Nationalization Law

Decision n ° 81-132 DC of January 16, 1982

Nationalization law

Article 61 paragraph 2

Senators Deputies

Having regard to the Constitution;

Considering the ordinance of Noember 7 1958 on the organic law on the Constitutional Council, in particular the articles appearing in chapter II of title II of the said ordinance;

Heard the rapporteur in his report;

I – On the legislative procedure:

As regards the pleas based on the disregard of article 40 of the Constitution:

Considering that it is argued that the nationalization law submitted to the consideration of the Constitutional Council would have been adopted in breach of article 40 of the Constitution because the provisions of this article were wrongly opposed to several amendments and of the that amendments would have been rejected without discussion.

Considering, on the one hand, that the amendments in question tended either to guarantee a minimum rate of 11%. 100 per year for the interest attached to the bonds given in exchange for the shares of the nationalized companies, either to provide for the amortization of these bonds for a period shorter than that provided for in the bill, or to be instituted for the benefit of certain shareholders of the nationalized companies compensation in cash, either to adjust the rules on the taxation of capital gains in a way that derogates from common law with regard to those realized during the transfer of bonds issued for the compensation of former shareholders, or, finally, to place at the sole charge of the State the resources of the national bank of banks necessary for the compensation for former shareholders; that each of these amendments would have had the effect of aggravating a public charge and that it is therefore by an exact application of article 40 of the Constitution that they were declared inadmissible.

Considering, on the other hand, that no provision of the Constitution was disregarded in the present case since the amendments in question were not unduly declared inadmissible, that they were able to be supported and that their rejection resulted from votes of the assembly before which they were deposited;

With regard to the pleas alleging disregard of Article 1, paragraph 4, and Article 2, paragraph 5, of the ordinance of January 2, 1959 on the organic law relating to finance laws:

Considering that it is maintained that the provisions of the nationalization law generating expenditure which will affect the financial balance for several years were passed in disregard of the rules laid down by article 1, paragraph 4, and by article 2, paragraph 5, of the ordinance of January 2, 1959, owing to the fact that a finance law neither provided for, assessed nor authorized these new charges;

Considering that it follows from all the provisions of the ordinance of January 2, 1959, brought together with the provisions of Title V of the Constitution, that the rules laid down by its article 1, paragraph 4, and by its article 2, paragraph 5 , are intended to prevent a law from allowing new expenditure when its impact on the financial balance for the year, or on that of subsequent years, has not been assessed and taken into account, first, by finance laws;

Considering that the nationalization law does not disregard these rules since it does not allow the charges that it implies to be faced without first having the necessary credits for each of the years in question having been provided for, assessed and authorized by one or more finance laws;

As regards the pleas alleging disregard of article 15 of the ordinance of January 2, 1959:

Considering that it is maintained that by providing that the national industry fund and the national bank fund will issue bonds intended to be returned to former shareholders as compensation and that these bonds may be used as a means of payment of public expenditure, the provisions of the nationalization law would be contrary to article 15 of the ordinance of January 2, 1959 which requires that loan issues be the subject of an authorization given by a finance law and which prohibits, unless expressly provided for in a finance law, the use of government debt securities as a means of paying public expenditure;

Considering that the delivery, as payment, of bonds to the former shareholders of the nationalized companies does not constitute a borrowing operation within the meaning of article 15 of the ordinance of January 2, 1959; therefore, the provisions criticized, not falling within the scope of this article 15, cannot have disregarded it.

As regards the plea alleging breach of Article 18 of the same ordinance:

Considering that, contrary to what is alleged, the resources of the national industry fund and the national bank fund coming from the royalty paid by the nationalized companies and the amount of which will be fixed each year by the finance law no. do not have to appear in the state budget; that in fact they constitute resources of public establishments and not State resources; that thus articles 12 and 24 of the law submitted to the examination of the Constitutional Council are not contrary to article 18 of the ordinance of January 2, 1959;

As regards the plea alleging violation of article 74 of the Constitution:

Considering that, according to the senators who made the referral, the nationalization law, because of the consequences it will have on the economic and social life of the overseas territories, must be regarded as relating to the particular organization of these territories and, as such, should, before its adoption, have been submitted to the consultation of the territorial assemblies concerned;

Considering that the law which nationalizes companies whose head office is located in metropolitan France does not affect the specific organization of the overseas territories and, consequently, does not fall within the scope of the article 74 of the Constitution;

With regard to all the means relating to the legislative procedure:

Considering that it follows from the foregoing that the nationalization law was adopted according to a procedure in accordance with the Constitution;

II – SUBSTANTIALLY:

On the principle of nationalizations:

Considering that article 2 of the Declaration of the rights of man and of the citizen of 1789 proclaims: The goal of any political association is the conservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man. These rights are liberty, property, security and resistance to oppression; that article 17 of the same Declaration also proclaims: Property being an inviolable and sacred right, no one can be deprived of it except when the public necessity, legally established, obviously requires it and under the condition of fair and prior compensation;

Considering that the French people, by the referendum of May 5, 1946, rejected a draft Constitution which preceded the provisions relating to the institutions of the Republic by a new Declaration of Human Rights comprising in particular the statement of differing principles of those proclaimed in 1789 by the aforementioned articles 2 and 17.

Whereas, on the contrary, by the referendums of October 13, 1946 and September 28, 1958, the French people approved texts conferring constitutional value on the principles and rights proclaimed in 1789; that in fact, the preamble to the Constitution of 1946 solemnly reaffirms the rights and freedoms of man and of the citizen enshrined in the Declaration of the Rights of 1789 and only tends to supplement them by the formulation of political and economic principles and social particularly necessary in our time; that, under the terms of the preamble to the 1958 Constitution, the French people solemnly proclaim their attachment to human rights and the principles of national sovereignty as defined by the declaration of 1789,

Considering that, so after 1789 and up to the present day, the purposes and conditions for the exercise of the right to property have undergone an evolution characterized both by a notable extension of its field of application to new individual fields and by limitations demanded by the general interest, the very principles set out in the Declaration of the Rights of Man have full constitutional value both with regard to the fundamental character of the right to property, the preservation of which constitutes one of the aims of political society and which is placed at the same level as freedom, security and resistance to oppression, as regards the guarantees given to the holders of this right and the prerogatives of public power; than the freedom which, under the terms of

Considering that paragraph 9 of the preamble to the Constitution of 1946 provides: Any property, any enterprise whose operation has or acquires the characteristics of a national public service or of a de facto monopoly must become the property of the community; that this provision has neither the object nor the effect of rendering inapplicable to nationalization operations the above-mentioned principles of the Declaration of 1789;

Considering that, while article 34 of the Constitution places in the domain of the law the nationalization of enterprises and the transfer of enterprises from the public sector to the private sector, this provision, like that which entrusts the law with the determination of fundamental principles of the property regime, cannot exempt the legislator, in the exercise of his competence, from respect for the principles and rules of constitutional value which are binding on all State bodies.

Considering that it emerges from the preparatory work of the law submitted to the examination of the Constitutional Council that the legislator intended to base the nationalizations carried out by the said law on the fact that these nationalizations would be necessary to give the public authorities the means to face up to the economic crisis, to promote growth and to fight unemployment and would therefore proceed from public necessity within the meaning of article 17 of the Declaration of 1789;

Considering that the assessment made by the legislator on the necessity of the nationalizations decided by the law submitted to the examination of the Constitutional Council cannot, in the absence of manifest error, be challenged by the latter since it does not it is not established that the transfers of goods and companies currently operated would restrict the field of private property and freedom of enterprise to the point of disregarding the aforementioned provisions of the Declaration of 1789;

On the designation of companies subject to nationalization and on respect for the principle of equality:

Considering that the provisions of Articles 1 and 27 of the Law which designate respectively the five industrial companies and the two financial companies subject to nationalization measures have been adopted on the basis and within the limits of the powers which, as it comes from to be said, belong to the legislator; that the specific characters attached to each of these companies prevent that the principle of equality can be usefully invoked by comparison with the situation of other companies not targeted by the nationalization law; that thus articles 1 and 27 of the law are not contrary to the Constitution;

Considering that, with regard to the nationalization of banks, article 13 of the law first sets out in paragraph I the general rule according to which the companies falling within the scope of nationalization are designated as well as the exemptions made to this general rule, then, in paragraph II, establishes the list of nationalized companies.

Considering that the legislator is first of all criticized for having, in paragraph I of article 13, adopted as a general criterion for the nationalization of banks the holding on 2 January 1981 by the banks listed on the list of the National Credit Council of one billion francs or more in the form of sight deposits or liquid or short-term investments in francs or foreign currency on behalf of residents according to the definitions adopted by the National Credit Council; that this provision is criticized for resorting to a non-significant and arbitrary criterion;

Considering that it was up to the legislator, according to the public necessity noted by him, to exclude the less important banks from nationalization; that the criterion adopted to determine the threshold below which banks escape nationalization is not unrelated to its purpose;

Considering that, on the other hand, article 13-I of the law excludes from nationalization banks having the status of real estate companies for commerce and industry fixed by ordinance n ° 67-837 of September 28, 1967 or the status of rediscount house set by Decree No. 60-439 of February 12, 1960; banks, the majority of whose share capital belongs directly or indirectly to mutual or cooperative companies; banks, the majority of whose share capital belongs directly or indirectly to natural persons not residing in France or to legal persons not having their registered office in France;

Considering that, on the very principle of the derogations thus made from the general criterion for determining which banks can be nationalized, it is alleged that such derogations, which leave outside the scope of the law banking companies no less important than those which may be nationalized. ‘it includes, would be the proof that the nationalizations of banks were not necessary to the achievement of the goals which the legislator intended to pursue;

Considering that this allegation cannot be accepted; that indeed, the legislator had the power to assess what should be the extent of the nationalizations of banks for the achievement of the objectives which it assigned to these nationalizations;

Considering that the exceptions covered by the aforementioned provisions are also criticized for disregarding the principle of equality;

Considering that the principle of equality is no less applicable between legal persons than between natural persons, because, legal persons being groups of natural persons, disregard of the principle of equality between them would necessarily be equivalent to a lack of awareness of the equality between them;

Considering that the principle of equality does not prevent a law from establishing non-identical rules with regard to categories of persons in different situations, but that it can only be so when this -identity is justified by the difference in situation and is not incompatible with the purpose of the law;

Considering that the exemption aimed at banks having the status of real estate companies for trade and industry or the status of rediscount house is not contrary to the principle of equality, some of the elements of the statutes of these establishments being specific to them.

Considering that, if the banks whose majority of the share capital belongs directly or indirectly to natural persons not residing in France or to legal persons not having their registered office in France have the same legal status as other banks, the The legislator was able, without disregarding the principle of equality, to exclude them from nationalization on the grounds of the risks of difficulties that the nationalization of these banks could have entailed at the international level and the realization of which would, in his view, have compromised the general interest linked to the objectives pursued by the nationalization law;

Considering, on the contrary, that the exemption granted to the benefit of banks, the majority of whose share capital belongs directly or indirectly to companies of a mutual or cooperative nature, disregards the principle of equality; that indeed, it is justified neither by specific characteristics of their statute nor by the nature of their activity nor by possible difficulties in the application of the law suitable to thwart the goals of general interest that the legislator intended to pursue ;

Considering, therefore, that it is necessary to declare non-compliant with the Constitution the provisions of article 13-1 of the law submitted to the examination of the Constitutional Council as follows: Banks of which the majority of the share capital belongs directly or indirectly to mutual or cooperative companies.

On possible transfers from the public sector to the private sector:

With regard to articles 4, 16 and 30 of the law:

Considering that articles 4, 16 and 30 of the law are conceived in identical terms; that their provisions tend, with regard to each of the categories of nationalized companies, to allow the general administrators or the boards of directors, to decide, when the laws or the practices specific to certain countries make it necessary, the partial alienation or total of the shareholdings, majority or minority, held directly or indirectly by these companies in subsidiaries or some of their branches carrying out their activities outside the national territory;

Considering that the authors of the referrals argue, first of all, against these provisions that by giving jurisdiction in foreign territory to the new bodies of the companies established and appointed under the nationalization law, they would violate a principle of law international which, according to them, would prohibit attaching an extra-territorial effect to nationalizations;

Considering that the provisions of articles 4, 16 and 30 are intended to define some of the powers of the administrative bodies of companies having their head office in France; that these powers necessarily extend to all the property and rights making up the patrimony of companies; that the limits possibly encountered in the exercise of these powers outside the national territory would constitute a fact which could not restrict in any way the right of the legislator to regulate the conditions under which the nationalized companies are administered;

Considering that articles 4, 16 and 30 are also criticized for disregarding the provisions of article 34 of the Constitution in that they would authorize the general administrators or the boards of directors of nationalized companies to proceed to alienations may constitute transfers from the public sector to the private sector, whereas under article 34 of the Constitution such transfers fall within the domain of the law;

Considering that although, under article 34 of the Constitution, the law establishes the rules concerning the nationalization of companies and the transfer of ownership of companies from the public sector to the private sector, these provisions do not require that any operation involving a transfer from the public sector to the private sector is directly decided by the legislator; that it is up to the latter to lay down rules for such operations, the application of which will be the responsibility of the authorities or bodies appointed by him.

Considering that, although articles 4, 16 and 30 of the law are intended to lay down, in the particular case they cover, the rules according to which certain transfers may take place, their provisions confer discretionary power solely on the bodies of national companies assessment and decision exempt from any control and of such an extent that the provisions criticized cannot be regarded as satisfying the requirements of article 34 of the Constitution;

Considering, therefore, that Articles 4, 16 and 30 of the law submitted to the consideration of the Constitutional Council are not in conformity with the Constitution;

With regard to the rules relating to the possible transfer of assets of nationalized enterprises to the private sector:

Considering that the law submitted for examination by the Constitutional Council is criticized for not including any provision regulating the conditions for the sale to the private sector of certain assets, in particular subsidiaries, which, not corresponding to the objectives of nationalizations, should be returned by nationalized companies to the private sector;

Considering that, if it results from the preparatory work that the legislator envisaged that the nationalized companies could not keep certain assets, in particular in subsidiaries, not corresponding to the objectives of the nationalizations and could transfer them to the private sector, these alienations, to the reverse of those mentioned in articles 4, 16 and 30, are not provided for by the law submitted to the examination of the Constitutional Council; that, consequently, the legislator was able, without disregarding article 34 of the Constitution, not to enact in this law the rules applicable to these possible transfers and which could be the subject, as necessary, of provisions subsequent legislative; that thus the aforementioned complaint is unfounded;

On compensation:

Considering that under the provisions of article 17 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, deprivation of the right to property for reasons of public necessity requires fair and prior compensation;

Considering that, by the effect of articles 2, 14 and 28 of the law submitted to the examination of the Constitutional Council, the nationalization of the various companies covered by the said law is effected by the transfer to the State in full ownership of the shares representing their capital on the dividend date of the bonds delivered in exchange; that articles 5, 17 and 31 of the law determine the nature and the regime of the obligations which must be given to the former shareholders in order to ensure their compensation; that articles 6, 18 and 32 of the law lay down the rules according to which the exchange value of the shares of the various companies is determined;

Considering that it is necessary to examine whether these provisions meet the double requirement of the fairness and the prior nature of the compensation;

With regard to the fairness of the compensation:

Considering that the shareholders of the companies covered by the nationalization law are entitled to compensation for the damage suffered by them, assessed on the day of the transfer of ownership, apart from the influence that the prospect of nationalization may have exerted on the value of their titles;

Considering that the provisions relating to the exchange value of shares listed on the official stock exchange listing, as they result from articles 6, 18-1 and 32 of the law are different from those relating to the value of exchange of shares in banking companies not listed on the same listing on January 1, 1978, which result from article 18-2 of the law; whereas each of these two series of provisions should therefore be examined separately;

As to the exchange value of the shares listed on the official stock exchange listing;

Considering that the determination of the value of the shares listed on the official stock exchange listing on the day of dispossession could not be done directly, in particular due to the fact that their stock market listing had necessarily been affected and this for quite a long time by the very prospect of nationalizations; that it was therefore up to the legislator to determine rules for calculating the exchange value suitable to lead, with an inevitable but limited approximation, to comparable results; that he could legitimately take into account the need for simplicity and speed in the game of compensation rules, in particular with regard to the prior nature of the compensation which would have been compromised if, for the most part of the exchange value , the remission of bonds does not

Considering however that, whatever their force, these practical necessities could not prevail over the requirement of the just compensation due to each of the former owners of shares;

Considering that, undoubtedly, it was open to the legislator to refer, for the valuation of shares, to an average of the stock market prices during a certain period, but by accompanying this lump-sum method of the appropriate adjustments to correct the inequalities and the insufficiencies substantial that could result from it;

Considering that the average share price between January 1, 1978 and December 31, 1980 is made up of quotes expressed in current francs; that if the monetary depreciation was probably taken into account on the date on which each quotation took place, it would have been no less necessary for a correct application of this system than the use of quotations dating far back in the past with a view to expressing the value of the shares on January 1, 1982 was affected by an adequate correction, which is not provided for by law in the provisions currently examined;

Considering, on the other hand, that the uniform use of an average of stock market prices over such a long period without taking into account the fact that the direction of the evolution of prices has been different and, in certain cases, opposed for the various nationalized companies, leads to considerable distortions as regards what could have been the real value of the shares at the time of the dispossession;

Considering, it is true, that, according to the aforementioned provisions, the reference to the average stock market prices for the years 1978, 1979 and 1980 is only 50%. 100 in the calculation of the exchange value of the shares and is supplemented for 25 p. 100 by reference to the net accounting situation and for 25 p. 100 by reference to the product by 10 of the average net profit.

Considering that the call for criteria other than that of the average of stock market prices should precisely have, according to the intention of the legislator, correct the imperfections of the reference to the average of stock market prices, affected by the above terms statements which altered its relevance;

But considering that this end is unequally achieved by the provisions presently examined; that in particular, the reference to the net accounting situation without taking into account the assets of the subsidiaries as well as the reference to the average net profit without taking into account the profits of the subsidiaries lead for the companies in question to very different results determined not by the difference in objective economic and financial data but by the diversity of management techniques and accounting presentation methods followed by companies which, in themselves, should not have an influence on the assessment of compensation;

Considering, moreover, that the provisions of the articles presently examined have the necessary effect of depriving the former shareholders of the dividends which they would have received in respect of the 1981 financial year and with which the interest which the bonds returned in exchange will produce in 1982 do not do not duplicate;

Considering in total that, with regard to the shares of listed companies, the method of calculating their exchange value leads to inequalities of treatment, the extent of which cannot be justified by the sole practical considerations of speed and simplicity ; that these inequalities of treatment are coupled, in many cases, with a substantial underestimation of the said exchange value; that finally, the refusal to recognize to the former shareholders the benefit of the dividends attached to the financial year 1981 or to grant them, in an appropriate form, an equivalent advantage, amputates without justification the indemnities to which the former shareholders are entitled;

As for the exchange value of the shares of unlisted banking companies:

Considering that article 18-2 of the law determines the exchange value of the shares of banking companies other than those whose shares were listed on January 1, 1978 on the official stock exchange listing; that this exchange value is determined by reference, for equal parts, to the net book position at December 31, 1980 and to the product by 10 of the average net profit for the years 1978, 1979, 1980, both defined in terms identical to those retained by article 18-1 for determining the exchange value of shares listed on the stock exchange;

Considering that these provisions call for an assessment similar to that formulated above concerning the use, in order to assess the exchange value of shares listed on the stock exchange, to the net book position and to the product per 10 of the average net profit; that this appreciation is aggravated by the fact that the course on the stock exchange cannot be taken into account, the inequalities of treatment and the insufficiencies of evaluation which can result from this method of calculation produce a full effect; that in addition, the observations relating to the dividends attached to the financial year 1981 also apply to the case currently examined;

As for all the provisions relating to the exchange value of the shares:

Considering that it follows from the foregoing that Articles 6, 18 and 32 of the law submitted to the examination of the Constitutional Council do not, as regards the fairness of the compensation, comply with the requirements of the article 17 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen;

With regard to the prior nature of the compensation:

Whereas, on the contrary, subject to what has just been said concerning the requirement, which it is not satisfied, of the fairness of the compensation, the terms of payment provided for it must be regarded as by sufficiently ensuring the prior character;

Considering, in fact, that, if the payment of the compensation is not effected by the remittance of cash, the dispossessed shareholders must, according to the provisions of articles 5, 17 and 31 of the law submitted to the examination of the Board constitutional, to receive, on the date of dispossession, in exchange for their shares, bonds bearing dividend rights on that date and producing semi-annual interest payable in arrears; that these bonds are listed on the official list and therefore immediately negotiable.

Considering that the interest attached to these bonds is equal to the rate of return on government bonds whose principal or interest is not indexed, issued at a fixed rate and with a final maturity greater than seven years, recorded on the secondary market of Paris by the Caisse des Dépôts et Consignations during the first twenty-five weeks of the semester preceding its fixing; whereas these provisions tend, on the one hand, to allow normal trading of these securities on the bond market, and on the other hand, to mitigate the risks of monetary depreciation;

Considering, finally, that the repayment of these bonds at par will be made by drawing lots in fifteen roughly equal annual installments, which shows an average repayment term of seven and a half years, a duration which is neither abnormal nor excessive;

Considering thus that in themselves, articles 5, 17 and 31 of the law which provide for a mode of compensation sufficiently equivalent to payment in cash, are not contrary to the Constitution;

On various grounds raised by the referral to senators:

With regard to articles 2, 14 and 28 of the law:

Considering that the provisions of articles 2, 14 and 28 of the law submitted for examination by the Constitutional Council are criticized to authorize legal persons already belonging to the public sector or which are intended to enter it by effect of this law to keep the shares they hold in the companies covered by this law, to transfer their shares exclusively to other legal persons belonging to the public sector or to exchange these shares for the obligations created by the same law; that there would be a disregard of Article 34 of the Constitution in that, within the meaning of this text, nationalization would imply exclusive State ownership of the property or companies it concerns;

Considering that neither Article 34 nor any other provision or principle of constitutional value precludes, alongside the State, other legal persons of public law being shareholders of nationalized companies; that thus articles 2, 14 and 28 of the law are not contrary to the Constitution;

With regard to articles 3, 15 and 29 of the law:

Considering that articles 3, 15 and 29 are intended to make applicable to the companies covered by the law submitted to the examination of the Constitutional Council the commercial legislation, in particular the provisions of the law n ° 66-537 of July 24, 1966 as amended, insofar as it is compatible with the provisions of this law; that these provisions are criticized for disregarding Article 34 of the Constitution in that the legislator, who under the terms of the latter was responsible for setting the rules relating to nationalizations, has resorted to defining the scope of application of commercial law, in terms of such imprecision that it did not fulfill this mission;

Considering that, even if, in certain cases, the application of articles 3, 15 and 29 of the law may give rise, like that of any law, to difficulties the resolution of which would fall, if necessary, to the competent courts, the provisions criticized are sufficiently clear and precise and in no way contravene the requirements of article 34 of the Constitution; that they must therefore be regarded as not contrary to the Constitution;

With regard to the situation of minority shareholders of subsidiaries of nationalized companies:

Considering that, by the effect of the law submitted to the examination of the Constitutional Council, certain companies not directly covered by this law, in which one of the nationalized companies had a majority, come under the majority control of the State which becomes sole shareholder of the parent company; that it is alleged by the senators who made the referral that, as a result, the minority shareholders in the subsidiaries considered will suffer significant damage due to the fall in the value of their shares and the probability of a restriction or ” an elimination in the future of the distribution of dividends; that the absence of provisions providing for the compensation of these minority shareholders would therefore be contrary to the principle of equality;

Considering that, in the case referred to by the authors of the referral, the legal situation of the shareholders would not be modified with regard to their rights with regard to the majority shareholder (s); that, moreover, the alleged damage is purely possible; that thus the fact that the law submitted to the review of the Constitutional Council does not provide for any compensation for the benefit of said shareholders is in no way contrary to the principle of equality;

On the whole of the law submitted to the review of the Constitutional Council:

Considering that, for the reasons stated above, are not in conformity with the Constitution:

– Articles 4, 16 and 30 relating to certain powers of general administrators and boards of directors;

– The phrase of Article 13-I as follows: Banks, the majority of whose share capital belongs directly or indirectly to companies of a mutual or cooperative nature;

– Articles 6, 18 and 32 relating to the determination of the exchange value of the shares;

Considering that the other articles of the law are not contrary to the Constitution;

Considering, however, that the provisions of Articles 6, 18 and 32 are inseparable from the law as a whole,

Decide:

Art. 1 – Are declared not in conformity with the Constitution the provisions of articles 4, 6, 16, 18, 30 and 32 of the nationalization law, as well as those stated in article 13-I, by the words: The banks of which the majority of the share capital belongs directly or indirectly to companies of a mutual or cooperative nature.

Art. 2 – The provisions of articles 6, 18 and 32 of the nationalization law cannot be separated from the whole of this law.

Art. 3 – This decision will be published in the Official Journal of the French Republic.