Extract
[...] This breakthrough, confirmed by subsequent case law (notably its decision National Federation of Mines and Energy of 18 June 2012), offers a guarantee to taxpayers by more precisely framing the scope of the legislature's discretion and allowing for sanctions in the most obvious cases. Finally, it is worth recalling that this tolerance of the CC in the control of fiscal provisions also responds to an imperative of stability of public finances. Challenging a fiscal provision that has already been applied would have risked creating legal uncertainty and a budgetary imbalance. [...]
[...] Finally, this decision could give the impression that economic rights are ultimately little recognized, in view of the 'expedient' drafting of consideration which only states that, because it refers only to a decree, it does not violate the right to property, without being interested in the fact of whether, in the end, the company has suffered or not an infringement as a result of this decree." An interpretation to be nuanced, but justified by the necessities of the general interest in taxation These criticisms must be nuanced in light of the specificities proper to the field of taxation and the imperatives of the general interest. In fact, the complexity and rapid evolution of economic and budgetary situations impose on the legislator a certain flexibility in the exercise of his normative power, notably by being able to resort to the regulatory power. [...]
[...] The Council thus opens up the possibility of invoking negative incompetence in the context of a QPC, provided it affects a constitutional right or freedom. The application of this principle leading to the absence of an infringement of a right or freedom in this case The applicant society invoked an infringement of Article 14 of the DDHC, which enshrines the principle of citizen consent to taxation. However, according to the CC, Article 14 is implemented by Article 34 of the Constitution, which confers on the legislature the competence to determine the rules concerning the tax base, rate, and collection methods. [...]
[...] If the SNC Kimberly-Clark decision has allowed for the establishment of a precise framework for invoking negative incompentence in QPC matters, this approach, although consistent from a legal standpoint, raises certain criticisms. II) A questionable interpretation, but justified by the requirements of the tax matter This CC decision appears to pose risks for citizens, with appeals difficult to accept and a legislature free to delegate its powers yet these justified criticisms by the general interest are to be nuanced A questionable, restrictive interpretation for taxpayers and favorable to the legislature This decision seems to weaken the scope of Article 14 DDHC by subordinating it to Article 34 of the Constitution. [...]
[...] Seized by the CE, the CC had to ask itself whether it could sanction a negative legislative incompetence in the context of a QPC. Although it ruled in the negative in this case, the CC did determine strict conditions for invoking negative incompetence in support of a QPC and its reasoning, although it may seem risky and restrictive, is nevertheless justified (II). The precision and strict encadrement of the legislative negative incompetence in support of a QPC In its decision, the CC recalls the condition of infringement of a right or freedom guaranteed by the Constitution of the QPC and interprets the application of this condition in this case The requirement of a direct infringement of a right or freedom to qualify a legislative negative incompetence in the context of a QPC The CC recalls the general conditions of the QPC, stated in Article 61-1 of the Constitution. [...]
