Budget sanctions: due-process safeguards before any personal penalty
Presumption of innocence, legality, adversarial process, independent judge, proportionality and final judgment before any asset penalty.
A strict architecture must also be legally impeccable
French constitutional rights require legality and necessity of penalties, presumption of innocence, public accountability and protection of property. Fiscal accountability must never become a tool for retaliation after a change of government.
Proposed due-process protocol
Only after the final stage could an asset-based fine, disqualification or restitution be executed, subject to ordinary rules for judicial precautionary measures.
Protect democratic debate
The law must distinguish fraud and deliberate breach of an objective rule from mere disagreement about the desirable level of public spending. A minister must be free to defend an expensive hospital, power plant or military programme when financing complies with the Constitution and information is presented sincerely.
Legal and institutional sources
French Constitution, Article 20 — Government role.
Article 24 and Article 47 — Parliament and finance bills.
Article 26 — parliamentary non-liability for opinions and votes.
Article 67 and Article 68-1 — President and Government criminal regimes.
Financial Courts Code L.131-2, L.131-9 and sanctions L.131-16 et seq.
HCFP official missions; Swiss debt brake; German Basic Law Article 115.
Return to the project’s core framework
This page is part of the package on constitutional fiscal rules and accountability of public decision-makers.