Presumption of legality for police shootings: the National Assembly adopts the Pauget bill

On Tuesday 7 July 2026, the National Assembly adopted at first reading, by 313 votes in favour, 199 against, and 5 abstentions (recorded vote no. 7988), the bill tabled by Éric Pauget, MP for the Alpes-Maritimes (Droite républicaine). Amended by the government in January, the text replaces the original “presumption of self-defence” with a presumption of lawful use of weapons, anchored in Article L. 435-1 of the Internal Security Code. Its effect remains the same: to presume that shots fired are lawful, and to put the burden of proving that a shot was not justified on prosecutors – in practice, on the victims’ families. Put back on the agenda in the government’s allotted sitting time after January’s setback, the text was defended in the chamber by the Interior Minister, Laurent Nuñez.

The breakdown of the vote sheds light on the nature of the majority. The text won the support of the entire Rassemblement national (122 votes in favour), Droite républicaine (48), and Union des droites pour la République (14). But these 184 votes were not enough to reach an absolute majority (257). It was the votes of the centrist bloc that tipped the balance: Ensemble pour la République provided 55 votes in favour – including that of its leader Gabriel Attal – against 12 opposed; Horizons voted in favour as a bloc (31 votes); the MoDem (Les Démocrates) delivered 28 votes in favour, 1 against, and 5 abstentions. In other words, without the backing of the presidential camp, the bill would not have been adopted.

The vote also owes much to the way the Interior Minister, Laurent Nuñez, conducted the debates. Faced with obstruction from the left, which had tabled a flood of sub-amendments to delay the vote, he invoked Article 44, paragraph 2, of the Constitution, which allows the government to oppose the examination of any amendment that has not previously been submitted to the committee. This sweeping aside of the sub-amendments cut short the discussion and cleared the way for the vote.

All the groups on the left voted against: La France insoumise (69 votes), the Socialistes (62), the Écologistes (29), and the Gauche démocrate et républicaine (17). Watching from the public gallery were relatives of people killed during law enforcement operations, among them Issam and Samia El Khalfaoui – who initiated the petition that gathered more than 330,000 signatures against the text in one week – as well as Assa Traoré. When the result was announced, several of them voiced their outrage from the gallery.

In substance, the measure follows on from the law of 28 February 2017 (known as the Cazeneuve law), which created Article L. 435-1 of the Internal Security Code. By presuming that the use of a weapon is lawful, it weakens the foundation on which the opening of an effective investigation after a fatal shooting rests, and runs counter to the obligation, laid down by the European Court of Human Rights under Article 2 of the Convention, for the State to conduct a prompt and impartial investigation. (See Index’s detailed analysis of the text: Presumption of legality for police shootings: what the Pauget bill would change.)

The adoption on 7 July does not mean the text enters into force: it has only passed its first reading and now goes to the Senate. Given the right-wing and centrist majority that dominates the upper house, its adoption there is highly likely. To become final, it will then have to be passed in identical terms by both chambers, at the end of the back-and-forth between them.

Several avenues of challenge will nonetheless remain open. Before promulgation, the law may be referred to the Constitutional Council – 60 MPs or 60 senators are enough to do so, a threshold the left can meet. If the Council does not strike it down, the law may be promulgated by President Emmanuel Macron, who has fifteen days to do so; it would then enter into force on the day after its publication in the Journal officiel (the official gazette). Once promulgated, it could still be challenged through a constitutional challenge brought in the course of litigation (QPC), and its incompatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights (Article 2) raised before the courts. The Defender of Rights, France’s human rights ombudsman, has, moreover, warned in an opinion of 2 July 2026 that the text would infringe the right to life, access to a court and the right to an effective remedy.

Index maintains its opposition to the text and will continue to follow its passage through Parliament.