The Council of State on Friday suspended the possibility of imposing videoconferencing without the agreement of the parties before the criminal courts in the context of the health crisis, considering that the measure was "a
serious and manifest violation of the rights of the defense
".
Read also: Justice: the unlimited use of videoconferencing censored by the Constitutional Council
In November, the Council of State had already suspended the possibility of using videoconferencing for assize trials.
The highest administrative court was once again seized by the Syndicat des Avocats de France and the Syndicat de la magistrature (SAF, SM, listed on the left), the Association of Lawyers for the Defense of the Rights of Prisoners and the National Council bars, so that the decision also applies to all other criminal jurisdictions - trials, but also appearances before the public prosecutor or the general prosecutor.
According to the decision, the contested provisions “
authorize the use of videoconferencing, without the agreement of the parties, before criminal courts other than criminal ones, without subordinating this option to legal conditions or framing it by any criteria
”.
The government ordinance taken on November 18 authorized, during the state of health emergency, the use of "
an audiovisual telecommunication means before all criminal jurisdictions
", including assize courts, from pleadings. and requisitions, but not during the debates.
On November 27, the Council of State suspended the possibility of this use of videoconferencing at the meeting only, a particularly controversial measure that the government had justified by explaining that justice had to "
turn
" despite the Covid epidemic -19.
Professional organizations of lawyers and magistrates' unions were up against this text.
Read also: EU: videoconference summit on January 21 on the health crisis
Indignant, lawyers of the trial of the attacks of January 2015 had denounced an order cut "
tailor-made
" to unblock this historic hearing, suspended one month because of persistent indisposition of its main accused.
On January 15, the Constitutional Council had censured previous similar provisions, decided in March by the government during the first state of health emergency.
