Facts: Sixty deputies from the National Assembly challenged the constitutionality of the loi Toubon before the Conseil Constitutionnel. Article 7 of the loi Toubon required publicly funded teachers and researchers, both French and foreign, to provide either a French publication or a French translation of their work. Other provisions of the loi Toubon required private persons and radio, sound, or television broadcastings to employ official French terminology, under penalty of sanctions
Issue: the deputies claimed that the proposed law was contrary to
principles of freedom of communication, thought, and opinion, freedom of
commerce and industry, and freedom of education. They also claimed that
the law violated principles of equality and the proportionality of
punishment.
Holding: the Conseil Constitutionnel held that the proposed Loi Toubon was constitutional, except article 7 and the provisions relating to official French terminology were unconstitutional.
Reasoning: Article 2 of the French Constitution provided that "The
language of the Republic shall be French". The legislature had the right to
impose the mandatory use of the French language. However, 2 provisions of
the Law violated article 11 of the Declaration. Article 7 of the Law imposed
restraints that "injure the free exercise of the freedom of expression and
communication in teaching and research." because there were no conditions
attached to this option. Consequently, the stipulation did not
provide a sufficient guarantee of the preservation of the freedoms in
question. Moreover, provisions of the loi Toubon that required private
persons and radio, sound, or television broadcastings to employ official
French terminology, under penalty of sanctions, were unconstitutional,
pursuant to Article 11 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the
Citizen. The legislature could, however, impose a particular linguistic
content upon public entities, or private individuals or entities undertaking
a public service. The provisions in question did not distinguish between the
obligations imposed upon public entities and private individuals, they were
unconstitutional.
