"Crackers-payers": Senators from Var and the Alpes-Maritimes voted in favour

Senators from Var and the Alpes-Maritimes voted in favour of the bill "breakers-payers", according to the survey published by Nice-Matin. Adopted on the night of 27-28 October 2026 by 229 votes to 105, the text received the support of the Senate majority on the right and the centre, as well as the National Rally, against the opposition of the left. Its adoption in the Senate does not constitute an entry into force: the National Assembly must now consider it. [S1] [S6] [S8]

Unanimous support from local elected officials

In the Alpes-Maritimes, Alexandra Borchio-Fontimp, Laurent Castillo, Dominique Estrosi Sassonne, Gaëlle Frontoni and Jean-Marc Délia all voted in favour. In the Var, Nice-Matin also reported favourable votes by François Dumont, Christian Simon, Franck Giletti and Carine Leroy. The daily newspaper indicates that it is based on the results published by the Senate. These individual positions are reported by this local source; the other minutes consulted document the national result, without detailing these votes. [S1] [S6] [S8]

This vote concerns a substantially enlarged text. Originally composed of five articles on compensation and recovery of damages, the bill comes out of the Senate with some 20 additional provisions. The government defended the urgency of its review after the violence of 17 October. Parliamentary work is also consistent with a mission on law and order, the conclusions of which were presented on October 21, as confirmed by the Senate. [S8] [S13]

Who could have to pay?

The central measure would allow for joint and several civil liability of persons who did not themselves cause the damage. These include those who "knowingly participated" in a group formed to commit violence or degradation, as well as those who remained in a crowd after two summons from the security forces. The State could claim damages up to a maximum of EUR 10,000 per person. It is therefore not an automatic fine for anyone present at a demonstration. [S7] [S8]

Public Senate states that exceptions are provided for those who remain for "legitimate reasons", including independent observers and volunteer first aid workers. A government amendment to limit this protection to professional journalists was rejected. This clarification complements the general records: the Senate text does not deal without distinction with all the presences in a gathering. [S7]

For Laurent Nuñez, the scheme remains based on personal misconduct and must allow for better compensation to victims, rather than allowing taxpayers to bear the damage. On the other hand, ecologist Mélanie Vogel points out that warnings can be inaudible and that an encircled person may not be able to leave. These objections concern the real capacity of individuals to act and the establishment of their responsibility; they are not already measured effects of the device. [S7]

Social benefits exposed to seizures

The text would also make it possible to seize some of the family allowances, personal housing assistance and the RSA to recover damages owed. After a second discussion, the scope also includes the family supplement, the return allowance and the work bonus. Laurent Nuñez announced that he would refer these extensions to the Council of State in order to examine the balance between solidarity and reparation. This announcement does not prejudge their legal conformity. [S6] [S8]

The disagreement concerns in particular the consequences for relatives. The Socialist Marie-Pierre de la Gontrie believes that seizing family benefits makes several people bear the responsibility of one person. Centralist co-rapporteur Olivier Bitz opposes this argument because of the damage suffered by the traders' families. Co-rapporteur LR David Margueritte defends a seizure that preserves a rest to live. The minutes consulted do not allow for the precise presentation of all the financial guarantees. [S6]

Restrictions beyond financial compensation

The Senate has also adopted individual bans on demonstrations decided by the Prefect for persons who have already committed violence or degradation. Another provision would require the blocking and de-listing of platforms that would not remove within 24 hours certain content calling for violence, theft or destruction. The debate thus goes beyond the question of who pays for the damage: it also concerns the powers of the administration and freedom of expression. [S7]

The defenders of the project claim to want to protect peaceful demonstrations from violence that overshadow their demands. Its opponents, including trade unions, Amnesty International and the National Bar Council, denounce restrictions on freedoms and a risk of deterrence for non-violent protesters. These consequences remain under discussion. The examination in the National Assembly will still have to determine the content of the scheme; the sources consulted do not detail all the conditions of evidence and remedies associated with the new measures. [S6] [S7] [S8]