| Basic information | Substance of the ruling | Accessibility of the case and further relevant links | |||||||
| Date | Name of the case (or case number) | The body delivering the decision | Keywords, topic | Executive part | Brief summary | Full text | Page at the website of the issuing court | Page in other databases | Unofficial materials, press communications |
| 21 January 2022 | No. 2022-835 | Constitutional Council of France | Claim upheld | Several deputies and senators challenged different provisions of the law reinforcing the tools to manage the health crisis and which modified the code of public health before the Constitutional Court. In general terms, the provisions in question restricted different fundamental rights. They were all declared constitutional except the provision subjecting attendance of political meetings to the presentation of a health pass. The Constitutional Court considered all the measures in question to be constitutional, except the measure which conditioned access to political meetings on the basis of having a health pass. The others all kept a balance between the protection of public health and different fundamental rights, however, the Court considered in this latter case that the balance between the protection of public health and the right to privacy and freedom of expression was not adequate. | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/france-constitutional-court-constitutional-court-judgement-no-2022-835-2022-01-21 | ||||
| 9 November 2021 | No. 2021-828 | Constitutional Council of France | Claim partially upheld | Several Members of Parliament and Senators challenged the constitutionality of the law containing various public health surveillance provisions before the Constitutional Court. The provisions at stake dealt, mainly, with the extension until May 31, 2022 of the state of emergency, the measures the Prime Minister could adopt under it and the information system concerning COVID-19 health data. They also challenged the possibility to access to pupils’ health data by school The Court declared the unconstitutionality, on the one hand of the provisions which allow the school directors to access the health data of the pupils, since they infringe on the right to privacy. On the other hand, those other provisions allow the government to take, by ordinance until July 31, 2022, several kinds of measures for infringing art. 38 French Constitution. | https://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/decision/2021/2021828DC.htm | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/france-constitutional-court-no-2021-828-2021-11-09 | |||
| September 11. 2021. | Decision 2021-828 DC | Constitutional Council | Protection of personal data | The Constitutional Council of France held that the authorization of school head teachers to access the vaccination and contact information of pupils was unconstitutional. | The French Constitutional Council reviewed the constitutionality of a governmental decree providing access to school head teachers to the data from the vaccination and contacts of pupils during the public health emergency. The Constitutional Council held that the amendment provided unlimited access for certain teachers to the personal data of pupilswithout the consent of the latters or their legal representatives. Moreover, the authorized teachers could also make these data accessible for other interested stakeholders. Therefore, the amendment was nullified as unconstitutional. | https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2023-07/flash_news_special_edition-1-2022_en.pdf | |||
| 5 August 2021 | Constitutional Council Decision No. 2021-824 DC | Constitutional Council of France | Freedom of association, Public gathering, Assembly, Freedom of expression Freedom of movement of people, goods and capital Freedom to conduct a business Prisoners’ rights Right to asylum Right to bodily integrity Right to data protection Right to health (inc. right to vaccination, right to access to reproductive health) Right to privacy | Claim partially upheld | This is a constitutional review concerning legislation not yet in force. The Constitutional Council assessed the conformity with the Constitution of several provisions of the drafted law on health crisis management. In particular, the Council reviewed the provisions concerning: i)the postponement of the state of health emergency law; ii) the use of a health certificate (on vaccination, testing, or recovery concerning COVID-19) for access to places and public transportation, as well as for work purposes; iii) the sanctions against a foreigner to comply with the health requirements necessary for the automatic enforcement of the removal order against her; iv) the extension of the retention period of certain health data; v) the introduction of a solitary confinement measure applicable to persons testing positive for COVID-19; vi) the conditions under which persons subject to a vaccination requirement may continue to exercise their activities until the 14th of September 2021. The Constitutional Council, relying on the principle of proportionality and balancing the various fundamental rights at stake, declared the drafted law conformed with the Constitution with regards to: i) the provision according to which the access to certain places is subject to the health certificate; ii) sanctions against the refusal by a foreigner to comply with the health requirements necessary for the automatic enforcement of the removal order against her; iii) the provisions extending the maximum retention period for certain health data. The Constitutional Council declared the law contrary to the Constitution with regards to: i) the provisions according to which the fixed-term or assignment contract of an employee who does not present the proof, certificate, or result required to obtain the “health certificate” may be terminated before the end of the contract, at the employer’s initiative; ii) the provisions that introduced a solitary confinement measure applicable to persons testing positive for COVID-19. The Constitutional Council, applying the proportionality principle, stated that the contested provisions were not necessary, suitable, nor proportionate. The Constitutional Council declared the other provisions were consistent with the Constitution. | https://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/decision/2021/2021824DC.htm | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/france-constitutional-council-constitutional-council-decision-no-2021-824-dc-2021-08-05 | ||
| 4 June 2021 | No. 2021-911/919 QPC | Constitutional Council of France | Claim upheld | The French Supreme Court and the Council of State referred two preliminary questions on the issue of constitutionality to the Constitutional Council, which joined both because they related to the constitutionality of Article 2 of Order No. 2020-1401 of 18 November 2020 adapting the rules applicable to the courts of the judicial order ruling on criminal matters, which allowed for the use of videoconferencing before the criminal courts without the need to obtain the agreement of the parties. The applicants argued that this provision disregards the rights of the defense because it allows particularly widespread use of video conferencing before criminal courts and does not provide any precision as to the conditions under which the judge may decide to use it. They also claimed that this provision is contrary to the right to an effective judicial remedy and the right to a fair trial. The Constitutional Council concluded that the contested measure infringed the rights of defense in a way that could not be justified by the health context resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. It declared it contrary to the Constitution but maintained its effects for the past. In any case, the order was repealed in May 2021 by law. | https://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/decision/2021/2021911_919QPC.htm | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/france-constitutional-council-no-2021-911919-qpc-2021-06-04 | |||
| 31 May 2021 | No. 2021-819 | Constitutional Council of France | Claim rejected | Act n° 2021-689, May 31, 2021, on the management of the health crisis introduced several measures to deal with Covid-19 concerning the restriction of freedom of movement, the need to display health certificates to access certain places, and the collection of health data. More than sixty deputies brought the law before the Constitutional Council alleging that it infringed several fundamental rights, such as the freedom of movement, the freedom of assembly, and the right to privacy, among other formal claims that were later rejected by the Constitutional Council. The Council asserted that the challenged measures do not violate any constitutional requirements or fundamental rights, as they aim at the protection of health which is an objective valued by the constitution. | https://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/decision/2021/2021819DC.htm | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/france-constitutional-council-no-2021-819-2021-05-31 | |||
| 01 April 2021 | Décision n° 2021-814 DC | Constitutional Council of France | Claim upheld | Conseil Constitutionnel approved a Covid pass that limits access to cafes, restaurants and inter-city trains and planes to people who have been vaccinated or tested negative for the virus. The Constitutional Court said the restrictions put forward by President Emmanuel Macron and approved by parliament represented a "balanced trade-off" between public health concerns and personal freedom. | https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20210805-french-constitutional-court-backs-macron-s-covid-pass |
https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20210805-french-constitutional-court-backs-macron-s-covid-pass; https://www.voanews.com/europe/france-passes-bill-vaccine-rules-health-pass; |
|||
| FRA-2021-1-006 a) France / b) Constitutional Council / c) / d) 01.04.2021 / e) 2021-814 DC / f) | Whilst parliamentary assemblies may amend their regulations in order to ensure continuity of their business during crisis situations, this is upon condition that these adaptations are sufficiently precise in order to enable the Constitutional Council to review their constitutionality. | https://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/decision/2021/2021814DC.htm | |||||||
| 29 January 2021 | No. 878/879 QPC | Constitutional Council of France | The provisions of an order cannot automatically extend pre-trial custody during the initial period of a health emergency unless the need to continue it is reviewed by the courts within a short space of time, as a mandatory requirement. | https://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/decision/2021/2020878_879QPC.htm | |||||
| 15 January 2021 | No. 2020-872 QPC | Constitutional Council of France | Taking account of the importance of the safeguard associated with the appearance in person of the interested party before the criminal courts and given the conditions under which such telecommunications equipment is to be used, the impugned provisions impair the rights of the defence in a manner that cannot be justified by the health context resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic for the duration until the end of the publich health emergency. | https://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/decision/2021/2020872QPC.htm | |||||
| 21 December 2020 | No. 2020-811 | Constitutional Council of France | Political rights | Automatic control of constitutionality | This is the case with the law at hand, the “Institutional laws relating to the time limits for the organization of legislative and senatorial elections”, adopted to postpone these elections due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The law in question foresees that these elections must be held as soon as the health situation permits and no later than 13 June 2021. The Constitutional Council recalled that it does not have a general power of appreciation and decision of the same nature as that of Parliament. It is therefore not for it to investigate whether the objective that the Legislature has set itself could be achieved by other means, provided that the methods adopted by the law are not manifestly inappropriate to this objective. The Constitutional Council also explained that, in view of the low number of current vacancies as well as those likely to occur within this period, taking into account the rules of replacement of members of Parliament, the mechanism adopted by the Legislature is not such as to compromise the normal functioning of the National Assembly and the Senate. Therefore, the Constitutional Council held that the Organic Law conforms to the Constitution. | https://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/sites/default/files/as/root/bank_mm/decisions/2020811dc/2020811dc.pdf | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/france-constitutional-council-no-2020-811-2020-12-21 | ||
| 4 December 2020 | No. 2020-869 QPC | Constitutional Council | Scope of powers of public authorities | Claim rejected | The French Council of State referred to the Constitutional Council for a priority preliminary ruling on the constitutionality of provisions making applicable in New Caledonia the regime of state of health emergency and the transitional regime organizing its exit. The Constitutional Council held that the contested provisions do not infringe the principle of free administration of territorial authorities or any other right or freedom guaranteed by the Constitution. They must be declared constitutional. | https://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/sites/default/files/as/root/bank_mm/decisions/2020869qpc/2020869qpc.pdf | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/france-constitutional-council-no-2020-869-qpc-2020-12-04 | ||
| 19 November 2020 | Decision No. 2020-866 QPC | Constitutional Council | Right to a Fair Trial, Equality | Claim rejected | The Plaintiff was a company and invoked facts of unfair competition and predatoriness against several undertakings requested the President of the Court to summon the Defendants according to Summary Proceedings justified by urgency. The Plaintiff asked the President of the Court to rule without hearing the lawyers. The President of the Court did so, but the Defendants appealed that decision to the Supreme Court and asked it to refer a preliminary question on the issue of constitutionality of that provision to the Constitutional Council. | https://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/decision/2020/2020866QPC.htm | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/france-constitutional-council-decision-no-2020-866-qpc-2020-11-19 | ||
| FRA-2020-3-013 a) France / b) Constitutional Council / c) / d) 19.11.2020 / e) 2020-866 QPC / f) | Having regard to the special health context arising in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic, in enabling the courts to apply procedures that do not involve hearings for certain types of civil disputes as a result of the health crisis, the relevant order does not remove legal safeguards for the constitutional requirements of judicial hearings. | https://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/decision/2020/2020866QPC.htm | |||||||
| FRA-2020-3-012 a) France / b) Constitutional Council / c) / d) 13.11.2020 / e) 2020-808 DC / f) | The Constitution does not preclude the possibility for the legislature to put in place rules to govern a health emergency. In this context, it is for the legislature to ensure that the objective of constitutional standing of protecting health is reconciled with the requirement to respect the rights and freedoms granted to all those who reside on French soil. | https://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/decision/2020/2020808DC.htm | |||||||
| 17.06.2020 | Mr Daniel D. and Others (Changes to municipal election dates) / | Constitutional Council | The Constitutional Council held that the legislature could change the dates of municipal elections in progress provided that this change was warranted on overriding grounds of public interest and that the measures adopted did not result in any infringement of the right to vote, the principle of genuine elections or the principle of equal suffrage. In the present case it upheld the postponement of the municipal elections. | https://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/decision/2020/2020849QPC.htm | |||||
| 4 December 2020 | No. 2020-869 QPC | Constitutional Council of France | Claim inadmissible or rejected | The French Council of State (Conseil d’Etat) referred to the Constitutional Council for a priority preliminary ruling on the constitutionality of provisions making applicable in New Caledonia the regime of state of health emergency and the transitional regime . The applicants claimed that those provisions, in so far as they make the state of public health emergency and the transitional arrangements for its removal applicable in New Caledonia, disregard the division of powers between the State and New Caledonia, given the exclusive competence devolved to the institutions of that territory in the field of public health. The Constitutional Council explained that the powers devolved to New Caledonia include regulations on “Social protection, public hygiene and health, health control at borders”. However, the State is competent in matters of “guarantees of public freedoms”. While the contested provisions pursue the objective of protecting public health, these exceptional, temporary measures, limited to the extent strictly necessary to respond to a health disaster and its consequences, are related to the guarantee of public freedoms and therefore do not fall within the jurisdiction of New Caledonia. | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/france-constitutional-council-no-2020-869-qpc-2020-12-04 | ||||
| 9 July 2020 | No. 2020-803 DC | Constitutional Council of France | Claim inadmissible or rejected | More than sixty senators brought Act n° 2020-856, July 9 before the Constitutional Council which introduced several organizational measures to exit the state of emergency instituted in order to fight the spread of Covid-19. They alleged the Act violated the freedom of movement (Arts. 2 and 4 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen of 1789, DRMC), the freedom of expression, the freedom of association and demonstration (Art.11 DRMC) and several principles related to the rule of law (the intelligibility of the law or the principle of legality for sanctions). The Constitutional Council , however, considered the protection measures introduced to be constitutional, as they aimed to protect health which is an objective valued by the constitution. | https://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/decision/2020/2020803DC.htm | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/france-constitutional-council-no-2020-803-dc-2020-07-09 | |||
| 3 July 2020 | No. 2020-851/852 QPC | Constitutional Council of France | Claim inadmissible | The Supreme Court (Cour de cassation) launched a priority preliminary ruling on the constitutionality of Act nº2020-290, March 23, 2020 which allowed the French Government, among other things, to extend the duration of preventive detention. The Constitutional Council held that the measure did not violate the prohibition of arbitrary detentions (A rt. 66 French Constitution, FC). | https://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/decision/2020/2020851_852QPC.htm | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/france-constitutional-council-no-2020-851852-qpc-2020-07-03 | |||
| 17 June 2020 | No. 2020-849 QPC | Constitutional Council of France | Claim inadmissible or rejected | The Council of State launched a priority preliminary ruling on the constitutionality of Article 19 of Act No. 2020-290 of March 23, 2020 on emergency measures for responding to the Covid-19 epidemic which provided for the postponement of some municipal elections, in consideration of the fact that they could affect different aspects of the right to vote (A rt. 3 French Constitution). The Constitutional Council, however, considered that electoral postponement of the second round of elections and their legal consequences (term of office for those elected, contesting results, etc.) were, in this case, constitutional. | https://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/en/decision/2020/2020849QPC.htm | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/france-constitutional-council-no-2020-849-qpc-2020-06-17 | |||
| 11 May 2020 | No. 2020-800 DC | Constitutional Council of France | In its examination of the law extending the public health state of emergency, the Constitutional Council found that the French Constitution did not rule out the possibility of the legislature making provision for such a system. However, here it had to reconcile protection of public health, as an objective of constitutional value, with respect for the rights and freedoms granted to everyone living in France. | https://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/decision/2020/2020800DC.htm | http://civicspacewatch.eu/france-ldh-denounces-the-constitutional-court-decision-not-to-control-the-impact-of-emergency-laws-on-the-respect-of-civil-liberties/ | ||||