Data source
Date of text
23 May 2017
Original language


Type of text
Reference number
Decision No. 2016-3 of IPCCL

The recourse seeks to declare the unconstitutionality of the draft law revising certain provisions of the Hydrocarbons Code:

  • Because it is allegedly contrary to the Articles 10, 12, 13 and 15 of the Constitution
  • Because their adoption would not allow the Assembly to exercise, on behalf of the people, its sovereignty over natural resources
  • It won’t allow it to ensure rational management of hydrocarbons in their capacity as national natural wealth necessarily subject to the control of the deputies concerning all the stages of their exploration / exploitation
  • It won’t allow a good use of the public funds allowing the adoption of the measures necessary to use them according to the priorities of the national economy with a view to preventing corruption
  • It won’t allow the exercise by the public administration of its missions in accordance with the rules of transparency, integrity, efficiency and accountability:

The Court accepted the appeal and examined the means and declare the constitutionality of the three articles of the draft law revising certain provisions of the Hydrocarbons Code, but have to be interpreted as the interpretation given in the operative part of its decision, implying the obligation for the legislator to exercise the full control over the specific agreements that are intended to be concluded in terms of prospecting, research and exploitation of hydrocarbons, both upstream and downstream and concerning all the clauses of these conventions, in order to be able to ensure a rational management of the resources / national wealth in accordance with the principles of transparency, protection of the environment, sustainable development, integrity and accountability as enshrined in the Constitution, avoiding the risk arising from the use of techniques that are harmful to the environment, as is currently the case for shale gas exploitation; and that the granting of an exclusive right to the holder of a prospecting license to transform it into a research and exploitation permit was also not contrary to the Constitution, under the prerequisite that operators in the sector can be enabled to participate, under equal conditions, in the allocation of permits before the conclusion of any Convention and that the Parliamentary Committee referred in Article 13 of the Constitution may verify the compliance with the obligations of the holder of the license during the transition from one stage to another.