The tax authorities still refused to disclose the source code of its … – Next INpact

In March 2015, the CADA considered that the source code of software was a communicable document. What is this? Lemaire purged from the bill, he now takes the leadership of the administrative court.

“ I have two goals for this application, the person exposed us originally of this procedure. Ideally this would be to change the mentality of the administration. This is more uncertain and very ambitious. “The other objective more directly OpenFisca, free software supported by the SGMAP, and from which it is possible to make calculations related to social benefits and taxes.

Early 2015 The Commission on Access to Administrative Documents (CADA), authority that allows the acquisition of the communicable nature of administrative documents, confirmed him in substance that a software is an administrative document as another statement that can be made to that the demand. A position already expressed by CADA in 2012.

The walls of Bercy face transparency

But this noble enterprise experienced some through, put in the way of transparency the Financial Branch (or DGFiP). It argued, for example, the problem of fragmentation of files tax calculation simulator installed between the walls. In fact, “ The requested document was to be regarded as non-existent in the absence of automated commonly used treatment likely to produce a comprehensible version of .”

But Such a response has not satisfied CADA for which “ the discretion of the administration that the envisaged reuse would encounter technical difficulties or even a physical impossibility, can not justify the refusal to disclose the requested document in the state administration holds the . “

In March of the same year, Bruno Parent, Director of DGFiP addressed in any case a note to the minister to remind the Executive the risk: “ If it continues to refuse despite the positive opinion issued by CADA, the administration is subject to an appeal for abuse of power before the administrative judge, but also to an image risk a closed opaque administration and functioning . ” However, he conceded, “ source code may be in its finest detail, biases the interpretation of tax doctrine .” As if this internal kitchen had to be disregarded industry experts … The note also testified to internal dissent on this issue.

Given this figure skating, Frédéric Couchet, general delegate of April ( Association for the promotion of free software) had publicly questioned Axelle Lemaire and Emmanuel Macron (56 “18 on video) in June 2015, upon delivery of the Digital Ambition report.

In
his response, Axelle Lemaire, Secretary of State for Digital, revealed that “ the director of the Tax Department, the director general of public finances, is very aware of that decision. He works, moreover, in coordination with CADA to adapt in-house IT offers this decision. So me, he assured me that it was a matter of adaptation and time. “

The draft law Lemaire vs Bill Lemaire

A Matter of Time? Since then administered was forced to turn to the Administrative Court of Paris … Further , hope came from the draft law Lemaire – this time claiming that the source code was an administrative document -. was only very brief

Extract from the draft law Lemaire, disappeared in the final version

This little item has indeed jumped the text tabled in the National Assembly, the government in April explaining that such precision “ does not appear to require legislative amendment “, especially since the legislative intervention could influence” work of Justice “…

David left alone to face Goliath Bercy

This false modesty government and leaves the subject may be returned as a pancake. After a victory before the CADA, so this is our David left alone facing the Goliath of Bercy, on the altar of the Paris Administrative Court.

In a telephone conversation that day, he has told us he still had no date for the litigation “ but a priori, it should soon be resolved .” The pitch DGFiP holds at least in two main points.

On one, she says, software is constantly evolving. It is never a document completed in short. But the argument does not hold in the applicant ‘ They necessarily have a complete version of which was used at one time to the calculation of tax. Bercy necessarily has a version that works. “

Two, DGFiP is armed with the Directive on the right to reuse of paperwork that says” the definition of “document” does not cover computer programs “(paragraph 9). “ The Department concludes that the source codes are not documents. However, this exclusion means above all that the source code is excluded from the right to reuse materials, not that this is no document “nuance the author CADA request. In addition, the 1978 Act provides for a field excluded documents list the right of communication of administrative documents. And the source code does not belong.

Return of the subject by the Parliamentary window

If the government intends to abandon the subject for the benefit of the administrative court, the analysis is different among parliamentarians. Reportedly, environmentalists elected (and probably other groups) have tabled this amendment to the bill For a digital Republic Axelle Lemaire:

According to the explanatory memorandum, it is precisely “ enable communication source code, which must be considered as documents communicable . ” According to its authors, Sergio Coronado, Isabelle Attard, Barbara and Paul Pompili Molac, “ this amendment would be consistent with the stated desire of transparency on the algorithms provided by this bill .” I must say that CADA itself suggests such precision in the law. She says bluntly expressed in its opinion on the draft law in question.