The Court of Cassation examined, Friday, a priority question of constitutionality submitted by the Keeper of the Seals, who intends to weaken the procedure initiated against him by the Court of Justice of the Republic for “illegal taking of interest”.
by Abel Mestre
For Eric Dupond-Moretti, this is an importance step in his battle against the procedure initiated against him by the Court of Justice of the Republic (CJR) for “illegal taking of interest”. Through his lawyer, the Minister of Justice raised, Friday, February 3, before the Court of Cassation, a priority question of constitutionality (QPC). The highest court of the judicial order plays the role of filter by deciding on the admissibility or not of the question asked before transmitting it, possibly, to the Constitutional Council.
The examination examined comes in support of the request to cancel the search of 1 er July 2021. That day, for fifteen hours, magistrates of the CJR – Special jurisdiction in charge of Judging the ministers for the crimes committed in the exercise of their functions – accompanied by around twenty gendarmes from the Paris research section, presented themselves at the start of the morning Place Vendôme to search the ministry. The Minister of Justice is accused of having, a few weeks after his appointment, ordered the General Inspectorate of Justice of Administrative Investigations, a step prior to disciplinary procedure, against magistrates with whom he had been in opposition as that lawyer.
encroachment of the judiciary on the executive
Before the plenary assembly of the Court of Cassation, its most solemn training, the object of the debates was not to decide on the merits of the search of 2021, nor to know if this measure was , or not, disproportionate. The point of law raised by Patrice Spinosi, lawyer for the Keeper of the Seals (who was not present at the hearing), was to determine whether a search in a ministry, the place of exercise of executive power, did not contravene the separation of powers, constitutional principle. Likewise, it is a question of knowing whether the legislator did not disregard his office by not providing specific measures framing the searches in the ministries.
The unprecedented articulation of these two grievances, suffering from the separation of powers and negative incompetence of the legislator, was the heart of the reflection of M e spinosi. For the latter, it is a question of highlighting a disproportion in the apprehension of the principle of separation of powers. M e spinosi thus recalled the guarantees whose parliamentary power and especially the judiciary, benefit to supervise the searches. Nonexistent protections, according to him, for the executive power.
You have 51.47% of this article to read. The continuation is reserved for subscribers.