## Facts

- Parliament enacted a higher-education statute reorganizing French public universities’ governance and repealing prior higher-education legislation.
- The statute restructured university councils, including a decision-making board (conseil d’administration) and other bodies with scientific or student-life roles.
- For certain elections, the statute used a single electoral college grouping university professors with other teacher-researchers (and, in some settings, additional staff categories) to choose representatives.
- Parliamentary minorities (groups of Senators and Deputies) sought pre-promulgation constitutional review, arguing that the electoral design and related provisions impaired professors’ constitutionally protected status and that certain delegations to the executive were unconstitutional.
- The statute also contemplated adjustment by decree (issued with Conseil d’État review) of a post-1958 ordinance that had acquired legislative force.

## Issues

1. Whether a constitutional principle protects the independence of university professors and limits how their representation may be determined in university governing bodies.
2. Whether the challenged governance and representation rules violate freedom of teaching or constitutionally protected guarantees related to higher education.
3. Whether a statute may authorize amendment by decree of a text having legislative force without a prior reclassification decision under Article 37(2).
4. Whether unconstitutional provisions required invalidating the entire statute or could be severed.

## Decision

- The Court held that the independence of university professors is a constitutional principle.
- The Court invalidated provisions establishing a single electoral college for electing professors’ (and other teacher-researchers’) representatives to the decision-making governing board where the structure could place professors in a minority and compromise their constitutionally protected independence.
- The Court upheld broader participation rules for a consultative council dealing with studies and university life, reasoning that its advisory function did not threaten independence in the same way.
- The Court rejected the argument that the contested organizational provisions directly infringed freedom of teaching, characterizing them as rules organizing a public service and governing the rights and duties of those who operate it.
- The Court invalidated provisions allowing decrees to amend a post-1958 ordinance with legislative force absent a prior Article 37(2) reclassification (déclassement) decision.
- The Court found the unconstitutional provisions severable and otherwise sustained the remainder of the statute.

## Legal Principles

- The independence of university professors is a principle of constitutional value, derived from Article 11 of the 1789 Declaration and from fundamental principles recognized by the laws of the Republic.
- Electoral and institutional arrangements for university governance may not subject professors’ effective representation in key decision-making bodies to control by other categories in a manner that compromises professors’ constitutionally protected independence.
- Constitutional review differentiates among university bodies by function: stronger representational safeguards may be required for organs exercising decision-making authority than for purely consultative organs.
- Rules organizing the public service of higher education and defining teachers’ and researchers’ governance roles are not, by that fact alone, an infringement of freedom of teaching.
- A statute may not authorize the executive to amend, by decree, a text that has legislative force without a prior Article 37(2) reclassification decision by the constitutional court.
- When feasible, unconstitutional provisions are excised while preserving the remainder of the legislative scheme.

## Conclusion

The Court partially invalidated a higher-education reform statute, chiefly by constitutionalizing university professors’ independence and striking down governance rules that diluted professors’ representation in key decision-making bodies, while also rejecting an improper delegation allowing amendment by decree of a legislative-force ordinance without prior Article 37(2) reclassification.


Univ. Professors Case, 83-165 DC (Const. Council Jan. 20, 1984)