International Journal on Criminology Volume 4, Number 2, Winter 2016 | Page 93

The Legal Scheme of Exceptional Circumstances The major innovation that resulted from the law of November 20, 2015 was the legal scheme of the state of emergency that now provides for modalities for monitoring its implementation by Parliament: “Art. 4-1.—The National Assembly and the Senate shall be informed without delay of the measures taken by the Government during the state of emergency. They may call for any complementary information as part of the monitoring and evaluation of these measures.” The Legislative committee of the National Assembly gave its Chairman, still Jean-Jacques Urvoas at the time, as well as Jean-Frédéric Poisson, the permanent mission of monitoring the measures taken with regard to the state of emergency. The Senate created a state of emergency monitoring committee that included special rapporteur Michel Mercier. The two Legislative committees adopted powers attributed to inquiry commissions. According to article 14 of the law of 1955, if the Government resigns or the National Assembly dissolves, the law extending the state of emergency becomes null and void after a period of 15 clear days. As a result of these provisions the state of emergency also terminates at the end of a parliamentary term. The election or reelection of the President of the Republic automatically results in the submission of the outgoing government’s resignation. There is only one exception to this general rule for the dissolution of associations and de facto groups, which is decided by decree in application of article 6-1 and whose effects are prolonged after the state of emergency. Furthermore, in its decision of December 22, 2015 Cédric D. (decision No. 2015-527 QPC), rendered on account of CE, sect., December 11, 2015, Cédric D., the Constitutional Council ruled that, in a case in which the law prolongs the state of emergency by a new law, “the house arrest measures taken earlier cannot be prolonged without being renewed.” The result of this case law is that the house arrest orders made between November 14, 2015 and February 25, 2016, and which the minister sought to keep in effect for the second prorogation period had to be taken up again (70 persons were held under house arrest within this framework). Similarly, in the decision of February 19, 2016 on article 8 of the law of 1955 (CC, decision No. 2016-536 QPC, League for Human Rights), the Council determined that the measures for the temporary closure and prohibition of meetings could not, in the case of a new legislative prorogation, be prolonged without being renewed. The law also specifies that the administrative authority, notwithstanding the existence of these criminal sanctions, may automatically implement the measures it would have prescribed as part of the state of emergency. The decisions made by the administrative authority after the state of emergency came into effect on November 2015 led to many litigations and made it possible to develop consistent case law, with three articles of the law of April 3, 1955 being a matter of constitutionality that was given priority and transferred to the Constitutional Council by the Council of State. 92