[ad_1]
The Sages were seized by more than 120 deputies and senators on the left (PS, PCF, La France rebellious), which had joined about fifty badociations, unions and companies of journalists. The applicants complained of "serious, excessive and unjustified interference with freedom of expression and communication". They challenged in particular "a too broad definition of secret business, especially with regard to the protection of employees."
After several weeks of lively debate led by the left, the media and badociations, the Parliament had definitively adopted on 21 June the law proposal LREM transposing a European directive by 248 votes for and 95 against, all of left. The law aims to "protect companies against looting innovations, fight against unfair competition," Justice Minister Nicole Belloubet told the Assembly.
Opponents doubt that the text is useful for SMEs and especially fear that it is diverted from its purpose to muzzle journalists and whistleblowers. More than a hundred newsrooms, NGOs, journalists and journalists' organizations had called on Emmanuel Macron to modify "a new tool of censorship". In its decision, the Conseil constitutionnel recalls in its preamble its limited capacity to exercise control over this type of text, article 88-1 of the Constitution transposing European directives into French law as "a requirement". The Sages can, however, verify that the directive does not conflict with "a rule or principle inherent in the constitutional identity of France."
They also have the possibility of declaring a provision they consider "manifestly incompatible with the directive which it seeks to transpose". A hypothesis quickly dismissed, the French text sticking perfectly to the European directive.
"Right of alert"
The Council therefore considered that it was not for it to decide on the complaint that the Directive transposed in the law would disregard freedom of expression and communication. A freedom protected by both the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789.
However, having stressed that the Directive confers on the Member States a margin of In their badessment, the Sages reviewed the main criticisms of the text, particularly those on freedom of expression and communication, in order to better exclude them.
In particular, they pointed to the existence of a " exception to the protection of secret cases benefiting natural persons exercising the right of alert ", but also" to any person who, in order to protect the public interest and in good faith, reveals an activity unlawful, misconduct or misconduct ".
On freedom of enterprise, they held that the protective measures imposed on companies to claim the protection of the secret cases were "reasonable" and could be badessed by taking into account the "circumstances", that is, the means of the business.
(with AFP)
[ad_2]
Source link
