Pension reform in France: This is the role played by the Constitutional Council

Tonight, France’s Constitutional Council will decide whether President Macron can push through his controversial pension reform. But how is the committee composed and what outcome is conceivable?

How is the Constitutional Council composed?

Established in 1958, the French Constitutional Council (Conseil Constitutionnel) is the supreme guardian of the French constitution, but the body is more like a council of wise men than the German constitutional court.

On the one hand, the nine members are nominated directly by political institutions: three by the President of the Republic, three by the President of the National Assembly, three by the President of the Senate. And on the other hand, they do not necessarily have to be qualified to hold judicial office.

Former politicians, such as the socialist Laurent Fabius or the conservative Alain Juppé, sit on the current Constitutional Council. Both are well over 70 and have been full-time politicians for many years. Both were once prime ministers and heads of important ministries.

How does the board work?

It is true that the members of the Conseil Constitutionnel are required to ignore their political preferences. But critics complain that conflicts of interest are programmed. As a rule, there is one rapporteur for each law submitted to the Council; in the case of pension reform, there are two.

They study the text of the law, propose a decision to the rest of the board; this is debated and the Constitutional Council must submit a decision no later than four weeks after it has been called.

How could the Council decide on pension reform?

Three possible scenarios are conceivable today. First: The Constitutional Council is waving the reform through as it is. Then the president has to sign the law and the reform could go into effect as planned.

Second, the Constitutional Council declares the reform as a whole to be unconstitutional. For example, because the government introduced the pension reform as a finance law to secure the social systems, although it is a far-reaching social reform. Or because it used several articles to shorten the debate in the National Assembly and Senate. In this case, the project of Head of State Emmanuel Macron would have failed. The government would have to restart the whole process and choose a different parliamentary path.

However, the most likely is the third variant, namely that the nine wise men of the Constitutional Council only partially declare the law illegal. For example, the part that stipulates that companies must offer older employees permanent contracts. One possible argument is that this measure does not fit into a financial law to safeguard the social systems. In this case, the government would have to make corrections before enacting the law.

What role does a possible referendum play in this?

In addition to the decision on pension reform, the judges will also announce whether they will grant the NUPES request to launch a referendum. It envisages limiting the statutory retirement age to 62 years.

If the constitutional judges allow this referendum, the law could still come into force for the time being. But the initiators would have nine months to collect around five million signatures. After that, Parliament would have another six months to examine the project; after that it would be voted on. If the judges grant the request for a referendum today, the country could possibly be busy with pension reform for months.