Question 18453 — pensions: general

Summary

The right to reversion is currently linked to a condition of marriage, the existence of a cohabitation situation or civil solidarity pact (PACS) not being taken into account. Cohabitees or people linked by a PACS are in fact not in an identical situation to that of spouses, particularly from the point of view of the respective obligations between members of the couple. For example, partners linked by a PACS undertake in particular to provide material assistance, while the spouses owe each other aid and assistance. Therefore, the legislator can set different rules for these categories of people without contravening the principle of equality (decisions of the Council of State of June 28, 2002 and December 6, 2006). In its decision of July 29, 2011 relating to a priority question of constitutionality (QPC) relating to the exclusion of unmarried couples from reversion, the Constitutional Council thus considered that, taking into account the differences between the three regimes of couple life (cohabitation, PACS and marriage), the difference in treatment regarding the benefit of the survivor's pension between married couples and unmarried couples did not disregard the principle of equality. The Government is currently working on an overhaul of the overall architecture of our pension system, with a view to make it fairer and more readable for policyholders. The reflections undertaken and the consultation with the social partners will make it possible to examine the most suitable modalities, in the future universal pension system, with regard to survivor's pensions.

Machine translation from French. The official text remains authoritative.

Timeline

No timeline events have been ingested for this record yet.

Votes

No vote records are attached yet.

Versions

No version snapshots stored. Document URLs remain at the source.

Documents

No documents linked.

Sponsors

No sponsors or actors listed by the source.

Related records

No cross-record relationships stored yet.