French court upholds disciplinary rules for health professionals

The French Constitutional Council has confirmed that certain disciplinary sanctions against health professionals permanently bar them from serving on disciplinary boards. This decision, issued on September 24, 2026, validated specific provisions in the Public Health Code that restrict the eligibility of sanctioned professionals for such roles.

Legal provisions outline permanent restrictions

According to the Public Health Code, specific sanctions such as temporary or permanent prohibition from practicing result in the automatic loss of the right to serve on disciplinary councils. These rules were challenged by a podiatrist who argued they violated the principle of individualized penalties and the right to eligibility.

Constitutional Council defends the rules

The Constitutional Council rejected the challenge, stating that the restrictions are intended to maintain the integrity and morality of professionals in judicial roles within their field. The Council emphasized that these measures are preventive and not an additional punishment.

Pharmacists face similar rules

The Council National of the Order of Pharmacists (Cnop) has reiterated that pharmacists who face disciplinary sanctions, such as temporary or permanent prohibition from practicing, are permanently barred from serving on the Order’s councils. This is outlined in article L. 4234-6 of the Public Health Code.

Disciplinary complaint against a pharmacist

David Alapini, a pharmacist and president of the Regional Council of the Order of Pharmacists in Hauts-de-France, is under investigation for alleged sexual and moral harassment. The complaint, filed by the Cnop president, is being reviewed by the disciplinary chamber of the Île-de-France region.

Alapini denies the allegations

Contacted by Le Moniteur des pharmacies, Alapini stated the case was still under investigation and referred questions to his lawyer. His lawyer confirmed that Alapini denies the allegations, and the disciplinary chamber has yet to rule on the matter.

Constitutional ruling does not affect ongoing cases

The recent constitutional decision does not influence the outcome of Alapini’s case. The consequences of any potential sanction would depend on the nature of the ruling and the applicable provisions. No conclusion can be drawn about Alapini’s eligibility under these rules until a decision is made.

Rules based on professional ethics

The constitutional ruling clarifies that the restrictions on eligibility are justified by deontological requirements, which govern the ethical standards of professional conduct in health professions.