Quant à l’état d’urgence9. S’agissa

Quant à l’état d’urgence
9. S’agissant de l’état d’urgence, le Conseil d’Etat rappelle que la loi du 3 avril 1955 n’a pas été abrogée par la Constitution de 1958, ainsi que l’a jugé le Conseil constitutionnel à propos de l’état d’urgence en Nouvelle-Calédonie (n° 85-187 DC du 25 janvier 1985).
10. Pour autant, la modification envisagée n’est pas de simple clarification et présente, à deux titres, un effet utile :
a) En premier lieu, elle donne un fondement incontestable aux mesures de police administrative prises par les autorités civiles pendant l’état d’urgence.
Elle permet ainsi au législateur de prévoir des mesures renforcées telles que :
- le contrôle d’identité sans nécessité de justifier de circonstances particulières établissant un risque d’atteinte imminente à l’ordre public ;
- la visite des véhicules avec ouverture des coffres.
Elle permet aussi au législateur, lorsque ces mesures administratives ne relèvent pas de l’article 66 de la Constitution, de les soumettre exclusivement au contrôle du juge administratif et non à celui du juge judiciaire.
b) En second lieu, elle encadre la déclaration et le déroulement de l’état d’urgence en apportant des précisions de fond et de procédure qui ne relevaient jusqu’ici que de la loi ordinaire et que le législateur ordinaire pouvait donc modifier. La rédaction de l’article 36-1 interdira désormais à celui-ci, par exemple, d’ajouter d’autres motifs de déclaration de l’état d’urgence à ceux qui sont définis au premier alinéa de cet article ; ou de n’imposer la première intervention du Parlement qu’au terme d’un délai supérieur à 12 jours ; ou de décider que la prorogation peut ne pas comporter de durée déterminée.

結果 (英語) 1:

As to the State of emergency9. regarding the State of emergency, the State Council recalls that the Act of 3 April 1955 was not repealed by the Constitution of 1958 as well as judged it the Constitutional Council about the State of emergency in New Caledonia (No. 85-187 DC of 25 January 1985).10. so far, the proposed amendment is not simple clarification and presents a useful effect to two titles:(a) in the first place, it provides a compelling basis for the administrative measures taken by the civil authorities during the State of emergency.It allows the legislature to provide for measures reinforced such as:-identity checks without the need to prove circumstances establishing an imminent risk to public order;-the inspection of vehicles with opening of safes.It also allows the legislator, when these administrative measures are not article 66 of the Constitution, subject only to the control of the administrative judge and not to the judicial judge.b) Secondly, it regulates the declaration and the progress of the State of emergency by providing background details and procedure that were far than of ordinary law and that the ordinary legislator could therefore change. The wording of article 36-1 now prohibit, for example, to add other grounds for declaration of a State of emergency to those defined in the first paragraph of this article; or not to impose the first intervention of the European Parliament at the end of a time greater than 12 days; or decide that the extension may not include term.

結果 (英語) 2:

As for the state of emergency
9. Regarding the state of emergency, the State Council said that the law of 3 April 1955 has not been repealed by the 1958 Constitution and the Constitutional Council ruled on about the state of emergency in New Caledonia (No. 85-187 DC of 25 January 1985).
10. However, the proposed change is not a simple clarification and this, for two reasons, one practical effect:
a) First, it gives a definite basis for administrative police measures taken by civil authorities during the state of . emergency
It thus allows the legislature to provide enhanced measures such as:
- the identity check without the need of special circumstances to justify establishing an imminent risk of harm to public order;
- visits by vehicles with opening boxes.
It also allows the legislator, when these measures do not fall under Article 66 of the Constitution, submitting them to the exclusive control of the administrative court and not to the ordinary courts.
b) Secondly, it frames the declaration and progress of the state of emergency by providing background information and procedure that fell far as the ordinary law and the ordinary legislator could therefore change. The wording of Article 36-1 now will prohibit it, for example, to add other grounds for declaration of a state of emergency to those defined in the first paragraph of this article; or impose the first intervention of Parliament only after a period of more than 12 days; or decide that the extension may not have a fixed term.

結果 (英語) 3:

with regard to the state of emergency). with regard to the state of emergency, the state council pointed out that the act of 3 april 1955 was not repealed by the constitution of 1958, as held by the constitutional council on the state of emergency in new caledonia (no. 187) of 25 january 1985 (10).. however, the proposed amendment is not a simple clarification and,in two cases, a useful effect: (a) first, it provides a clear basis for administrative enforcement measures taken by the civil authorities during the state of emergency. it also allows the legislature to provide for more stringent measures, such as:- the identification without the need for special circumstances which justify the risk of imminent infringement of public order; and the visit of vehicles with open boxes. it also provides the legislator, when these measures are not covered by article 66 of the constitution.to provide only the control of the administrative court and not the court. (b) in the second place, is the declaration and the implementation of the state of emergency, providing details of the substance and procedure, which are so far from the ordinary law and ordinary legislation could change.the wording of article 36 (1) will from now on to it, for example, to add other reasons for declaring a state of emergency, to those that are specified in the first paragraph of this article, or to impose the first intervention of parliament before the end of a period of more than 12 days; or decide that the extension may not be for a specified period.