The Constitutional Council censured Thursday night after a long session three articles of the text.
The Law intelligence has now completed its journey. After a long session that ended in the early evening, the Constitutional Council validated Thursday evening of the most controversial text. Besides the Senate President Gerard Larcher, and 106 parliamentarians labeled Republicans (LR), Europe Ecology-Greens, and MoDem National Front, Hollande himself had applied to the Constitutional Council to provide “guarantees” that the text is conforms to the Constitution. A totally new approach for a head of state.
Although it took. The sages of the Palais Royal approve most of the text prepared for over a year and revived in the wake of the terrorist attacks of January. It is censoring the margin for a bitterly criticized the text, its critics likening it to a “Patriot Act” to the French.
The Constitutional Council ruled minima the debate about what the text adopted 24 June. Only three articles of this text have simply been censored. Starting with the article introducing the “operational emergency”. The latter allowed intelligence services to dispense with the advice of the Prime Minister, who has authority over the administrative police. As such, it can not exempt to agree otherwise it is “obviously carried a disproportionate interference with the right to respect for privacy and the secrecy of correspondence.”
“The intelligence collection using the techniques defined by the law is the sole administrative police. (…) It can not be used to observe violations of the criminal law “
Furthermore, the Constitutional Council has also censored the article” on international supervision measures ” . The latter concern the connection information so that data collection for which at least one person is abroad. The Supreme Court held that “the legislature has not laid down rules concerning the fundamental guarantees granted to citizens for the exercise of civil liberties.” The law referred to a subsequent decree defining them. Although the guarantees to be given in this area are less stringent than those for domestic intelligence, the legislature in this case unknown the extent of its powers. However, the Sages of the Galerie Montpensier felt conform the seven criteria for use of information technology. Parliamentarians questioned “the broad and imprecise mission could give rise to administrative investigations.” If these objectives have been validated, the Constitutional Council however recalled that intelligence measures affecting should be subject to a review of proportionality.
Finally, the issue concerning the control of these techniques by the intelligence judicial judge was strongly trench. The Constitutional Council ruled that “intelligence gathering using the techniques defined by the law is the sole administrative police. There can thus be no other purpose than to preserve public order and prevent crime. It can be used to observe violations of the criminal law. “
The president of the Law Committee of the Assembly and rapporteur of the text, Jean-Jacques Urvoas, welcomed Decision of the Sages: “Contrary to what has been hammered, this text does nothing organizes mass surveillance.”