## Facts

- A statute amended the 1901 associations law to condition an association’s acquisition of legal personality on a prior legality review by judicial authorities.
- Under the 1901 framework, associations could form freely and become public by filing a declaration and receiving a receipt from the prefecture, treated as a formal, largely automatic step.
- The challenged law would allow the administration to withhold or delay the receipt while a court reviewed legality, creating a general system of prior control over recognition.
- The President of the Senate referred the enacted but unpromulgated statute to the constitutional court for pre-promulgation review.
- The case arose amid government efforts to prevent legal recognition of associations suspected of reconstituting dissolved political organizations.

## Issues

1. Whether conditioning an association’s acquisition of legal personality on prior judicial legality review is compatible with constitutional freedom of association.
2. Whether freedom of association has constitutional rank as a fundamental principle recognized under the laws of the Republic, as referenced in the constitutional preamble.

## Decision

- The court held that freedom of association is a constitutionally protected fundamental principle recognized under the laws of the Republic and reaffirmed in the constitutional preamble.
- The court ruled unconstitutional the provision creating a general prior judicial review mechanism as a condition of legal personality (Article 3), and the dependent portion of Article 1.
- The court upheld the remainder of the statute not tied to the invalidated prior-control mechanism.

## Legal Principles

- Freedom of association has constitutional force through the constitutional preamble and includes principles recognized under the laws of the Republic.
- Associations must be free to form; making an association public may be subject only to a simple prior declaration, not a general system of prior authorization.
- The validity of forming an association generally may not be conditioned on prior action by administrative or judicial authorities, even if an association appears unlawful; regulation may occur through post-formation measures.
- Targeted constraints may be permitted for particular categories of associations, but broad prior-control regimes are unconstitutional.

## Conclusion

The court constitutionalized freedom of association and invalidated legislation that transformed the declaratory regime for association recognition into a system of general prior judicial control, while leaving intact unrelated portions of the statute.


Freedom of Ass’n Case, No. 71-44 DC (Fr. Const. Council July 16, 1971)