14. Le Conseil d’Etat a disjoint ce

14. Le Conseil d’Etat a disjoint ces dispositions, en considérant que, dans l’hypothèse de la persistance d’un péril imminent pour l’ordre public, alors que n’auraient pas été réitérés les faits constitutifs des atteintes graves à l’ordre public à l’origine de la déclaration de l’état d’urgence, comme dans l’hypothèse, non envisagée par le Gouvernement, d’une catastrophe dont la cause aurait cessé, mais dont les conséquences conserveraient le caractère d’une calamité, l’objectif poursuivi pouvait être plus simplement atteint par l’adoption d’une loi prorogeant une nouvelle fois l’état d’urgence, tout en adaptant les mesures susceptibles d’être prises à ce qui est exigé par les circonstances.
15. Ni dans son principe, ni dans sa formulation, le nouvel article 36-1 de la Constitution ne met la France en contradiction avec ses engagements européens et internationaux, en particulier avec la Convention européenne de sauvegarde des droits de l’homme et des libertés fondamentales et, notamment, son article 15.

結果 (英語) 1:

14 the State Council leaking these provisions, in considering that, assuming the persistence of an imminent danger to public order, while have not reiterated the facts constituting serious injury to public order at the origin of the declaration of State of emergency, as in the hypothesis, not envisaged by the Government, a disaster which cause ceased, but whose consequences would retain the character of a calamity the objective could be achieved more simply by the adoption of a law extending the State of emergency once again, while tailoring the measures to be taken to what is required by the circumstances.15 neither in principle nor in its formulation, new section 36-1 of the Constitution puts France at odds with its European and international commitments in particular with the Convention of the rights of man and fundamental freedoms European and, in particular, article 15 thereof.

結果 (英語) 2:

14. The Council of State has severed these provisions, considering that, in the event of persistent imminent danger to public order, so that would not have been repeated acts constituting serious injury to the public policy behind the declaration of a state of emergency, and in the event, not envisaged by the Government, a disaster whose cause has ceased, but whose consequences would retain the character of a calamity, the objective could be achieved simply by adopting a law extending once again the state of emergency, while adapting the measures that could be taken to what is required by the circumstances.
15 . Neither in principle nor in its formulation, the new Article 36-1 of the Constitution puts France at odds with its European and international commitments, in particular with the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and in particular Article 15 thereof.

結果 (英語) 3:

14. the council of state has separate provisions, whereas, in the case of the persistence of an imminent danger to the public order, so that would not have been repeated instances of serious breaches of law and order at the origin of the declaration of a state of emergency, as in the case, not considered by the government.a disaster that would have stopped, but the consequences of which would be a disaster, the objective can be simply achieved by the adoption of a new law concerning the state of emergency, adapting the measures that could be taken to what is required by the circumstances. "3. in principle,neither the wording of the new article 36 (1) of the constitution does france in conflict with its european and international commitments and, in particular, with the european convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms and, in particular, article 15 thereof.