Parliament cites existing oversight mechanisms in response to calls for supporting documentation

Paris – July 13, 2026: The French National Assembly and Senate have rejected a request by the civic organization Transparence Citoyenne to submit supporting documents for parliamentary activity-related expenses incurred by all deputies and senators. According to Franceinfo, both chambers explained that the use of these funds is already subject to institutional oversight. The key issue is therefore not whether audits exist, but to what extent they can be verified by the public.

The 577 members of the National Assembly and 348 senators receive funds to cover professional expenses arising from their parliamentary work. These may include expenses related to offices, travel, communications or services. The funds must not be used for personal benefit. Since the law of September 15, 2017 on restoring confidence in political life was enacted, the rules and oversight systems of both chambers have become much more specific.

In the National Assembly, the independent ethics officer, the Déontologue, oversees the use of the flat-rate expense allowance in accordance with its intended purpose. In cases where there are indications of specific rule violations, the officer may order sample checks or special audits. Audit results may lead to recommendations, recoveries or confirmation of violations. This regulatory framework is based on Article 4 sexies of the Ordinance of November 17, 1958 on the functioning of both chambers of Parliament.

In the Senate, the Comité de déontologie parlementaire is responsible for this task. According to the upper house, all senators’ expenses are reviewed annually, with independent auditors assisting the body. In October 2025, the Senate stated that 52% of the expenses incurred by 362 senators in 2024 had been included in audits. This figure shows that an audit method reviewing supporting documents and expenditure items is being applied, but also indicates that there is no system for generally publishing individual receipts.

A legal comparison with locally elected officials is possible only to a limited extent. In a decision of February 8, 2023, reaffirmed in 2025, the Council of State held that supporting documents for expenses of locally elected representatives and public officials are in principle accessible. However, information requiring protection must be redacted on a case-by-case basis. Special rules apply to parliamentary documents, however. The Code of Relations between the Public and the Administration explicitly refers to the autonomous order of both chambers of Parliament.

There is therefore no automatic right to apply freedom-of-information rules applicable to administrative bodies to the National Assembly and Senate. Nevertheless, Transparence Citoyenne is demanding disclosure, or at least submission, of supporting documents on the grounds of public interest in the use of public funds. Both chambers cite their own oversight systems and Parliament’s special constitutional status in response.

Politically, the matter reveals a tension that has persisted for years. Internal audits may limit abuse and enable recoveries, but they do not necessarily replace public scrutiny of individual expenses. Conversely, comprehensive disclosure may involve privacy, security concerns or information relating to third parties. Introducing greater transparency would therefore likely require explicit legislation or parliamentary rules specifying access rights, redaction procedures and oversight powers.