Skip to content
Curfew: four or six weeks?  Why we don’t know yet how long it will last

It will soon be gone for… four weeks at least. The curfew, imposed in Île-de-France and in eight metropolitan areas at 9 p.m. from Saturday, will last at least until November 17. That is to say one month after the restoration of the state of emergency, from midnight on the night of Friday to Saturday.

But Emmanuel Macron wants to make it last for two additional weeks, as he announced on TF1 and France 2 on Wednesday evening. “The government is in a position to decide it for four weeks. We will go to Parliament to be able to try to extend it until December 1, ”he said according to the transcript of his interview communicated by the Elysee Palace.

VIDEO. Covid-19: curfew between 9 p.m. and 6 a.m. in Ile-de-France and in 8 metropolises, from Saturday

The decision to impose a curfew is based on the reestablishment of the state of health emergency throughout the national territory. Except that the establishment of such an exceptional regime “beyond one month can only be authorized by law”, we read at article L3131-13 of the public health code, created by the ” emergency law of 23 March 2020 to deal with the Covid-19 epidemic “. And lawyers and elected officials are not sure that a curfew outside a state of health emergency is possible.

“Debate is necessary”

Clearly, the National Assembly and the Senate, which will be “informed without delay of the measures taken by the Government under the state of health emergency [dont le couvre-feu] », Will have to decide and vote in favor – or not – of an extension until December 1, for example.

A favorable vote is not necessarily acquired, even if the Republic on the march and its allies have an absolute majority in the National Assembly. Senator Philippe Bas (Les Républicains) has already warned on Twitter that “it would be inexplicable for Parliament not to pronounce on such serious measures, to validate or reject them”.

“The infringement of liberty is only legal if night traffic increases contamination. Difficult to demonstrate! Is the indirect objective of preventing private meetings sufficient to justify such a restrictive measure? Debate is necessary! », He also exclaimed.

Original article by :


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *