The Constitutional Council validated on Thursday, February 19, 2026, an article in the finance bill excluding non-European and non-scholarship students from personalized housing aid. This measure, requiring at least two years of presence in France, is criticized as a form of national preference by opposition parties and student associations. The Sages, however, ruled that it pursues a general interest objective in controlling APL-related expenditures.
On February 19, 2026, the Constitutional Council approved a provision in the 2026 finance bill that denies personalized housing aid (APL) to non-European and non-scholarship students. This exclusion applies to those present in France for less than two years, with details specified by decree. Appeals filed by the Socialist Party (PS), La France Insoumise (LFI), the Ecologists, and the Left Democratic and Republican group (GDR) were rejected.
The Fondation pour le logement, backed by about fifteen associations and student unions, opposed the measure. According to the Observatoire de la vie étudiante, foreign students relied on food aid three times more often in 2023 than French students. The reform could cut their budget by 150 to 250 euros per month, as APL is one of the few aids available to them.
The PS argued that the provision contradicts the principle of equal access to education and the right to decent housing. LFI recalled an April 2024 ruling that struck down residence requirements for social benefits as disproportionate.
The Sages determined that the measure aims to control APL expenditure growth, justifying a deviation from equality for differing situations or general interest reasons. They added an interpretive reservation, requiring application in line with the Constitution's preamble on individual development and means of existence.
Disparities already exist, such as the RSA requiring five years of residence or differentiated enrollment fees for non-EU students. Constitutional scholar Anne-Charlène Bezzina described the decision as a hardening of jurisprudence without a total break.
LFI deputy Eric Coquerel criticized it as a shift toward national preference drawn from the National Front's program. Manuel Domergue from the Fondation pour le logement expressed disappointment over its impact on precarious foreign students. FAGE president Suzanne Nijdam was surprised and considers actions, while UNEF's Manon Moret and Union étudiante's Léa Jules-Clément fear homelessness and study dropouts, vowing continued mobilization.
