THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE FIGHT AGAINST TERRORISM IN

THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE FIGHT AGAINST TERRORISM
IN FRENCH LEGAL ORDER
Twelve years after 9/11, French law and constitutional case law provide a wealth of
information about the challenges and the limits of the fight against terrorism. As a lot of
western countries, the Parliament has regularly changed legal order to get used to global
terrorism. In France, we shall remind that a set of specific measures has been adopted since
1986, to face up to the diversification of terrorism form. As several attacks took place from
February 1985 to September 19861, and in 1995, the Legislator has defined terrorism
offenses, special sentences and changed criminal law, to submit terrorism to specific judicial
procedures2. Actually, 9/11 events, and terrorism bombings which occurred in Europe in the
2000s, led the French Parliament to strengthen and increase the specificity of counterterrorism measures. Despite of none attacks on the territory, general law has been largely
modified these last twelve years. Several laws, from 2001 to 2012, has been approved by the
Parliament and controlled by constitutional judges.
Moreover, French legal order is characterized by the absence, in the current Constitution, of
clause related to terrorism. Conciliation between fundamental rights exercise and necessity to
fight terrorism fall under general conciliation between fundamental rights and public order.
This balance belongs to the Parliament, in virtue of article 34 of the Constitution, and other
articles from the Déclaration des droits de l’homme et du citoyen, which recognize rights and
liberties to human beings. Therefore, the “public order” notion has deeply evolved.
Necessities to fight terrorism have gradually enhanced this notion. The French constitutional
Council recognizes expressly that the reinforcement of the fight against terrorism3, and the
1
2
3
D. BIGO, « Les attentats de 1986 en France : un cas de violence transnationale et ses implications »,
Cultures et conflits, 1991, n°4 [en ligne].
Loi n°86-2010 du 9 septembre 1986 relative à la lutte contre le terrorisme et aux atteintes à la sûreté de
l’Etat, J.O.R.F. du 10 septembre 1986, p. 10956 ; Loi n° 96-647 du 22 juillet 1996 tendant à renforcer la
répression du terrorisme et des atteintes aux personnes dépositaires de l’autorité publique ou chargées d’une
mission de service public et comportant des dispositions relatives à la police judiciaire, J.O.R.F. n° 170 du
23 juillet 1996, p. 11104 ; Loi n° 96-1235 du 30 décembre 1996 relative à la détention provisoire et aux
perquisitions de nuit en matière de terrorisme, J.O.R.F. n° 1 du 1er janvier 1997, p. 9.
Décision n° 96-377 D.C. du 16 juillet 1996, Loi tendant à renforcer la répression du terrorisme et des
atteintes aux personnes dépositaires de l’autorité publique ou chargées d’une mission de service public et
comportant des dispositions relatives à la police judiciaire, Rec. p. 87, cons. 23.
1
prevention of terrorist offenses4, belong to the general objectives to preserve public order. It
allows the Parliament to adopt measures which limit several fundamental rights exercise.
Consequently, balance between fundamental rights and public order has evolved, to some
extent, in favor of public order. Then, it could be interesting to ask ourselves how counter
terrorism legislation has modified French legal order. This paper aims to demonstrate that the
fight against terrorism has deeply changed some fundamental rights exercise. However, the
specificity of counter terrorism legislation decreases progressively. This idea may be proved
in the analyze of substantive law (I) and constitutional case law (II).
I – The implications of the fight against terrorism in substantive law
The fight against terrorism changed the way public authorities try to preserve public order on
national territory, whether for prevent public order troubles or look for suspects. In this
regard, comparative law analysis is enlightening. Face to global terrorism, western countries
have adopted similar measures, from formal and material points of view. Thus, counter
terrorism legislation remains a particular legislation, which limits fundamental rights exercise
more than others public order measures (A). Nevertheless, one of the most noteworthy
phenomenon of these last ten years is that characteristics of the counter terrorism legislation
have been extended to other public order objectives (B).
A. The persistent specificity of the counter terrorism legislation
Specificity of the counter terrorism legislation may be analyzed from both formal et material
points of view.
Under the formal angle, counter terrorism measures differ in several respects from measures
which aim to preserve general public order. On the one hand, since 2001, the French
Parliament has adopted temporary legislation to prevent terrorism acts and look for suspects
of terrorism offenses. The idea was to allow time for the legislature to determine, in an
experimental perspective, the usefulness of these measures prior to perpetuate. In 2001, the
4
Décision n° 2005-532 D.C. du 19 janvier 2006, Loi relative à la lutte contre le terrorisme et portant
dispositions diverses relatives à la sécurité et aux contrôles frontaliers, Rec. p. 31, cons. 9-10.
2
Parliament adopted twelve measures, in force until December, 20035. Most of them have been
definitively integrated to general law in 2002 and 20036. However, duration of some of these
measures have been extended and are still in force for a limited period. In 2006, the
Parliament adopted measures related to identity checks aboard a train, data communication
and access to police files, to prevent terrorism acts. Provided to December, 20087, those have
been extended to December, 20128 and are in force until December, 20159.
In this way, counter terrorism legislation looks like emergency rules, as they are provided in
exception systems. In a comparative perspective, laws adopted in Great Britain 10, and in the
United Stated11, have included temporary measures too. Some of the Patriot Act’s clauses
have been extended in time, while others have been made permanent12. Thus, comparative
law reveals questions related to hybridization of legal frameworks. As Michel Rosenfeld
underlined, post 9/11 period can be qualified as “stress time”13, which involves a legal
framework between general law and exceptional measures.
On the other hand, the French counter terrorism legislation is characterized by derogatory
measures. Since 1986, the Penal Code has included criminal law dispositions related to
terrorism, which are very different from the ones which prevail to punish others infractions.
Particular rules concerning investigation and judgment of terrorist offenses are in force so
far14. These measures limit strongly some fundamental rights exercise, as individual freedom
and rights of the defense. In this regard, 9/11 events led the French Parliament to strengthen
the derogatory dimension of counter terrorism legislation.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Loi n°2001-1062 du 15 novembre 2001 relative à la sécurité quotidienne, J.O.R.F. n° 266 du 16 novembre
2001, p. 18215.
Loi n° 2002-1138 du 9 septembre 2002 d’orientation et de programmation pour la justice, J.O.R.F. du 10
septembre 2002 p. 14934, article 35; loi n° 2003-239 du 18 mars 2003 pour la sécurité intérieure, J.O.R.F.
n° 66 du 19 mars 2003, p. 4761, articles 11 et 31.
Loi n° 2006-64 du 23 janvier 2006 relative à la lutte contre le terrorisme et portant dispositions diverses
relatives à la sécurité et aux contrôles frontaliers, J.O.R.F. n° 2 du 24 janvier 2006, p. 1129.
Loi n° 2008-1245 du 1er décembre 2008 visant à prolonger l’application des articles 3, 6 et 9 de la loi n°
2006-64 du 23 janvier 2006 relative à la lutte contre le terrorisme et portant dispositions diverses relatives à
la sécurité et aux contrôles frontaliers, J.O.R.F. n° 0280 du 2 décembre 2008, p. 18361.
Article 1 de la loi n° 2012-1432 du 21 décembre 2012 relative à la sécurité et à la lutte contre le terrorisme,
J.O.R.F. n° 0298 du 22 décembre 2012, p. 20281.
J.-C. PAYE, « Le modèle anglais », C.R.D.F., n° 6, 2007, pp. 71-80, spéc. p. 72 ; J.-C. PAYE, « The
Prevention Security Act britannique du 11 mars 2005 », R.T.D.H., n° 63, 2005, pp. 635-647.
J. CANTEGREIL, Lutte antiterroriste et droits fondamentaux. France, États-Unis, Allemagne, Thèse
dactylographiée, Université Paris I Panthéon Sorbonne, 2010, t. 2, spéc. p. 490.
W. MASTOR, « L’état d’exception aux États-Unis : le USA PATRIOT Act et autres violations "en règle"
de la Constitution », C.R.D.F., n° 6, 2007, pp. 61-70, spéc. p. 65.
M. ROSENFELD, « La pondération judiciaire en temps de stress : une perspective constitutionnelle
comparative », in M. DELMAS-MARTY et H. LAURENS (dir.) et H. JABER (coord.), Terrorismes,
Histoire et droit, C.N.R.S. éditions, Paris, 2010, pp. 219-289, spéc. pp. 222 et s.
Loi n°86-2010 du 9 septembre 1986 relative à la lutte contre le terrorisme et aux atteintes à la sûreté de
l’Etat, op. cit.
3
Two aspects demonstrate it.
Firstly, the Parliament extended the scope of the derogation. Counter terrorism legislation
includes not only specific criminal law dispositions, but also administrative police measures
to prevent terrorism acts. For example, public authorities may set up video surveillance on
public way in order to protect access to public buildings15, and implement files of personal
data collected from international travel16. Furthermore, police may proceed to administrative
requisitions of data connection to telecom operators17, or put in place automated control of
vehicle identification data on public road18. As a member of the Parliament underlined, these
measures prove the establishment of a real administrative police regime to prevent terrorism19.
Secondly, the Parliament increased the derogatory character of counter terrorism legislation.
Certainly, several criminal law dispositions concerning investigation of terrorism offenses are
in force since 1986. For instance, rules related to custody of a person suspected of terrorism
offenses are specific since then : this person can be detained longer than a person suspected of
another infraction20. But, the Parliament have increased the specific character of these rules.
Since 2004, as far as custody is concerned, people who is suspected of terrorism offenses can
be detained 48 hours, renewable once, while people suspected of “common crimes” can only
be detained 24 hours, renewable once21.
Moreover, since 2006, if there is a serious risk of an imminent terrorist attack, the judicial
judge may exceptionally decide that custody is again extended 24 hours, renewable once22. In
other words, custody duration may attain 144 hours, i.e. 6 days. In addition, intervention of
the lawyer during police custody may be deferred for a period of 72 hours, as soon as judicial
procedure is related to terrorism acts23. Thus, French criminal procedure contains more and
more particular provisions to terrorism.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Loi n° 2006-64 du 23 janvier 2006 relative à la lutte contre le terrorisme et portant dispositions diverses
relatives à la sécurité et aux contrôles frontaliers, op. cit., articles 1 & 2.
Idem, article 7.
Idem, article 6.
Idem, article 8.
A. MARSAUD, Rapport n° 2681 fait au nom de la commission des lois constitutionnelles, de la législation
et de l’administration générale de la République, sur le projet de loi, après déclaration d’urgence, relatif à
la lutte contre le terrorisme et portant dispositions diverses relatives à la sécurité et aux contrôles
frontaliers, Assemblée Nationale, 16 novembre 2005, spéc. p. 21.
Loi n°86-2010 du 9 septembre 1986 relative à la lutte contre le terrorisme et aux atteintes à la sûreté de
l’Etat, op. cit.
Loi n° 2004-204 du 9 mars 2004 portant adaptation de la justice aux évolutions de la criminalité, J.O.R.F.
n° 59 du 10 mars 2004, p. 4567, article 1 ; article 706-88 du Code de procédure pénale.
Loi n° 2006-64 du 23 janvier 2006 relative à la lutte contre le terrorisme et portant dispositions diverses
relatives à la sécurité et aux contrôles frontaliers, op. cit., article 17.
Article 706-88 du Code de procédure pénale.
4
Specificity of counter terrorism legislation may also be analyzed in French substantive law
from a material point of view.
First of all, more people are affected by criminal measures. After 9/11 events, the French
Parliament has expanded abilities of police investigation, by replacing standard formula of
“evidence suggesting” to “ reasonable suspicion” that someone commit an offense 24. This
subjective criterion may embrace more suspects. In a comparative scope, this kind of
substitution was used in the U.S. Patriot Act25, and in the Canadian counter terrorism law
adopted in November, 200126. Besides, more corporations are affected by counter terrorism
legislation. Since 2006, air carriers must collect and deliver to the Ministry of the Interior
passengers data recorded during international travel27. If not, administrative sentences apply.
Likewise, the Ministry may also compel transport infrastructures to put in place video
surveillance system to prevent terrorism acts28. Counter terrorism legislation targets groups of
people, too. According to French criminal law, participate to a group in order to prepare a
terrorism act, is a terrorism act in itself29.
Second of all, counter terrorism legislation weakens legal categories and concepts definition.
It’s interesting to underline that the Parliament has adopted measures on the border of
prevention and repression system. Some provisions aim expressly to prevent and repress
terrorism. For instance, police may put in place automated control of vehicle identification
data on public road, and access to these data, both to prevent and repress this infraction30. But,
prevention system and repression system belong to different legal regime. The first involves
administrative police measures, to avoid commission of an offense. The second implies
judicial police measures, which aim to look for a person who is personally suspected to have
committed an offense. The second are controlled by the judicial judge, unlike the first. In
other words, administrative police measures reserved for preventing terrorism escape from
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Article 2 de la loi n° 2002-307 du 4 mars 2002 complétant la loi n° 2000-516 du 15 juin 2000 renforçant la
protection de la présomption d’innocence et les droits des victimes, J.O.R.F. du 5 mars 2002, p. 4169.
G. SCOFFONI, « Les juges et la Constitution des États-Unis à l’épreuve du terrorisme international », in
Constitution et finances publiques. Etudes en l’honneur de Loïc Philip, Economica, Paris, 2005, pp. 219236, spéc. p. 224.
F. CREPEAU et E. JIMENEZ, « L’impact de la lutte contre le terrorisme sur les libertés fondamentales au
Canada », in A. WEYEMBERGH et E. BRIBOSIA (dir.), Lutte contre le terrorisme et droits
fondamentaux, Bruylant, coll. droit et justice, Nemesis, Bruxelles, 2002, pp. 249-285, spéc. p. 276.
Loi n° 2006-64 du 23 janvier 2006 relative à la lutte contre le terrorisme et portant dispositions diverses
relatives à la sécurité et aux contrôles frontaliers, op. cit., article 7.
Idem, article 2.
Article L. 421-1 du Code pénal.
Loi n° 2006-64 du 23 janvier 2006 relative à la lutte contre le terrorisme et portant dispositions diverses
relatives à la sécurité et aux contrôles frontaliers, op. cit., article 8.
5
judicial judge control. Consequently, fight against terrorism makes the distinction between
these two legal categories more and more confused.
Finally, analysis of the French counter terrorism legislation shows the particular implications
of the fight against terrorism in substantive law. These measures redefine fundamental rights
exercise and reveal interlinking of legal frameworks and of legal categories. Additionally,
these characteristics have been extended to other public order objectives.
B. The decreasing specificity of the counter terrorism legislation
What is significant to note in French substantive law, is that characteristics of counter
terrorism legislation have been progressively expanded to other public order objectives. Both
formal and material aspects of the counter terrorism legislation are found, from now on, in
measures which aim to fight, more generally, organized criminality.
First of all, derogatory measures, which were specific to counter terrorism legislation, have
been extended to measures related to organized crime and delinquency. Since 2004, particular
criminal procedure concerns not only investigation of terrorist offenses, but also investigation
of organized crime and delinquency, which contain 17 offenses31. Derogatory criminal
measures, as custody, search, surveillance, infiltration, interception of correspondences
procedures, are able to be applied to look for someone who is suspected to have committed
one of these crimes. Certainly, some counter terrorism legislation remains specific. For
instance, custody duration may be 6 days when a person is suspected of terrorism offenses,
while it is 96 hours maximum when a person is suspected of an organized crime32. But,
analysis of substantive law shows the “spreading effect” of counter terrorism measures33. As a
formal constitutional judge underlined, this legislation has served as a “template” for an
expanded scheme to the field of organized crime34.
Besides, material characteristics of the fight against organized criminality and delinquency
look more and more similar to those of the counter terrorism measures. Actually, the fight
against organized crime enhanced also public order notion. Measures adopted to fight these
31
32
33
34
Loi n° 2004-204 du 9 mars 2004 portant adaptation de la justice aux évolutions de la criminalité, op. cit.,
article 1.
Article 706-88 du Code de procédure pénale.
In this regard : M. VERDUSSEN, « Les tentations des sociétés démocratiques dans la lutte contre le
terrorisme », Annuaire International des Droits de l’homme, vol. II, 2007, pp. 345-364.
P. MAZEAUD, « La lutte contre le terrorisme dans la jurisprudence du Conseil constitutionnel », Visite à la
Cour Suprême du Canada, 24-26 avril 2006, [www.conseilconstitutionnel.com], p. 8.
6
crimes affect also a lot of people – individuals, corporations and groups of people. Likewise,
interlinking of administrative police and judicial police measures is found in legislation which
aim to fight organized criminality. For example, automated control of vehicle identification
data on public road may be established to prevent public order troubles, but also to look for
people who is suspected of these particular acts35.
Therefore, not only the fight against terrorism has led to deep disruptions in French legal
order, from both formal and material points of view, but also its distinctive features are found
in legislation which aim to preserve other public order objectives. The second part of this
paper intends to analyze constitutional case law, in order to determine how constitutional
judges face up to global terrorism issues.
II - The implications of the fight against terrorism in constitutional case law
The French constitutional Council has always awarded a particular place to the fight against
terrorism in its decisions. Since 1996, constitutional judges recognize the specific nature of
terrorism, especially the “particular gravity of this offense”36, which allow the Parliament to
limit harder fundamental rights exercise than other public order objectives. Thus,
constitutional requirements become more flexible as soon as the Parliament adopts measures
which aim to prevent or repress terrorism acts (A). Nevertheless, recent case law reveals the
limits of counter terrorism legislation. Constitutional judges attempt to not let the Parliament
to forget constitutional requirements related to fundamental rights exercise (B).
A. The specific treatment of the anti-terrorist legislation in the constitutional
jurisprudence
Prima facie, counter terrorism legislation don’t benefit from a particular place in French
constitutional case law. Indeed, the Council verify the constitutional validity of this
legislation, as it controls any kind of laws. The same criteria are used to exercise
constitutional review.
35
36
Loi n° 2006-64 du 23 janvier 2006 relative à la lutte contre le terrorisme et portant dispositions diverses
relatives à la sécurité et aux contrôles frontaliers, op. cit., article 8.
Décision n° 96-377 D.C. du 16 juillet 1996, op. cit., cons. 23.
7
First of all, constitutional judges verify two generic requirements. The Council checks the
qualities of the law, that is to say the formal way from which the law has been adopted, then
the clearness and the precision of its clauses. The constitutional Council checks as well the
proportionality of the measure, that is to say the balance between fundamental rights
protection and public order preservation. As the case law related to counter terrorism
legislation proves, the Council verify theses two requirements systematically37.
Second of all, the constitutional judges verify some specific requirements related to the nature
of the legislation or to the fundamental rights affected, regardless if terrorism is concerned.
The Council checks the proper aim of administrative police and judicial police measures, and
the way these measures may be used by public authorities38. Especially for judicial police
measures, the Council checks the place awarded by the law to the judicial judge, and controls
that he is in charge of the use of these measures39. Likewise, the Council verify the clearness
and the necessity of sentences40. It verify also special constitutional requirements when
individual freedom is affected by the legislation, as its rigor, and the judicial judge abilities to
check the use of the deprivation of liberty41.
Despite of the usual criteria intended to verify validity of the counter terrorism legislation, the
intensity of the constitutionality control is lesser than the one mobilized to check others
legislations. In another way, constitutional requirements become more flexible face up to
counter terrorism legislation. Several decisions demonstrate this analysis.
In 1996, the Council did not invalidate a clause which allows administrative authority to
deprive someone, who is sentenced to terrorism offense, of French nationality, when this
offense took place within ten years after the nationality acquisition42. This clauses could
collide with the principle of equality, due to the difference of treatment between people who
37
38
39
40
41
42
For instance : décision n° 2005-532 DC du 19 janvier 2006, loi relative à la lutte contre le terrorisme et
portant dispositions diverses relatives à la sécurité et aux contrôles frontaliers, Rec. p. 31, cons. 22 ;
décision n° 2004-492 DC du 2 mars 2004, loi portant adaptation de la justice aux évolutions de la
criminalité, Rec. p. 66, cons. 19, cons. 34.
For instance: Décision n° 2003-467 DC du 13 mars 2003, Loi pour la sécurité intérieure, rec. p. 211, cons.
15-16 ; décision n° 2011-625 DC du 10 mars 2011, Loi d’orientation et de programmation pour la
performance de la sécurité intérieure, rec. p. 122, cons. 14-19.
Décision n° 96-377 DC du 16 juillet 1996, op. cit., cons. 17.
Décision n° 80-127 DC du 20 janvier 1981, Loi renforçant la sécurité et protégeant la liberté des
personnes, Rec. p. 15, cons. 7; Décision n° 96-377 DC du 16 juillet 1996, op. cit., cons. 8, cons. 23.
Décision n°2010-31 QPC du 22 septembre 2010, M. Bulent A. et autres, rec. p. 237, cons. 5 ; décision n°
76-75 DC du 12 janvier 1977, Loi autorisant la visite des véhicules en vue de la recherche et de la
prévention des infractions pénales, rec. p. 33, cons. 1-2.
Décision n° 96-377 DC du 16 juillet 1996, op. cit., cons. 8.
8
acquired French nationality by birth and those who acquired it by administrative decision.
However, the Council considered this clause in accordance with the Constitution.
In 2004, the Council approved the measures which extended the custody duration and
postponed the lawyer intervention during the custody, as far as terrorism acts are concerned.
For the constitutional judges, these measures were proportionate to the aim followed by the
French Parliament and did not infringe on individual liberty and rights of the defense 43.
Likewise, in 2006, a decision reveals the weakness of the constitutional requirements in front
of anti-terrorist legislation. The clause which allows police to put in place automated control
of vehicle identification data on public road, both to prevent and repress terrorism acts, has
been considered in accordance with the Constitution. But, the Council did not perform a
thorough check of the specific requirements related to administrative police and judicial
police measures44. The judges declared that balance between public order preservation and
protection of the right to privacy was not disproportionate.
Another example is symptomatic of the particular place awarded to counter terrorism
legislation in the constitutional jurisprudence. As we underlined above, three clauses related
to prevention of terrorism acts are still temporary in French legal order and are regularly
extended. But, in 2006, the Council did not check at all the constitutional validity of these
clauses. Consequently, in 2008 and in 2012, French members of the Parliament did not bring
the laws which extended the duration of such measures before the Council, so that their
proportionality has not been controlled by the constitutional judges.
Thus, intensity of constitutionality control of the counter terrorism legislation has been weak
this past decade. The constitutional Council does not perform a thorough check of all
constitutional requirements, so that the Parliament may adopt large measures to prevent and
repress terrorism acts. Most of them have been approved by the Council. However, recent
decisions seem to put this analysis into perspective.
43
44
Décision n° 2004-204 DC du 2 mars 2004, op. cit., cons. 34.
Décision n°2005-532 DC du 19 janvier 2006, op. cit., cons. 14-22.
9
B. The decrease of the specific treatment of the anti-terrorist legislation in the
constitutional jurisprudence
Recent case law shows the limits of counter terrorism legislation. The constitutional Council
reminds the French Parliament to observe carefully constitutional requirements during the
drafting of the anti terrorist measures. It ensures that the core of some fundamental rights, as
the rights to defense or individual freedom, is preserved. From now on, it is clear from the
case law that the Parliament would not be allowed to adopt measures which will deprive
entirely someone of the exercise of a right, even for reasons related to the fight against
terrorism. Several decisions demonstrate this analysis.
On the one hand, two decisions, related to terrorism issues, illustrate the increased control
performed by the constitutional Council. In the first decision, the claimant disputed the
judicial judge’s ability to decide that a person, suspected of terrorism offense and detained in
custody, was assisted by a lawyer designated by the President of the Bar, from a
predetermined list. In other words, the person might be totally deprived of the freedom to
choose his own lawyer. The claimant underlined the non compliance of this clause to the
rights of the defense and to the principle of equality, in so far as none objective or rational
criteria justified this derogation. The Council considered that the freedom to choose his
lawyer may be exceptionally differed, given that the gravity and the complexity of terrorism
offense, provided that the Parliament clearly define the conditions and the method to put in
place this restriction to the right of the defense. But, the Legislator defined neither the
particular circumstances to restrain this right, nor the reasons justifying this infringement.
Moreover, the judicial judge was not compelled to justify this restriction. Thus, the Council
censured this legislation, in conflict with constitutional requirements45.
In the second decision, the impugned disposition was linked to the police’s ability to depart
from the principle of the audiovisual recording of interrogations in police custody, as far as
organized crime and terrorism offense are concerned. The Council declared this provision in
conflict to the Constitution, especially to the principle of equality. It considered that none
reason, related to the difficulty to apprehend people who are suspected of these crimes, or to
the aim of preserving the secrecy of the investigation, justified this exemption46.
45
46
Décision n° 2011-223 QPC du 17 février 2012, Ordre des avocats au Barreau de Bastia, rec. p. 126, cons.
7.
Décision n°2012-228/229 QPC du 6 avril 2012, M. Kiril Z., rec. p. 186, cons. 5-9.
10
In this way, the Council reinforces gradually the constitutional requirements level as far as
counter terrorism legislation is concerned. It requires the Parliament to surround rights
infringements of guarantees, exact conditions and substantial reasons, in order to protect
fundamental rights exercise.
On the other hand, several decisions, which are not specific to terrorism issues but related to
measures which may be used to fight this offense, reveal the strengthening of constitutional
requirements. Since 2008, the Council has detailed more scrupulously the proportionality test,
developed in three criteria – necessity, adequacy and balance47 –, as soon as constitutional
judges examine legislation which affect individual freedom. In support of this triple test, the
Council concluded that a measure, which extended administrative detention duration to 18
months, for foreigners sentenced to terrorism offense or involved to terrorism activity, is in
conflict with the Constitution48. Indeed, the Parliament did not explain enough the reasons
justifying this measure, so that individual freedom infringement was considered
disproportionate to reach public order objectives. Moreover, the Council resorts to this level
of constitutional review not only when individual freedom is affected, but also, progressively,
as soon as other rights or freedoms are concerned. For instance, in 2013, constitutional judges
analyzed a clause which allowed judicial judge to authorize the tax administration to proceed
to domiciliary visit, on the basis of all information regardless of origin 49. The Council
concluded to the non compliance of this measure to the right to privacy and to inviolability of
the home, in so far as none sufficient conditions surrounded this limitation.
Therefore, recent constitutional case law reveals the increased control performed by the
Council. It ensures that the core of some fundamental rights is preserved, and rights
infringements are sufficient justified and surrounded by legal guarantees. In this regard, the
counter terrorism legislation enjoys a special decreasing place in the jurisprudence.
*
47
48
49
Décision n° 2008-562 DC du 21 février 2008, Loi relative à la rétention de sûreté et à la déclaration
d’irresponsabilité pénale pour cause de trouble mental, Rec. p. 89, cons. 13-23.
Décision n° 2011-631 DC du 9 juin 2011, Loi relative à l’immigration, à l’intégration et à la nationalité,
rec. p. 252, cons. 76.
Décision n° 2013-679 DC du 4 décembre 2013, Loi relative à la lutte contre la fraude fiscale et la grande
délinquance économique et financière, J.O.R.F. du 7 décembre 2013, p. 19958, cons. 35-40.
11
The fight against terrorism engendered deep disruptions in French legal order, as in other
western countries. Counter terrorism legislation enhanced public order notion, which led the
French Parliament to limit strongly several fundamental rights, as individual freedom, right to
privacy, rights of the defense or inviolability of the home. Counter terrorism legislation
caused also a weakening of legal concepts definition, and of legal frameworks distinction,
between general law and emergency rules. From now on, the formal and material features of
the counter terrorism legislation may be found in other legislations, which aim to prevent and
look for organized crime, so that a “propagation phenomenon” can be observed. However,
counter terrorism legislation is not limitless. Recent case law demonstrates an increasing level
of control, which constrains more the Parliament to observe constitutional requirements and
hinders his propensity to ensure at all costs public order.
The question ultimately arises as to whether the constitution should further regulated the
legislature in this area. The French Constitution includes a clause related to emergency period,
but which is not adapted to terrorism issues. Should it be reviewed to include a special clause?
The question is open, but is generally repelled by the French doctrine. Terrorism issues are
not enough peculiar to the French constitutional history to be included in the Constitution, as
it can be in Spain, for instance. The doctrine defends the idea that terrorism issues belongs to
the law, which is considered as the best juridical level to fight this offense. However, a
general clause, related to the conditions of limitation of fundamental rights, could be
enshrined in the Constitution, in order to “guide” further the Parliament and constrain it to
observe scrupulously constitutional requirements. If this idea faces up to technical and extra
legal considerations, it could be a remedy to reinforce constitutionality control and then
fundamental rights protection, in a context of permanent terrorism threat.
Pauline GERVIER
Centre d’Etudes et de Recherches Comparatives sur les Constitutions, les Libertés et l’Etat
(C.E.R.C.C.L.E.-G.R.E.C.C.A.P.), Université de Bordeaux, France
Mail : [email protected]
12