The fact, without authorization from the producer, organizer or owner of the exploitation rights of a sporting, cultural or commercial event, to offer, offer for sale or exhibit for sale, on a communication network To the online public, entry tickets or access to such an event to derive a benefit " ; if the natural person convicted of the offence is liable, in addition, to the additional penalty of forfeiture of the thing that has served or was intended to commit the offence or the thing that is the product thereof; and L. 443-3 amended, the legal person declared to be criminally liable for the same offence shall, in addition to the fine referred to in the five-time penalty referred to above, be liable to the penalties provided for Href=" /viewCodeArticle.do?cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006070719&idArticle=LEGIARTI000006417335&dateTexte= &categorieLink = cid"> article 131-39 of the Criminal Code ;
42. Considering that the applicants submit, first, that those provisions place in the trade code provisions which concern not only Traders or companies and do not define the concept of profit; thus they would disregard the objective of the constitutional value of intelligibility and accessibility of the law; moreover, they would be contrary to the principle of The need for penalties to the extent that they would be affected Excessive the right to property and the contractual freedom of natural persons, as well as the freedom to undertake legal persons; finally, they would establish a breach of equality before the law between those who sell tickets on A " Online public communication network " And those who engage in the same operation by another means;
43. Considering that by prohibiting the resale, without prior agreement of the organisers, tickets of entry or title of access, the legislator has heard the prevention and suppression of any disturbances resulting from the failure of the provisions implemented For certain sporting events and to preserve the rights of producers, organisers or owners of the rights of exploitation of such an event; that, however, by repriming for all cultural, sporting or sporting events Commercial resale proposed or realized on a network of Communication to the public online in order to derive a benefit, the legislator relied on criteria which were manifestly inappropriate to the object pursued; that, therefore, Article 53 of the law disregards the principle of the need for offences and That, without the need to examine the other grievances, it must be declared contrary to the Constitution;
On section 58:
44. Considering that Article 58 of the Act supersedes the second subparagraph of Article L. 2241-2 of the Transport Code by the following three paragraphs:
" If the offender refuses or declares himself unable to justify his or her identity, the agents mentioned in the first paragraph Of Article 529-4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure shall notify without delay and by any means a territorially competent judicial police
. During the time required for the information and the decision of the judicial police officer, the offender is required to remain at the disposal of an officer referred to in the same first paragraph
On the order of the judicial police officer, the officers may bring the perpetrator of the offence before him or withhold the time necessary for his arrival or that of a judicial police officer acting under his control " ;
45. Taking the view that the applicants submit that the new wording of Article L. 2241-2 removes the duty of care consisting of being able to retain the offender only the " Time strictly necessary on arrival " Of the judicial police officer or shall be brought before him " On-the-field " ; that they consider that the legislature has disregarded the scope of its jurisdiction by not sufficiently supervising the time limits during which the infringer can be retained by the transport agents and thus deprived of legal guarantees the requirements The constitutional protection of individual liberty and freedom to go and come;
46. Considering that under Article 66 of the Constitution: No one shall be arbitrarily detained. -The judicial authority, the guardian of individual liberty, ensures that this principle is respected in accordance with the conditions laid down by law " ;
47. Considering that the contested provisions relate to the particular powers of the assistant judicial police officers carrying out their duties in the public transport of railway or public transport; that they provide for the restraint of the offender, who Refused or declared himself unable to justify his identity, " During the time required for the information and the decision of the judicial police officer " Or " The time required for his or her arrival or that of a judicial police officer acting under his control " ; that they imply that the information, by the officer of the operator, of the judicial police officer and the decision of the judicial police officer shall intervene as soon as possible; that, under these conditions, the constraints imposed on the person who Has not been able or unwilling to justify on the spot its identity is limited to what is necessary for the safeguarding of the purposes of general interest having constitutional validity and whose pursuit is the motive for the verification of identity; that, subsequently, the Criticisms, which do not misunderstand the scope of the competence of the Article 66 of the Constitution places under the protection of the judicial authority, or the freedom to come and go.
On Articles 60 and 61:
48. Whereas, on the one hand, Article 60 of the Act refers to Article L. 332-16-1 in the Code of Sport; that it allows the Minister of the Interior to " prohibit the individual or collective movement of persons availing themselves of the quality of Supporting a team or acting as such on the premises of a sporting event and whose presence is likely to result in serious disturbances to the public order " ; that, on the other hand, Article 61 inserts in the same code an article L. 332-16-2; that it allows the prefects of the department to " Restrict the freedom to travel and to come from persons who take advantage of the quality of a team or act as such on the premises of a sporting event and whose presence is likely to result in serious disturbances for the purpose of Public order " ; that the same articles state that the decree of the minister or prefect sets out the duration of the measure, the precise factual circumstances that motivate him and his territorial field; that they provide for prison sentences, fines and A legal prohibition in the event of a violation of these orders;
49. Considering that the applicants have complained that the provisions in question are prejudicial to the freedom to go and come and not sufficiently supervise the administrative police powers conferred on the Minister of the Interior and the Prefects;
50. Considering that the contested provisions strengthen the powers of the administrative police in the event of large gatherings of persons, on the occasion of a sporting event, which are likely to result in serious disturbances for the order Public; that it is for the administrative authority, under the supervision of the judge, to define, on the basis of objective criteria and with precision, the persons or categories of persons subject to the travel restriction measures; Measures must be justified by the need to safeguard public order and Not to have a disproportionate interference with the freedom to go and to come; that they may be challenged by the persons concerned before the administrative judge, in particular in the context of an interim measure; that in view of the objectives set by the Parliament and all the guarantees it has provided for, the contested provisions are specific to ensure, between respect for the freedom to come and the protection of public order, a conciliation which is not manifestly unbalanced ;
On paragraphs I and II of Article 90:
51. Considering that the first paragraph of Article 90, paragraph I, of the Act referred to: " Where a unlawful installation in a meeting on land belonging to a public or private person for the purpose of establishing housing there carries serious risks to public safety, security or tranquility, the representative of the State In the department or, in Paris, the prefect of the police can put the occupiers away from the place " ; that the second paragraph shall fix, at 48 hours, the period of execution with which the notice shall be laid down and shall indicate the methods of advertising thereof; that the third paragraph shall provide that the prefect may proceed with the forced evacuation of the Place, except as opposed by the owner or owner of the right of use, where the notice of leaving the premises has not been followed by effect and has not been the subject of the suspensive remedy provided for in paragraph II; that the representative of the State May also refer an application to the President of the high court Authorization to proceed with the destruction of illegal construction, which " In the form of interim measures within 48 hours' ;
52. Considering that, according to the applicants, these provisions disregard the constitutional requirements relating to human dignity, the guarantee of rights, the freedom to go and come, respect for private life, the inviolability of the home and the Presumption of innocence;
53. Considering that the administrative police measures capable of affecting the exercise of constitutionally guaranteed freedoms, including the freedom to go and come, part of the personal freedom protected by the articles 2 and 4 of the 1789 Declaration, must be justified by the need to safeguard the public order and proportionate to that objective;
54. Considering that the first paragraph of article 90, paragraph I, gives the representative of the State in the department or, in Paris, the prefect of the police the possibility of placing persons in the field of others unlawfully in the Remain to leave the premises as soon as they have settled in a meeting for the purpose of establishing housing and that this facility carries serious risks to public safety, security or tranquility; and The contested provisions are justified by the need to safeguard public order and Proportionate to this objective;
55. Considering, however, that the second and third subparagraphs of the same paragraph allow the representative of the State to proceed with the forced evacuation of the places where the formal notice of leaving them within the forty-eight hour minimum fixed It has not been followed by effect and has not been the subject of the suspensive remedy provided for in paragraph II; that these provisions allow for the emergency, at any time of the year, to be evacuated, without regard to the Personal or family situation, disadvantaged and non-disadvantaged persons The right of those persons to lodge an appeal with the Administrative Court of a suspensive remedy cannot, in this case, constitute a sufficient guarantee for a conciliation which would not be manifestly unbalanced Between the need to safeguard public order and constitutionally guaranteed rights and freedoms;
56. Considering that it follows that paragraphs I and II of Article 90 of the Act, which constitute an indivisible whole, must be declared to be contrary to the Constitution;
On Article 92:
57. Considering that Article 92 of the Act referred to replaces, in first paragraph of Article 78-2 of the Code of Criminal, the Reference: " 21-1 ° " By reference: " 21 " ; that it is intended to add to the list of persons authorised to carry out identity checks the entirety of the assistant judicial police officers and, in particular, the municipal police officers, while the only police officers Under the strict conditions laid down in article 78 (2) are the officials of the active national police services who do not fulfil the conditions to be a judicial police officer;
58. Considering that the applicants consider that the extension of the possibility of carrying out identity checks to all the assistant judicial police officers does not provide sufficient guarantees against arbitrary infringements of freedom Individual;
59. Considering that it is clear from article 66 of the Constitution that the judicial police must be placed under the direction and control of the judicial authority; that to that end, the Href=" /viewCode.do?cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006071154&dateTexte= &categorieLink = cid"> criminal procedure code, in particular articles 16 to 19-1, ensures the direct and effective control of the judicial authority over judicial police officers To exercise the powers of judicial inquiry and to implement the coercive measures necessary for their realization; that the Href=" /viewCodeArticle.do?cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006071154&idArticle=LEGIARTI000006574880&dateTexte= &categorieLink = cid"> article 20 of the Code of Criminal Procedure fixes the list of judicial police officers charged " To assist, in the performance of their duties, the judicial police officers; to record and record the crimes, offences and offences; to receive by record the statements made to them by all Persons who may provide them with clues, evidence and information about the perpetrators and accomplices of these offences " ; that the requirement for the direction and control of the judicial authority over the judicial police would not be met if general powers of criminal or criminal investigation were entrusted to agents who, under the authority of the municipal authorities, did not Are not available to judicial police officers;
60. Considering that78-2 of the Code of Criminal provides for cases in which judicial police officers, Judicial police officers and officials of national police services who do not fulfil the conditions of being a judicial police officer may carry out checks and checks on identity within the framework of Their judicial police mission or on written requisition The prosecutor of the Republic; that by entrusting this power to the municipal police officers, who, under the authority of the municipal authorities, are not made available to the judicial police officers, Article 92 does not comply with Article 66 of the Constitution; that, as a result, it must be declared unconstitutional;
On Article 101:
61. Considering that Article 101 of the Act referred to is intended to insert, after the word: Retention ", the words: Or within it " To the last sentence of Article L. 552-1 of the code of entry and residence of aliens and the right of asylum, according to which: However, if a courtroom allotted to the Ministry of Justice for a public hearing has been specially arranged in the immediate vicinity of that detention facility, it shall act in that room." ; that section 101 allows the judge of liberty and detention to hold the hearing to extend an administrative detention beyond 48 hours in a hearing room within, not just the Proximity to the administrative detention centre; and
62. Considering that, according to the applicants, these provisions ignore the rules of the fair trial and the disclosure requirements of the debates;
63. Considering that administrative detention centres are places of deprivation of liberty intended to receive foreigners who do not have the right to reside in French territory pending their return, whether voluntary or forced, in their Country of origin or a third country; that these centres are closed to the public; that, therefore, by providing that the hearing room in which the judge of freedoms and detention is located may be located at the " Within " Of these centres, the legislator has adopted a measure which is manifestly inappropriate to the need, which it has recalled, of " Adjudicate publicly " ; it follows that, without the need to examine the grievances submitted by the applicants, section 101 of the law referred to must be declared contrary to the Constitution;
On the other provisions of the law referred to:
In respect of the Article 10:
64. Considering that Article 10 creates a support fund for the technical and scientific police, responsible for contributing to the financing, within the limits of its resources, of all operations related to the feeding and use of the file Automated fingerprinting and automated DNA fingerprinting; it provides that this fund is " Financed by a payment whose amount is determined by convention according to the value of the property returned to the insurer who compensated the theft of the said property " ;
65. Considering that Article 12 of the 1789 Declaration states that: The guarantee of human and citizen rights requires a public force: this force is therefore established for the benefit of all, and not for the particular usefulness of those to whom it is entrusted." Article 13 provides as follows: For the maintenance of the public force, and for administrative expenditure, a common contribution is essential: it must also be allocated among all citizens, because of their faculties'. ;
66. Whereas, according to the first subparagraph of Article 17, paragraph II, of the Organic Law of 1 August 2001, the funds for competitions are constituted in particular by " Non-tax funds paid by legal or natural persons to contribute to public interest expenses " ; that the last paragraph of the same paragraph states that the use of appropriations opened by competition funds " Must be in conformity with the intention of the paying party " ; that the procedures for the exercise of judicial police missions cannot, however, be subject to the will of private persons; that, as a result, by creating a fund to support the technical and scientific police, and by assigning them to them Contributions by insurers, Article 10 disregards the constitutional requirements arising from Articles 12 and 13 of the 1789 Declaration;
With regard to Article 14:
67. Considering that Article 14 of the Act is referred to in Title IV of the Book I of the Code of Criminal Procedure a Chapter III devoted to legal approximation software and comprising Articles 230-20 to 230-27; that under the terms of the article 230-20: " In order to facilitate the gathering of evidence of the offences and the identification of their perpetrators, the services of the national police and the national gendarmerie responsible for a judicial police mission may implement, under the supervision of Of the judicial authority, software intended to facilitate the operation and reconciliation of information on the operating procedures brought together by these services in the course:
" 1 ° Preliminary investigations, gross investigations or investigations carried out on letters rogatory;
" 2 ° Research procedures for the causes of death or disappearance provided for in Articles 74 and 74-1 " ;
68. Considering that under Article 230-21: " Data used in the software covered by this Chapter may be derived only from documents and documents of judicial procedure already held by the services referred to in Article 230-20." Where data capable of indirectly showing the identity of persons are exploited, it may only appear once the reconciliation operations have been carried out, and only for those data which are effectively Entries in agreement with each other or with other information used by the software " ;
69. Considering that the freedom proclaimed by Article 2 of the Declaration of 1789 implies respect for private life; that it is for the competent legislature, pursuant to Article 34 of the Constitution, to lay down rules concerning the procedure To ensure conciliation between, on the one hand, the safeguarding of public order and the search for offenders, both of which are necessary for the protection of principles and rights of constitutional value and, on the other hand, respect for Privacy and other constitutionally protected rights and freedoms;
70. Considering that the use of judicial approximation software allows for the implementation of personal data processing collected in the course of open judicial investigations for all categories of offences, irrespective of Their seriousness; that it is for the legislator to adopt the guarantees of nature to ensure the reconciliation of the aforementioned constitutional objectives and principles, taking into account the generality of the application of these software;
71. Considering, first, that the provisions of Articles 230-20 and following are not applicable and cannot have the effect of enabling the implementation of a general treatment of the data collected during the various investigations Article 230-20; that Article 230-23 provides that, without prejudice to the supervisory powers granted to the National Commission on Informatics and Freedoms, the processing of personal data by means of the software Judicial reconciliation shall be operated under the control of the public prosecutor or the That such software may lead only to the implementation, authorised by those judicial authorities, of special personal data processing, in the context of an investigation or Determined procedure for a series of facts and for the sole purpose of these investigations;
72. Considering, second, that the first paragraph of Article 230-22 provides: ' Any personal data revealed by the operation of the investigations and investigations referred to in Article 230-20 shall be deleted at the close of the investigation and, in any event, at the end of a period of three years After the last act of registration " ; that, having regard to the possibility opened by the abovementioned provisions of a data recording even linked to low-gravity facts, the retention of such data cannot be extended to the investigator's initiative beyond three years After registration; and, subsequently, the words: " After the last act of registration " Must be declared contrary to the Constitution;
73. Considering that, subject to the reservations set out in recital 71 and taking into account the declaration of partial unconstitutionality relating to Article 230-22, the provisions of Article 14 do not disregard the aforementioned constitutional requirements ;
Section 32:
74. Considering that Article 32 restores, in the Act of 12 July 1983 referred to above, a Title III relating to the private activity of economic intelligence and composed of Articles 33-12 33-16; Article 33-12 seeks to define the scope of the scheme of economic intelligence activities; Articles 33-13 and 33-14 subordinate the direction of an economic intelligence undertaking and the exercise by a business Of this activity respectively to a licence and to a Authorisation issued by the Minister of the Interior; Article 33-15 lays down the principle of a prohibition against different categories of officials and agents working in the intelligence services to carry out this activity during the Three years after the date on which they ceased their duties; Section 33-16 provides for offences under the aforementioned rules of fine and imprisonment, as well as additional prohibition or closure penalties;
75. Considering that it is open to the legislature to provide for new offences by determining the penalties applicable to them; that, in so doing, it is incumbent on the legislator to ensure that the requirements of public order are reconciled with the Guarantee of constitutionally protected rights including the freedom to undertake and, on the other hand, to comply with the requirements arising from Articles 8 and 9 of the 1789 Declaration, including the principle of legality of the Offences and penalties, which requires the adoption of sufficiently precise provisions And unambiguous formulas;
76. Considering that Article 33-13 provides for the entry into the scope of an authorisation scheme for private security activities consisting of: In the search and processing of information on the economic, social, commercial, industrial or financial environment of one or more natural or legal persons " ; that it provides that the purpose of this authorisation scheme is to enable natural or legal persons " Protect themselves from risks to their economic activity, heritage, intangible assets or reputation " And " Foster their activity by influencing the evolution of business " Or their " Decisions " ; that the imprecision of both the definition of activities which may be relevant to economic intelligence and the objective justifying the infringement of the freedom to undertake a breach of the principle of legality of offences and penalties; Section 33-13 and the other provisions created by section 32 of the Act, which are inseparable provisions, must be declared contrary to the Constitution;
With respect to section 91:
77. Considering that article 91 of the law referred toarticle 20 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 20 of the Criminal Procedure Code; Judicial police officer to " Members of the municipal police directors' employment framework serving the functional and operational direction of municipal police services when the agreement is Href=" /viewCodeArticle.do?cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006070633&idArticle=LEGIARTI000006390163&dateTexte= &categorieLink = cid"> article L. 2212-6 of the General Code of Territorial Communities ; that it gives them competence to support " In the performance of their duties " The judicial police officers referred to in Article 16 of the Code, with the exception of the mayors and their assistants;
78. Considering that, for the same reasons as those set out in recitals 59 and 60, section 91 of the Act which confers the quality of a judicial police officer to the members of the employment framework of the municipal police directors without placing them on the Judicial police officers are aware of Article 66 of the Constitution; that it must be declared contrary to the Constitution;
As regards paragraphs III of Article 90 and II of Article 123
Considering that article 90, paragraph III, of the law is referred toarticle 226-4 of the Criminal Code, as : The same penalties shall be imposed for the use of the domicile of another person, except in cases where the law permits, without the authorization of the owner or the tenant, after it has been introduced under the conditions referred to in the preceding paragraph, and Leave immediately at the request of the owner or lessee " ;
80. Considering that article 123, paragraph II, of the Act is referred toarticle 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that The President of the Court of Assizes informs jurors when the penalty for the prohibition of the French territory is incurred by the accused and the court deliberates to pronounce the sentence;
81. Considering that it is clear from the economy of Article 45 of the Constitution, and in particular its first paragraph under which: " Any draft or draft law shall be examined successively in the two assemblies of the Parliament with a view to the adoption of an identical text ", that the additions or modifications which may be made after the first reading by the members of the Parliament and the Government must be in direct contact with a provision remaining under discussion; that, however, they are not subject to the latter obligation the amendments intended to ensure respect for the Constitution, to operate a Coordination with texts under review or correction of a material error;
82. Considering, in the present case, that the amendments resulting from the aforementioned provisions were introduced at second reading by the National Assembly; that these additions were not, at this stage of the procedure, in direct relation to a That they were not intended to ensure compliance with the Constitution, to coordinate with texts under examination or to correct a material error; that it follows that paragraphs III Article 90 and II of Article 123 have been adopted in accordance with a procedure Contrary to the Constitution;
83. Considering that it is not appropriate for the Constitutional Council to raise any other matter of conformity with the Constitution of its own motion,
Decides:

Item 1 -the twelfth preambular paragraph of 1 ° and the b and c of 2 ° of article 18;
-Article 32;
-paragraph II of Article 37;
-Article 41;
-the last paragraph of the paragraph III of Article 43;
-Articles 53, 90, 91, 92 and 101;
-paragraph II of Article 123.
By way of consequence of the declaration of unconstitutionality of the twelfth preambular paragraph of Article 18, the first paragraph of this 1 ° Be replaced by the phrase:
" The first paragraph of II shall be replaced by ten paragraphs as follows: ".

Article 2 Read more about this Article ...


The following provisions of the Act are found to be in conformity with the Constitution:
-Articles 1 and 4;
-Article 11, Articles 230-6 to 230-11 of the Code of Criminal Procedure subject to the reservations referred to in recital 11;
-the surplus of Article 14, subject to the reservations set out in recital 71;
-the Article 37, paragraph I;
-Article 38;
-the surplus of Article 43;
-Articles 58, 60 and 61.

Article 3


This Decision will be published in the Official Journal of the French
. Constitutional Council meeting of 10 March 2011, attended by Mr Jean-Louis DEBRÉ, President, Mr Jacques BARROT, Mrs Claire BAZY MALAURIE, MM. Guy CANIVET, Renaud DENOIX de SAINT MARC, Valéry GISCARD d' ESTAING, Mme Jacqueline de GUILLENCHMIDT, MM. Hubert HAENEL and Pierre STEINMETZ.


The President,

Jean-Louis Debré


Downloading the document in RTF (weight < 1MB) Excerpt from the authenticated Official Journal (format: pdf, weight: 0.41 MB)