The Constitutional Council ruled following the appeal filed by several deputies to contest the proposed comprehensive security law. (Drawing) – Lionel urman
On May 5, six deputies, mainly from the left, came to defend before the Constitutional Council their appeal to contest the comprehensive security bill adopted by parliament on April 15. The Council delivered its opinion on Thursday and decided to censor ex-article 24 of the LREM bill which punishes “provocation to the identification” of the police.
In their decision, the Wise Men considered that “the legislator (had) not sufficiently defined the constituent elements of the contested offense” and since the article “(disregarded) the principle of the legality of the offenses and the penalties “.
Lack of details
The Constitutional Council considered insufficiently precise paragraph 1 of article 52, which punishes five years’ imprisonment and a fine of 75,000 euros “provocation, with the obvious aim of causing harm to his physical integrity or psychic, to the identification of an agent of the national police, of a soldier of the national gendarmerie or of an agent of the municipal police when these personnel act within the framework of a police operation, of an agent customs when in operation ”.
“These provisions do not make it possible to determine whether the legislator intended to repress provocation to the identification of a member of the police force only when it is committed when it is” in operation “or he intended to repress more broadly the provocation to the identification of agents having taken part in an operation, without moreover that this concept of operation is defined ”justified the Constitutional Council. “On the other hand (…) the contested provisions cast doubt on the scope of the intention required of the perpetrator of the offense” he added.
Darmanin congratulates himself, the police unions are sorry
Interior Minister Gérald Darmanin immediately reacted on Twitter by proposing to the Prime Minister “to improve the provisions” of the bill. “I welcome the many validated provisions which will help our security policy,” he added.
Article 24 was widely supported by the police unions. “The censorship of article 24 shows that France is stagnating on the rights of certain human beings and continues to deprive the police of the right to protect their identity”, reacted on Twitter Linda Kebbab, of the union SGP Police FO. “I had mentioned my fear of the lack of precision” in the drafting of the article, she added. “This debate deserved better than a partisan game,” she again lamented.
Censorship also on the use of drones
Article 24, which became article 52 once the law was adopted by parliament on April 15, had aroused fierce opposition and provoked demonstrations in November and December 2020. In total, the Sages of rue Montpensier have totally or partially censored seven of the 22 articles of which they were seized, by deputies, senators and the Prime Minister, Jean Castex. The latter had only seized the Constitutional Council on the subject of the former article 24, which had the ambition to protect the police forces in operation by penalizing the malicious dissemination of their image and is largely supported by the police unions.
Another big snub, the Constitutional Council also censored a large part of the article which organized the use of drones by the police, in particular during demonstrations. Like ex-article 24, this provision aroused the ire of defenders of public freedoms.