(Dec. 20, 2017) In a decision handed down on December 1, 2017, France’s Conseil constitutionnel (Constitutional Court) examined the legality of security measures that allowed local prefects to establish special security zones within which law enforcement officers could check people’s identification papers and search their bags and vehicles without cause. (Conseil Constitutionnel [CC] Decision No. 2017-677 QPC, Dec. 1, 2017.) These measures were implemented approximately 5,000 times between July 2016 and November 2017, leading to criticism that they were used excessively and for circumstances that had little or nothing to do with their principal purpose, the prevention of terrorism. (Julia Pascual, Les contrôles d’identité et les fouilles de l’état d’urgence déclarés contraires à la Constitution [State of Emergency Identity Checks and Searches Declared Unconstitutional], LE MONDE (Dec. 1, 2017).) The Conseil constitutionnel found that, in devising these measures, the legislators had failed to strike the proper balance between public order and security, on the one hand, and freedom of movement and respect for privacy, on the other. (CC Decision No. 2017-677 QPC.)
The measures in question were established under the state of emergency that the French government declared following the November 2015 Paris terrorist attacks. This state of emergency officially came to an end on November 1, 2017. (Nicolas Boring, France: State of Emergency Officially Ends as New Security Measures Come into Force, GLOBAL LEGAL MONITOR (Nov. 29, 2017).) However, a law that came into force on the same date made certain aspects of the former state of emergency permanent. (Id.; Loi No. 2017-1510 du 30 octobre 2017 renforçant la sécurité intérieure et la lutte contre le terrorisme [Law No. 2017-1510 of 30 October 2017 Reinforcing Domestic Security and the Fight Against Terrorism], LEGIFRANCE.) Among other matters, the new law allows prefects to establish special “protection perimeters” that are very similar to the measures invalidated by the Conseil Constitutionnel. The Conseil Constitutionnel will have to assess whether the new law’s provisions strike a better balance between security and freedom of movement and privacy. The Ligue des droits de l’homme (Human Rights League), the civil rights group that brought the case decided by the Conseil constitutionnel on December 1, has also filed a challenge to the similar provisions of the new law. (Pascual, supra.)