Recourse for unconstitutionality of the draft law n°2015-57 concerning the adoption of derogatory exceptional measures on the regularization of the situation of illegal operators of marble quarries of the private domain of the State because of alleged:
Violation of the Article 65 of the Constitution which exhaustively enumerates the fields of intervention of the legislator, whose question addressed by the bill is not part of
Violation of the Article 86 of the Code of Public Accounting, in that it provides for the conclusion of contracts by mutual agreement to regularize the situation of illegal operators of quarries of marble, which represents an exception to the rule laid down in Article 86 of the CCP which imposes the use of the public auction of state-owned quarries; according to the applicants, the adoption of exceptional mandatory rules violates a rule of positive law and undermines the rule of law , since the legislature should have amended Article 86 of the CCP and not introduce derogating measures
- Violation of Article 21 (1) of the Constitution because the draft undermines the principle of equality through the discrimination it operates for the benefit of "Unauthorized Operators” in the period from December 17, 2010 to June 25, 2013 compared to the prior and subsequent periods and by providing for the cessation of proceedings against unlawful quarrying during the period from 17 December 2010 to 25 June 2013
- Violation of Article 10 (3) of the Constitution because the draft protects the corruption and does not fight against this phenomenon by providing measures allowing those who steal the natural resources to escape the sanction
- Violation of Article 12 of the Constitution because the draft according to the applicants, evidence of the "savage" and illegal exploitation of natural resources must lead to the repression of this phenomenon by the State rather than its protection
Solution of the Court: There is no evidence that the general interest pursued through the draft law was not contrary to the principles and values of the Constitution, the appeal is sufficiently serious and well-founded to be admissible: the draft loses all justification and it is therefore appropriate to pronounce its unconstitutionality without being necessary to examine other means.