The Executive Authority passes the
COVID-19 pandemic in Francea file

On Thursday, the Constitutional Council approved the extension of the health passport in the name of “Health Protection”. Only the dismissal of resistant employees on fixed-term contracts and the commitment to home isolation of positive cases were censored.

Nothing stands in the way of filtering cafes, restaurants, bars, trains, planes, hospitals and some big shopping malls. For the Constitutional Council, which was urgently considered, there is no justification for preventing the extension of the health permit, which Parliament voted on July 25. You will need to complete your vaccination course, and provide evidence of a positive test less than six months or a negative screening test less than 48 hours to get to these places from Monday to November 15. The much-anticipated decision, published Thursday in the middle of the afternoon, was a relief to the government, which has also boosted its desire to force caregivers to vaccinate.

“Validation of these two devices will allow the full publication of the strategy to combat COVID-19 presented by the President of the Republic on July 12.” Prime Minister Jan Castilles immediately rejoiced in a press release. The authors of many appeals, the left parliamentarians will console themselves for their failure with two lean victories. They hold that employees on fixed-term contracts cannot be fired if they do not provide a valid health clearance. Likewise, the Constitutional Council heard their arguments by censoring the duty of home isolation in COVID-positive cases. “The necessary safeguards, but the health card will not be enough to stop the epidemic. Compulsory vaccination remains the best solution”, The President of the PS Senators, Patrick Kanner, responded.

See also  Looking for a new computer during Hot Sale? Here we tell you the best options!

Cold shower for left deputies

The main debate scheduled for Thursday was not the principle of the sanitary corridor – its creation for large gatherings had already been approved by the Constitutional Council in a May 31 decision – as an extension of activities of daily living. The problem is knowing whether the judiciary will validate its application in all places targeted by the government on behalf of ‘Constitutional value objective to protect health’ Or whether he would instead decide to avoid certain activities under other fundamental principles, such as the freedom to come and go or the right to respect for private life. In their joint appeal, the three groups of left-wing deputies ruled the pass “Disproportionately”, especially “In all cases where compliance with the control of barrier movements can be seriously ensured”, Such as shopping malls or long-distance transportation. The Council responded by replying to them: “Contested provisions strike a balance between the above-mentioned constitutional requirements.”

The nine members of the Foundation note that the law limits the extension of the card “to activities that gather at the same time a large number of people in the same place and therefore pose an increased risk of transmission of the virus,” And it excludes everyone Political, trade union or cultural activity. They are especially relying on the possibility of submitting a negative test to say that the health declaration does not induce “No duty of care, no obligation to vaccinate.” In this regard, he made no comment on the government’s announcement of a gradual waiver of screening tests, which are now fully covered by health insurance. The “wise men” are also short on the issue of access to care. Is the obligation to provide a permit for scheduled appointments in the hospital the same as a “refusal of treatment”, Since infectious disease specialist Karen Lacombe was worried about Thursday morning on France Inter? measurement “It has no effect of limiting access to care,” Slide in just a few words the board, which indicates that emergencies are not concerned.

See also  ONDA: 16 ICA-accredited airports for airport health

“Differential treatment according to the work contract”

In matters relating to labor law, the Constitutional Council corrects the version of the executive branch only slightly. The presidential majority had come to terms with senators by only providing for the unpaid suspension, no longer to be fired, for permanent contract employees who refused to provide valid health clearance in certain sectors of activity. The “wise men” find nothing to complain about. Here again, in the name of the goal Health Protection. On the other hand, they refuse that those who pre-screened the Giants could see that their contract had been broken, as provided by law. This action is censored on behalf of a Differences in treatment between employees according to the nature of their work contracts. “Sense of humor: a fixed-term contract that cannot be interrupted but his salary remains suspended”, Jean-Luc Melenchon squeaks on Twitter.

The only real contempt for the government is the oversight of the commitment to the ten-day home isolation of people who have tested positive for Covid. a “security measure” who doesn’t “necessary, appropriate and proportionate”, According to the decision. The Constitutional Council does not accept that the submission of a positive test by the laboratory constitutes an obligation of isolation and not “Based on the discretion of the administrative or judicial authority.” On this point, Castex conceded defeat in his press release: “Public authorities will endeavor to remind all people suffering from Covid-19, including those who are asymptomatic, of the need to strictly respect medical recommendations regarding isolation,” he is writing. Which is very similar to the Coué method.

See also  Alstom's Coradia iLint hydrogen train runs for the first time in France

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here