Yes, but only a limited number of aircraft can maintain a steady descent-rate on this glideslope. (6° I mean, not 4°) And even then, most companies (if not all) will only allow the Captain to execute the approach.
The advantage/disadvantage of a 4°-glideslope lies in the powerrequirement. As was already mentioned, we would need less enginethrust to maintain a stable speed during final descent. Less enginethrust equals less engine-noise. However, that is also the risk (the thrust, not the noise).
As the descentangle/glideslope increases, the component of airplane weight along the direction of travel increases also. This causes the need for less enginethrust. (E.g. a rock. If you drop a rock of a bridge, the component of its weight is completely along its direction of travel - vertical. It does not need thrust to accelerate.)
Since there is reduced "excess"-thrust (thrust above idle, in this case) it will be more difficult to control/eliminate any excess speed. Larger, heavier airplanes might not be able to reduce speed with normal means at all.
I do agree, approaches in Marseille are usually safe and stable. However, the margin of error (consider tailwind on final!) is smaller.