The Constitutional Council validates the principle of the psychiatric examination injunction established by law aimed at preventing the risk of attack, but it strictly regulates its implementation. The wise men demand several guarantees to protect individual freedom, the rights of the defense and medical confidentiality, in particular imposing regulatory details on the procedure.
Contested by many psychiatric caregivers and by part of the left, who consider it dangerous, scientifically unfounded and difficult to apply, the procedure for injunction of psychiatric examination provided for by law aimed at preventing the risk of attack (see our article) was validated by the Constitutional Council, subject to several reservations intended to regulate its implementation.
The wise ask that the regulatory power specify “the terms of designation” from the psychiatrist, “the nature of the elements that may be submitted to it” and the conditions under which it will deliver its opinion, which must be “written and motivated”, in order to “guarantee impartiality” of expertise. They also specify that legal representatives must be informed when the person concerned is a minor or is the subject of a protection measure.
In the event of refusal to submit to the examination, the prefect may request authorization from the judge for a home visit to take the person concerned before a psychiatrist. The magistrate must set “the maximum duration of the measurement”. The Council emphasizes above all that the system “cannot (…) allow the administrative authority to subject the person to constraint for more than 12 hours”.
If the examination concludes that hospitalization without consent is necessary, the medical certificate “cannot come from a psychiatrist practicing in the establishment welcoming the person”. The prefect must also give precise reasons for his decision.
Finally, concerning the information transmitted to the prefect on patients receiving care without consent, the wise men recall that the elements communicated “may not include medical opinions and certificates (…), nor indications relating to the nature of the care provided or the treatments prescribed”in order to preserve medical confidentiality.
Decision No. 2026-906 DC of July 23, 2026 (Law aimed at strengthening security, administrative detention and preventing the risk of attack)
