Suprakonstitucionalnost ali nadustavnost v Franciji : Supraconstitutionality in France

Francoska zgodovina je polna preobratov, prežeta z nič manj kot 16 ustavami. Ugleden avtor v članku riše eno izmed zgodb najbogatejše zgodovinske izkušenje ustavnega prava. Z njo se jasno kaže relativnost ustavnopravnih norm, v istem pa se odkriva tudi svojevrsten paradoks: Francija, ki je deklarirano pozitivistična, je obenem polna »mitičnih« (svetih?) besedil; deklaracij je seveda več, a njihova vsebina se skrbno prenaša iz roda v rod. Od stroge zavrnitve nadustavnosti prek pozitivnopravnih omejitev ustavnih revizij – te so za pozitiviste le »papirnate pregrade«, ki jih vsaka »dvojna revizija« hitro odpravi – sam Ustavni svet z načeli in vrednotami, ki širijo famozni blok ustavnosti, posega bolj in bolj »tja čez«. Po drugi plati pa vztraja pri svoji nepristojnosti glede presoje suverene volje ljudskih referendumov! Bralcu se tako riše shizofrena slika notranjega reda. V polju mednarodnega prava pa se zdi, da Francija trdno kljubuje. A ne bo več dolgo. Mednarodno pravo »je že dobilo nadzakonsko veljavo«, nadustavne ne povsem. Učinkovitost prava skupnosti najeda zadnje temelje, pa vendar se Ustava rahlo še drži z ločevanjem prava skupnosti od pravil mednarodnega prava. »Zakon se je moral že v vsakršnem primeru umakniti konvencijskim pravilom. Zdaj je na vrsti za odstrel ustavna norma,« končuje avtor svoj prikaz problema nadustavnosti v Franciji. Članek osvetljuje nekatere posebnosti francoskega ustavnopravnega reda, pozornemu bralcu pa z njimi morda odpira določen pogled v zakulisno problematiko posameznih regionalnih in mednarodnih organizacij, kjer je imela in ima ta galska miselnost nedvomno svoj vpliv.

French history is full of changes and counts no less than sixteen constitutions. In this article a renowned author makes a trace of one of many stories of the richest historical experiences of constitutional law. He clearly demonstrates the relativity of constitutional rules and simultaneously reveals a certain paradox: a country which we might call a practicing positivist is full of “mythical” (sacred?) texts; the declarations are of certain number that is true but practically the same content seems to have been passing from one generation to another. From a rigorous rejection of supraconstitutionality to some constitutional contents excluded from possible revision – the later are said to be no more than “simple barriers of paper” that any “double revision” may quickly suppress – the French Constitutional Council itself steps over the borderline with the expansion of famous block of constitutionality. This expansion is caused by proclamations of certain principles and values. On the other hand the same Constitutional Council refuses to accept the control over the referendum expressions of will of the sovereign people. This sketch of internal legal order leaves a kind of schizophrenic impression on a reader. On the contrary, the France seems still be walking head-up-high in the field of international law. This is not for long. The international law “already gained its supralegal power”; not yet the supraconstitutional. Now the efficiency of the European law is weakening the last foundations and yet the constitution still subsists thanks to differentiation of the European law from the international law. “A statute had to withdraw itself in every case before the conventional rules. The turn is on the constitution now to be under attack,” concludes the author his review of supraconstitutionality in France. This article highlights several characteristics of the French constitutional order and it might let an attentive reader to have a better understanding of certain questions that arise behind the scenes of some regional and international organizations where, of course, this way of thinking always had its influence and weight.