The Constitutional Council canceled the removal of Low Emission Zones (ZFE). This decision is not linked to ecology but to a question of procedure.
The Sages judged that the amendment removing the EPZs was a “ legislative rider »: it had no link with the initial object of the economic life simplification law. The EPZs are therefore reestablished.
The final copy is passed through the constitutional scanner, and the result is final. This Thursday, May 21, the Constitutional Council brought a clear halt to the suppression of low emission zoneswhich was nevertheless voted on April 14 by the National Assembly.
Why was the elimination of EPZs canceled?
The cancellation is not based on the substance of the debate but on a pure question of form. The removal of low emission zones was invalidated because it constituted a “legislative rider”.
Clearly, this measure had no link, even remotely, with the primary objective of the law which was to “simplify economic life”. The initial bill aimed to ease standards for businesses. There was never any question of integrating an overhaul of the policies of public health.
It is this discrepancy which was punished. Censorship is therefore not a victory for ecology, but a scathing reminder of the rules of the legislative game. The law, which had expanded from 28 to 84 articles, saw almost a third of its provisions refuted for the same reason, illustrating a true “ legislative inflation » denounced by the Sages.
What exactly is a “legislative rider”?
A legislative rider is a provision introduced into a bill by amendment but which is extraneous to its main subject. It is article 45 of the Constitution which regulates this practice to guarantee the consistency of texts of law.
It is a sort of safeguard to prevent Parliament from transforming a technical law into a catch-all text depending on political alliances and last minute amendments.
By censoring these unrelated additions, the Council acts as guardian of the parliamentary procedure ensuring that the debate remains focused and intelligible.
What are the concrete consequences of this decision?
The most direct consequence is the immediate restoration of EPZs in their previous version. Everything is happening as if the vote of April 14 had never existed.
The towns concerned must therefore continue to apply traffic restrictions for the oldest vehicles, a key measure in the fight against air pollution. Motorists must therefore remain vigilant regarding the rules of their vignette Crit’Air.
Beyond the EPZs, this decision also reinforces another major environmental policy: the principle of Zero Net Artificialization (ZAN) which aims to limit urban sprawl.
Relaxations voted in the same law were also censored for the same reasons. The government, which saw two of its ecological markers of the first five-year term threatened, also took note of this decision with barely veiled relief.
What does this censorship reveal about the French legislative process?
This massive censorship, affecting 25 of the 84 articles, highlights a drift from parliamentary work. It exposes the temptation of certain groups to use legal texts as vehicles to pass popular or ideological measures, without worrying about the overall consistency.
The simplification law has become the symbol of a law-making process which sometimes gets lost in complex meanders and side debates. The Constitutional Council, often perceived as a political actor, here reaffirms its leading technical and legal role.
It is not so much a victory for ecology as a call to order on parliamentary discipline, a strong signal sent to deputies and senators. This decision reminds us that for a law to be solid, it must not only be passed, but also be well constructed.
