Cette étude comparative entre la France et l’Espagne oppose deux systèmesconstitutionnels, s’organisant de deux manières différentes. En France, l’interprétationconstitutionnelle s’élabore selon une collaboration absolue des interprètes. La juridictionconstitutionnelle n’a pas les moyens d’agir directement sur l’interprétation élaborée par lesjuges ordinaires. En Espagne, la collaboration est en revanche relative, puisque la juridictionconstitutionnelle peut être saisie directement par les justiciables. La comparaison permet deprocéder à une modélisation du contrôle de constitutionnalité des lois autour du critère del’interprétation conforme des lois à la Constitution. Cette modélisation part des influencesétrangères qui s’exercent sur l’organisation des systèmes constitutionnels comparés. Elle sepoursuit par l’adaptation de ces systèmes au phénomène d’européanisation du droit. Elles’achève par la recherche d’une optimisation de la collaboration entre interprètes. / This comparative study between France and Spain bring into conflict twoconstitutional systems, with two distinct organization. In France, the constitutionalinterpretation is built by an absolute collaboration of the interpreters. The constitutionaljurisdiction don’t have the resources for acting directly on the ordinary judges’sinterpretation. However, the collaboration is relative in Spain, for the reason that theconstitutional court can be directly seised by the litigant. The comparison allows to proceedfor a modelization of the constitutionality review of laws around the interpretation inconformity with the Constitution’s criterion. This modelization start from the foreigninfluences on the organization of the comparative constitutional systems. It continues by theadaptation of these systems to the europeanisation of law. It ends with the search of anoptimisation of the collaboration of the interpreters.

[pt] O modelo de controle de constitucionalidade francês, devido à sua especificidade, serviu por anos como exemplo do único sistema no qual o exame de compatibilidade entre normas infraconstitucionais e o texto da Constituição era realizado pelo Conselho Constitucional - órgão político - e de maneira preventiva, ou seja, antes das disposições legislativas entrarem em vigor e produzirem efeitos. Com o passar do tempo verificou-se na prática, a perda da supremacia da Constituição da República Francesa de 1958, como resultado da ausência de proteção a direitos e liberdades constitucionais. Por este motivo, no final dos anos 80 operadores do direito começaram a se mobilizar e a vislumbrar uma proposta de mudança e reforma. Em 2008 foi aprovada uma Lei Constitucional, que tem status de Emenda Constitucional, com o intuito de modernizar as instituições políticas da França. Dentre as medidas modernizadoras estava incluída a criação da Questão Prioritária de Constitucionalidade, mecanismo que tem como principal objetivo conferir aos particulares a prerrogativa de contestarem a constitucionalidade de uma disposição legislativa que julguem atentar contra direitos e liberdades garantidos constitucionalmente. Esta pesquisa analisou os fatores que antecederam e influenciaram a reforma supracitada, além das consequências e dos efeitos gerados pela introdução da QPC no ordenamento jurídico francês. / [en] The French system of constitutional review is very specific and was used for years as an example of the only system in which the compatibility exam between laws and the Constitution was performed by the Constitutional Council - which is a politic institution - preventively. In other words, this exam happened before the legal provisions come into force and take effect. As a result of the lack of protection of the constitutional rights and freedoms, the French Constitution was gradually losing its supremacy. That is why jurists during the 80 s started to discuss a proposal of change and reform. When in 2008, a constitutional amendment was approved, creating a mechanism which gave individuals the right to contest the constitutionality of whichever legal provision they deemed to be violating their constitutional rights and freedoms. This research examined the factors that preceded and influenced the reform, and above all the effects and consequences generated by the Priority Question of Constitutionality in French Law.

For a variety of historical, cultural and political reasons, the Islamic headscarf has become an increasingly controversial matter in Europe. This is particularly the case in France, where the Parliament passed, in March 2004, a piece of legislation that prohibits students from wearing the Muslim veil—together with any other ‘conspicuous’ religious sign—in the classroom. Although Statute 228/2004 proved highly controversial and attracted unprecedented media attention, it was overwhelmingly supported by French MPs as a response to popular opposition towards religious insignia at school and was heralded as a ‘liberating’ piece of legislation that faithfully reasserted the beloved French principle of laïcité. Overseas, the new law was less favourably perceived and was often accused of being discriminatory and of violating the students’ freedom of religious expression. This thesis compares the French and American attitudes towards religious symbolism in general and the Islamic veil in particular. As in other matters, at first sight these two countries seem to adopt a very different—if not opposite—approach to religion and the Muslim veil, and so much so that their positions are often described as ‘irreconcilable’. This thesis will argue that this is hardly the case. Indeed, it will show that, at least before the passage of Statute 228-2004, the French and American legal systems adopted a substantially similar approach that appeared respectful of a veiled student’s right to wear religious insignia. This, the work will also suggest, is not surprising, for contrary to popular belief, the American conception of secularism is in many respects stricter than the French idea of laïcité, with the result that French ‘exceptionalism’ on matters of religion is hardly a convincing ground for justifying the new piece of legislation. The fundamental value of a Franco-American comparison, this work will suggest, ultimately lies with the fact that such a comparison demolishes a good portion of the popular myths surrounding the affaire des foulards: that the French legal system is fiercely secular; that the American one is strongly ‘religious’; and that France was, in 2004, confronted with a veritable ‘veil emergency’ that rendered the passage of the new statute all but inevitable.

For a variety of historical, cultural and political reasons, the Islamic headscarf has become an increasingly controversial matter in Europe. This is particularly the case in France, where the Parliament passed, in March 2004, a piece of legislation that prohibits students from wearing the Muslim veil—together with any other ‘conspicuous’ religious sign—in the classroom. Although Statute 228/2004 proved highly controversial and attracted unprecedented media attention, it was overwhelmingly supported by French MPs as a response to popular opposition towards religious insignia at school and was heralded as a ‘liberating’ piece of legislation that faithfully reasserted the beloved French principle of laïcité. Overseas, the new law was less favourably perceived and was often accused of being discriminatory and of violating the students’ freedom of religious expression. This thesis compares the French and American attitudes towards religious symbolism in general and the Islamic veil in particular. As in other matters, at first sight these two countries seem to adopt a very different—if not opposite—approach to religion and the Muslim veil, and so much so that their positions are often described as ‘irreconcilable’. This thesis will argue that this is hardly the case. Indeed, it will show that, at least before the passage of Statute 228-2004, the French and American legal systems adopted a substantially similar approach that appeared respectful of a veiled student’s right to wear religious insignia. This, the work will also suggest, is not surprising, for contrary to popular belief, the American conception of secularism is in many respects stricter than the French idea of laïcité, with the result that French ‘exceptionalism’ on matters of religion is hardly a convincing ground for justifying the new piece of legislation. The fundamental value of a Franco-American comparison, this work will suggest, ultimately lies with the fact that such a comparison demolishes a good portion of the popular myths surrounding the affaire des foulards: that the French legal system is fiercely secular; that the American one is strongly ‘religious’; and that France was, in 2004, confronted with a veritable ‘veil emergency’ that rendered the passage of the new statute all but inevitable.

For a variety of historical, cultural and political reasons, the Islamic headscarf has become an increasingly controversial matter in Europe. This is particularly the case in France, where the Parliament passed, in March 2004, a piece of legislation that prohibits students from wearing the Muslim veil—together with any other ‘conspicuous’ religious sign—in the classroom. Although Statute 228/2004 proved highly controversial and attracted unprecedented media attention, it was overwhelmingly supported by French MPs as a response to popular opposition towards religious insignia at school and was heralded as a ‘liberating’ piece of legislation that faithfully reasserted the beloved French principle of laïcité. Overseas, the new law was less favourably perceived and was often accused of being discriminatory and of violating the students’ freedom of religious expression. This thesis compares the French and American attitudes towards religious symbolism in general and the Islamic veil in particular. As in other matters, at first sight these two countries seem to adopt a very different—if not opposite—approach to religion and the Muslim veil, and so much so that their positions are often described as ‘irreconcilable’. This thesis will argue that this is hardly the case. Indeed, it will show that, at least before the passage of Statute 228-2004, the French and American legal systems adopted a substantially similar approach that appeared respectful of a veiled student’s right to wear religious insignia. This, the work will also suggest, is not surprising, for contrary to popular belief, the American conception of secularism is in many respects stricter than the French idea of laïcité, with the result that French ‘exceptionalism’ on matters of religion is hardly a convincing ground for justifying the new piece of legislation. The fundamental value of a Franco-American comparison, this work will suggest, ultimately lies with the fact that such a comparison demolishes a good portion of the popular myths surrounding the affaire des foulards: that the French legal system is fiercely secular; that the American one is strongly ‘religious’; and that France was, in 2004, confronted with a veritable ‘veil emergency’ that rendered the passage of the new statute all but inevitable.

For a variety of historical, cultural and political reasons, the Islamic headscarf has become an increasingly controversial matter in Europe. This is particularly the case in France, where the Parliament passed, in March 2004, a piece of legislation that prohibits students from wearing the Muslim veil—together with any other ‘conspicuous’ religious sign—in the classroom. Although Statute 228/2004 proved highly controversial and attracted unprecedented media attention, it was overwhelmingly supported by French MPs as a response to popular opposition towards religious insignia at school and was heralded as a ‘liberating’ piece of legislation that faithfully reasserted the beloved French principle of laïcité. Overseas, the new law was less favourably perceived and was often accused of being discriminatory and of violating the students’ freedom of religious expression. This thesis compares the French and American attitudes towards religious symbolism in general and the Islamic veil in particular. As in other matters, at first sight these two countries seem to adopt a very different—if not opposite—approach to religion and the Muslim veil, and so much so that their positions are often described as ‘irreconcilable’. This thesis will argue that this is hardly the case. Indeed, it will show that, at least before the passage of Statute 228-2004, the French and American legal systems adopted a substantially similar approach that appeared respectful of a veiled student’s right to wear religious insignia. This, the work will also suggest, is not surprising, for contrary to popular belief, the American conception of secularism is in many respects stricter than the French idea of laïcité, with the result that French ‘exceptionalism’ on matters of religion is hardly a convincing ground for justifying the new piece of legislation. The fundamental value of a Franco-American comparison, this work will suggest, ultimately lies with the fact that such a comparison demolishes a good portion of the popular myths surrounding the affaire des foulards: that the French legal system is fiercely secular; that the American one is strongly ‘religious’; and that France was, in 2004, confronted with a veritable ‘veil emergency’ that rendered the passage of the new statute all but inevitable.