Following the hearing before the Conseil d’Etat (France highest administrative court) on November 17, 2025, an extensive press conference brought together lawyer Diane Protat, REP Senator Alain Houpert, essayist Jacques Nikonoff , and the individual in question, General (2nd section) Paul Pellizzari, who was dismissed from the military by presidential decree on April 17. At stake: the annulment of a sanction deemed “disproportionate“ and, beyond that, the role of Parliament in France’s military engagements with Ukraine.
The chronology, meticulously laid out by Mr. Protat, sets the scene. In February 2024, Alain Houpert, alongside Nicolas Dupont-Aignan, petitioned the Council of State to compel parliamentary ratification of the Franco-Ukrainian military agreements, based on Article 53 of the Constitution, which had already been invoked for other partnerships (Papua New Guinea, in particular). The petition was rejected. The failure to refer the matter to Parliament would therefore be considered an “act of government”. Paul Pellizzari then filed a complaint with the Court of Justice of the Republic for “ illegal delivery of military equipment “ due to the lack of parliamentary ratification, and claimed whistleblower status in an interview with France-Soir. Eight and a half months later, he faced a disciplinary hearing and was dismissed from the service. In the meantime, 68 military personnel submitted a “citizens’ resolution” urging parliamentarians to take a stand; Alain Houpert relayed the initiative to the Senate (resolution no. 547 ). This resolution, however, is still awaiting inclusion on the agenda. “The symbolic resolution was submitted on April 16th; the decree of removal was issued on the 17th. The timing raises questions”, states Mr. Protat. A decision from the Council of State is expected within three weeks; the government rapporteur has recommended its rejection.
Facing the cameras, Alain Houpert unequivocally embraced the role of political mentor to a “courageous man.” The senator denounced “a world of unreason” where “authority becomes authoritarian, tough on the weak and weak on the strong.” He criticized the alarmist rhetoric attributed to the Chief of Staff who addressed the mayors:“They are being told to expect war in four years and to accept sacrificing our children.” He then brought the debate back to the heart of the matter: “I want the Constitution and the law to be respected. Article 53 is not optional.”
Citing a survey of a representative sample of French people, he explains that “80% of the French are against the war “ and calls for “listening to the people.” Above all, he situates Paul Pellizzari within a battle for civil liberties: “We must defend whistleblowers. In this country, if you are against the government, you become a conspiracy theorist.”
Paul Pellizzari, for his part, denies being involved in politics. “I don’t do politics”, he repeats. His approach is legal and civic: “Article 40 obliges me, as a civil servant, to report a crime. I filed a complaint. The response I received, in essence: move along, there’s nothing to see here.” From his dismissal, he remembers the message sent to the military community: “Military personnel, shut up. Silence in the ranks.“ He mocks the disproportionate nature of the situation: “ I’m accused of having ‘seriously endangered the Republic’—and it takes them eight months to summon me. It looks like retaliation. “ On the substance of the matter, he insists on the demand for legality:
“My fight isn’t about being for or against Ukraine. My fight is for respect for the Constitution. We don’t plunder our crown jewels without a mandate from the Nation.“
To his right, Jacques Nikonoff mentions the creation of the Free France Citizens’ Group (GCFL), a cross-party banner bringing together elements from the “true left “ (the Deglobalization Party, Carmagnole, constituent movements) and the military, alongside elected officials like Alain Houpert. The common thread: democracy and peace. “When did Parliament debate an act as serious as the delivery of 100 Rafale fighter jets to Ukraine?” he asks. Denouncing “a president of the Republic in moral decline”, he links the escalation of hostilities to the European industrial collapse exposed by the Draghi report: “We are heading towards war, not peace. Without industry, there is no credible defense; without national sovereignty, there is no freedom.” The GCFL claims the legacy of the National Council of the Resistance: “a broad alliance, founded on the demand for freedom.” And it sets out two courses of action: “legal action and building a public opinion movement for peace. Are we capable of creating enough pressure that the government is forced to back down?“
The debate sometimes veers into semantic sparring, sometimes into sharp retorts. Alain Houpert: “Conspiracy theories have become state-sanctioned blasphemy.“ Paul Pellizzari: “In the military, we cross-check our sources. We don’t announce the death of ‘Martin Bouygues’ just because we heard it at a cocktail party.“ The senator cites the Dreyfus precedent and promises defiantly: “My dear General, I will always call you General.” With a nod to the military adage, the pair exchange: “Si vis pacem, para bellum “ (If you want peace, prepare for war), then Pellizzari: “We’ve changed that in the military: ‘Win the war before the war.’ No comment.“
On the institutional front, lawyer Protat points out the confusion between a non-binding government declaration (Article 51-1) and the requirement for ratification legislation (Article 53) for agreements involving finance or security. “A contrivance, a maneuver to avoid applying the text”, she asserts, emphasizing that previously, less significant agreements had indeed been put to a vote. She adds that no record of the interministerial legal opinions has been provided despite requests.
What to expect now? First, the decision of the Council of State. If it is overturned, Paul Pellizzari “hopes to regain his stars“; if it is rejected, he promises to pursue the matter “whatever the outcome”, convinced that“ the French are beginning to worry about where their taxes are going.” In Parliament, the ball is in the Senate’s office, which has been seized of Resolution 547. In civil society, the GCFL is betting on a reshaped political landscape: “Why not reconstitute a true Jaurèsian left and a true Gaullist right, and act together where we agree?” suggests Jacques Nikonoff. Alain Houpert agrees: “In crises, right and left fade away: there are only French people.”
One sentence remains, brutal and clear, like a test of democratic resistance: « The first of the values of the Republic is to respect its Constitution » Pellizzari concludes.
Three weeks for a verdict. And perhaps much longer to clarify the red line between national interest and the rule of law.