Recours au Conseil d État et au Conseil constitutionnel/fr

Updated 3rd September 2015

Paris, 3 August 2015 — Since January 2015, La Quadrature du Net, FDN and the FDN Federation have begun a series of legal actions before the French Council of State and the French Constitutional Council against the laws and the implementing decrees that these associations consider fatal to civil liberties. In order to help people to follow over time the different stages of these procedures, this page explains in a few lines each of these appeals and their progress.

1. Non published implementation decrees on the activities of the Directorate-General for External Security (DGSE)

Two parallel procedures have been initiated against this decree unravelled by an article in the French magazine L'Obs in July 2015. This unpublished decree that stayed secret, authorises the massive tapping by the French foreign intelligence services of Internet communications going to or coming from French territory.

1.1. Suspensive judgement

Status: in progress

This emergency procedure aims at asking the immediate suspension of the decree waiting for the judgement as a matter of law. Read the brief.

1.2. Requête en annulation devant le Conseil d'État

Status: in progress

The legal challenge focuses on two main points:

• External legality: the decree have no juridiction and was adopted in a irregular procedure;
• Internal legality: the decree has no legal basis. The surveillance law adopted in July 2015 should have given it a legal basis but the dispositions on international surveillance have been censored by the French Constitutional Council.

Read the judgement as a matter of law.

2. Decree on the retention of communication data allowing to identify any person having contributed to the creation of online content

Status: in progress

Following the decision of the EUCJ of April 2014 "Digital Rights" condemning the massive retention of personal data, LQDN, FDN and FFDN have submitted to the French government a request to repeal the decree n°2011-219 of 25 February 2011 and the article R. 10-13 of the Postal and Electronic Communications Code. Those dispositions define the data to be retained by the Internet Service Providers, in order to allow the identification of the people having contributed to the creation of online content and authorises the operators of electronic communication to retain for a year the erasure of some technical data of their clients. The absence of answer from the government during two months is considered as an implicit refusal to repeal those dispositions, which is leading the three associations to refer directly to the French Council of State. The legal challenges focus on the unconventionality of the general and undifferentiated retention of "technical data" and more especially:

• The massive intrusion of fundamental rights, more especially the right to privacy;
• The impossible limitation to the bare necessities of massive data retention;

Read the brief (fr).

3. Parliamentary referral and the "narrow door" procedure on the surveillance law

Status: completed

The surveillance law authorizes bulk collection of data, a very broad field of application, bypassing the judicial judge, and very weak oversight by the National Commission for Oversight of Surveillance Techniques (CNCTR), even non-existent for international surveillance. The French Constitutional Council has been forced to rule on a great number of questions through parliamentary and presidential referrals :

• Referral by the President of France
• Referral by more than 60 deputies (106 deputies signed the referral)
• Referral by the President of the French Senate

Some organizations have sent their own observations using the "narrow door" procedure. Here are several amicus briefs we have been able to identify:

• LQDN, FDN and FFDN
• Amnesty, Cecil, Creis-Terminal, LDH, SAF, SM
• Attorney Marc-Antoine Ledieu
• Conseil national du Numérique (National Digital Council)
• Génération libre ("Free Generation")
• AFDEL, Renaissance Numérique ("Digital Renaissance"), Syntec Numérique, ASIC
• French American Bar Association
• Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe (CCBE)

4. Implementation decree for the Terrorism Law on dereferencing sites

Status: in progress

The implementing decree on the Terrorism Law has been published on 4 march 2015. It allows the dereferencing of websites provoking to terrorist acts or supporting them and websites publishing pedopornographic images. LQDN, FDN and FFDN submitted an appeal for annulment to the State Council at the end of April 2015. The particular points attacked are:

• External legality
  • damage to freedom of communication not foreseen by the law
  • the lack of an impact study prior to the decree

• Internal legality
  • the decree violates the balance of powers
  • the decree is neither clear nor intelligible
  • there are alternative and more proportionate measures to dereferencing
  • the lack of legal oversight violates fundamental rights
  • the law and the decree combined do not contain sufficient guaranties to avoid abuses
  • the a posteriori legal remedies are ineffective
  • supervision of the measures by a qualified staff of the CNIL is ineffective

This essay has not been published yet

5. Decree implementing article 20 of the French Military Programming Act

Deux procédures ont été initiées contre ce décret.

5.1. Recours devant le Conseil d'État

Statut : en cours

Le décret d'application de la LOPPSI et de la loi Terrorisme permettant le blocage administratif de sites Internet a été publié le 5 février 2015. LQDN, FDN et FFDN ont déposé un recours en annulation devant le Conseil d'État en avril 2015\. Ce recours attaque notamment :

• Légalité externe
  • atteinte à la liberté de communication non prévue par la loi
  • atteinte au secret des correspondances non prévue par la loi
  • absence d'étude d'impact
  • absence d’arrêté autorisant le traitement de données à caractère personnel par l’administration

• Légalité interne
  • le décret viole la séparation des pouvoirs
  • le décret n’est ni clair, ni intelligible
  • le blocage de sites porte une atteinte disproportionnée à la liberté d’expression
  • l’absence de contrôle juridictionnel viole les droits fondamentaux
  • l’interception des communications vers les sites bloqués est illégale

Voir les explications :

• sur le site de FDN
• sur le site de LQDN

Lire le recours déposé ainsi que le mémoire en intervention volontaire d'Article 19.

5.2. Demande de communication de la liste des adresses électroniques visée dans le décret n°2015-125 du 5 février 2015

Statut : en cours

Il s'agit d'une procédure initiée par La Quadrature du Net seule. La liste des sites internet bloqués en application du décret n°2015-125 du 5 février 2015 n'est pas publique. La Quadrature du Net a par conséquent envoyé le 27 août 2015 une lettre à l’Office Central de Lutte contre la Criminalité liée aux Technologies de l’Information et de la Communication (OCLCTIC) afin de demander la communication des adresses électroniques qui ont fait l'objet d'un blocage administratif. Lire la - Lettre demande OCLCTIC.pdf lettre envoyée.

6. Decree implementing article 20 of the French Military Programming Act

Article 20 of the Military Programming Act (promulgated 13 December 2013) provides for a right to communication broadened to permit administrative bodies (especially the Ministry of Defence, but also the Ministry of the Interior or the Ministry of Finances) to have open access to "information" or "documents" held by hosters passing through telecoms operators or Internet service providers (ISP). The finalities necessary for this communication to be possible, are broad and often imprecise ("national security", "prevention of terrorism", "preserving essential elements of France's economic and scientific potential", etc.).

Two procedures have been initiated against this decree.

6.1. Action before the Council of State

Status: in progress

The implementing decree, published on 26 December 2014, is attacked by LQDN, FDN and FFDN before the French Council of State for the following reasons:

• External legality
  • The decree does not specify the correct article of the law. The decree must specify an article of law which does not foresee an implementation decree. Therefore it hasn't the competence to do so.
  • It has not been presented to the European Commission.
  • It has not been the subject of an impact study.

• Internal legality
  • The decree contradicts the decision of the European Union Court of Justice of April 2014 on data retention
  • according to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), an intrusion into private life may be enacted only by a law, and not by a decree
  • The decree broadens the scope of the law by allowing to collect data on people not posting any content on the Internet.
  • The decree allows for a far too great collection, which breaches the need to remain "necessary and proportionate"
  • The decree provides no oversight procedure

For explanations see:

• LQDN website
• FDN blog

And read the essay presented.

6.2. Priority Preliminary rulings on the issue of constitutionality (QPC)

Status: completed

On 15 April the three associations submitted to the French Council of State an application for a preliminary ruling on the constitutionality of the same implementing decree. This application raises several points:

• damages to privacy and especially to professional secrecy such as communications between an attorney and a client.
• damages to freedom of expression and especially the secrecy of sources of journalists
• the vagueness of the definition of "informations and documents"
• the vagueness of the definition of "request for production of network information"

See the explanations on FDN blog.

On 5 June, the French State Council decided to forward this application for a preliminary ruling to the French Constitutional Council, judging that the questions raised are indeed "new" and serious. See the LQDN website.

The French Constitutional Council had three months to review this question and declare whether the implementing decree is or not conform to the French Constitution. It published its decision on 24 July 2015, rejecting the entirety of the application for a ruling.

See LQDN's reaction.

Read the QPC and the complementary essay

on LQDN website