<p style="text-align:justify"><strong>R&eacute;sum&eacute; :</strong></p> <p style="text-align:justify">La critique est men&eacute;e sur deux fronts&nbsp;: celui du concept de citoyennet&eacute;, car le CECRL&nbsp;a des pr&eacute;tentions dans le champ politique et pas seulement dans la sph&egrave;re &eacute;ducative&nbsp;; celui des contenus didactiques en montrant que le CECRL fonctionne comme un instrument de rationalisation de l&#39;&eacute;valuation, pratique &agrave; laquelle il fournit effectivement un cadre de r&eacute;f&eacute;rence, mais qu&#39;il ne saurait tenir lieu de document cadre pour l&#39;enseignement et l&#39;apprentissage des langues. Son mode d&#39;&eacute;criture refuse en effet les prises de position sur nombre de points cl&eacute;s, ce qui est loin d&#39;&ecirc;tre anodin et sans effet.</p> <p style="text-align:justify"><strong>Mots-cl&eacute;s&nbsp;:</strong> citoyennet&eacute;, &eacute;valuation, perspective actionnelle</p> <p style="text-align:justify"><strong>Abstract :</strong></p> <p>Criticism is made on two fronts: that of the concept of citizenship, because the CEFRL has claims in the political field and not only in the educational sphere; that of didactic content, showing that the CEFRL functions as an instrument for rationalizing evaluation, a practice to which it does indeed provide a frame of reference, but that it cannot take the place of a framework document for the teaching and learning of languages. The way in which it is written refuses to take a position on a number of key points, which is far from insignificant and ineffective.</p> <p><strong>Key words :</strong> citizenship, evaluation, action perspective</p> <p>Marie Berchoud - Universit&eacute; de Bourgogne</p> <p><a href="https://www.marieberchoud.com/" target="">marieberchoud@gmail.com</a></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p>