The Constitutional Council considers that the obligation to generalize the source classification of bio-waste prior to the development or extension of mechanical bio-sorting facilities is in accordance with the Constitution.
The Constitutional Council decides, in accordance with the Constitution, the conditions for the creation of new mechanical biological sorting units (TMBs) or modification of existing ones. [Tlcharger la dcision du Conseil constitutionnel] Issued April 22nd. In this case, the duty to generalize the sorting of bio-waste at source does not conflict with the policy of free administration of local authorities.
The Anti-Waste and Circular Economy Act (Agec), the creation or significant change of the TMB establishment, is a condition for the generalization of the source sorting of bio-waste by the communities concerned. Action against some social associations. Last February, the state council sent a priority question to the Constitutional Council (QPC) in the wake of an appeal by the National Federation of Composting Societies (FNCC) (QPC) Metheor and the Amores Association. All three organizations challenged the July 2021 mandate, which sets the criteria for demonstrating that source sorting of bio-waste is generalized before the TMB facility is created or modified.
The law does not prohibit TMB
Applicants specifically stated that this was contrary to the principle of free administration of local authorities guaranteed by the Constitution. That arrangements [, qui conditionnent la cration, ou la modification, d’installations de TMB, sont] It may be an impediment to the choice of local authorities regarding the legitimacy of the law in terms of waste managementThey defended.
The Constitutional Council first reminds us that according to Articles 34 and 72 of the Constitution, communities govern themselves independently. Under the conditions provided by law. The legislature may impose obligations on them, especially if they meet constitutional requirements.
In this case, Rue Montpensier’s elders explain that the legislature considers it more effective to sort bio-waste at source than TMB’s facilities in achieving waste reduction and recovery objectives. Another note: the law does not prohibit the use of TMB, however Defined Preparation of new facilities to generalize the source classification of bio-waste. As for the ban on public assistance to TMB, it is [vise] It only prevents the public from contributing to the development of TMB’s capabilities.
There is no difference in treatment between communities
Applicants considered that the age law was set Unfair difference in treatment between local authorities who set up deployment facility mcanobiological and those who do not make such a choice. In fact, they felt that only communities with TMB installation should generalize to source deployment. According to the Constituent Assembly, this does not mean that the rules are attacking By themselves, do not install anything Difference in treatment among local authorities.
Finally, the rules do not conflict with other constitutional provisions, especially Article 2 of the Ownership of Property and Environment Charter (obligation to participate in the protection and promotion of the environment).
The article was published on April 25, 2022
Beatrice Ashford is a contributor at Nintendo-power.com, covering a wide range of topics including news, politics, business, technology, sport, entertainment, and lifestyle. She focuses on delivering clear, balanced reporting and useful information that helps readers stay informed about current events and emerging developments. Her work highlights stories that matter to everyday audiences, with an emphasis on accuracy, relevance, and accessible journalism that keeps readers connected to the issues shaping the world around them.