The High Jurisdiction, which was pronounced within the framework of a case of corruption and abuse of corporate goods called “the Defense Boiler room”, confirmed its position by breaking the appeal decision believing that ” Excessive duration cannot lead to cancellation while each of the acts that constitute it is regular “.
by Abel Mestre
Not being tried within a reasonable time does not, in itself, affect the rights of the defense. This is decided by the criminal chamber of the Court of Cassation in its judgment of Wednesday, November 9. The high court was to decide on the excessive duration of the procedure for a corruption and abuse of corporate goods, that known as “the Defense Boiler room”. The facts, uncovered in the early 2000s, concern the award of the heating and air conditioning market in the business district located in Hauts-de-Seine.
In January 2021, the Nanterre court had canceled the entire procedure due to the violation of the right to be judged within a reasonable time. Nine months later, in a more nuanced decision, the Versailles Court of Appeal had pronounced a cancellation concerning the facts of corruption. She believed that she could not rule on a case dating back two decades. In addition, the main accused died in 2019, at the age of 94, leaving in this case, among others a centenary – with decreased cognitive capacities – and an octogenarian, suffering from Parkinson’s disease at an advanced stage. For the Versailles Court of Appeal, the contradictory debate, a condition of a fair trial, could no longer be held without infringing the rights of the defense.
Furthermore, the Court underlined the large number of investigating judges who had succeeded itself in this case, recalling that most of the acts had been carried out by a single instructor magistrate, between 2005 and 2011 and that, leaving , the case should have been judged faster.
a possible “tsunami”
In addition to this decision, at least five other jurisdictions have made similar decisions. This was the main issue of the decision of the Court of Cassation. If she returned to her constant jurisprudence which refuses the cancellation of a procedure due to excessive delay, then opened a possible “tsunami” according to the expression of the late Professor Jean Pradel, eminent penalty, or “the annihilation of a large number of procedures that would not have been carried out with normal speed “.
No surprise: the Court has therefore confirmed its position by breaking the appeal decision believing that “excessive duration cannot lead to cancellation while each of the acts that constitute it is regular”. For her, it is not a cause of nullity. “An analysis shared by the European Court of Human Rights,” said the Court of Cassation. However, it recalls that “the judgment court must examine basically the case which it has been seized by taking into account the effects of the elapsed time” and the possible consequences on the value of the evidence and on the choice of sentence.
You have 23.26% of this article to read. The continuation is reserved for subscribers.