End of the Ikea trial.
At the end of seven days of hearing, the correctional court of Versailles put its judgment under advisement.
The three judges will follow the requisitions of the prosecutor Pamela Tabarlet, who demanded Tuesday, March 30 two releases, thirteen sentences ranging from six months in prison suspended to three years in prison including two suspended, and a fine of two million euros against the company Ikea France?
Answer on June 15th.
Read also: Ikea trial: one year in prison required against a former CEO, two million euros fine against the company
Tuesday, then Thursday, the defenders of the sixteen defendants took the stand for their pleadings.
Almost all of them requested the release.
Like Me Etienne Bataille, the advice of Jean-François P. The former director of the risk management department of Ikea has however always admitted to having sent lists of names to a private investigator, Jean-Pierre F. , in order to be informed about the criminal records of employees or hiring candidates.
But if he acknowledged the facts, he did not
"recognize the offenses",
said Me Bataille.
To read also: Ikea trial: the mea-culpa of the framework at the heart of "mass controls"
“It would have been more elegant to ask for the indulgence of the court. But we also examine the elements of law, and the proceedings do not seem to me to be founded, ”
“It would have been more elegant to ask for the indulgence of the court.
But we also examine the elements of law, and the proceedings do not seem to me to be founded, ”
continued the lawyer, who tried to convince the court to rule out, one by one, the offenses alleged against his client.
On Tuesday, the prosecutor for her part demanded three years in prison, including two suspended sentences, against the one whose she
"praised the effort of honesty and transparency",
recalling however that he was not
"Not a whistleblower"
So also of Me Marc François, the counsel of Jean-Pierre F. The lawyer argued that out of 338 names transmitted to his client by Jean-François P, only 20 had been passed to the Stic, the computerized file of the police, and sometimes several years later.
"It is not because Mr. X was 'stic' three years after being hired at Ikea that Jean-Pierre F. asked a police officer to 'stiquer' this name!"
Read also: Ikea trial: the hunt for responsibilities
How to explain, then, that the answers of Jean-Pierre F. to Jean-François P. are presented in the same way as the files Stic?
“Clever as he is, Jean-Pierre F. was aware that he could not pass 338 people to the Stic without being had.
And so what is he doing?
Since it has to have the head of a Stic file, it makes it so that it has the head of a Stic file.
But at no time does he question a police officer,
”replied Me François.
Read also: At the Ikea trial, the astonishing control of employees in the Avignon store
The only flaw in this reasoning: the ten names "stuck" in Mayotte by a certain Gaston K., policeman and personal friend of the accused.
"But Gaston K. was heard, presented to the examining magistrate who considered that he should be placed under the status of assisted witness, then pronounced a dismissal
", underlined the lawyer.
"And Jean-Pierre F. would be the accomplice of someone who has been exonerated?"
It is not possible.
There is nothing left about my client.
Physical evidence, there is none"
Other releases requested: those of the former leaders of Ikea France, who since the start of the procedure strongly deny having been aware of these practices.
Jean-Louis B., CEO of the company from 1996 to 2009, is no exception.
"In a nutshell, my client says that at no time has he given an order or been associated with this internal practice developed by Jean-François P., even if this has continued over several years"
, summarized Me François Saint-Pierre.
Read also: Suspected of having "fled" employees and customers, Ikea facing justice
For Me Saint-Pierre, the question is not to
"believe or not to believe"
these statements, but to know if
"evidence has been reported against Jean-Louis B."
However, in his eyes,
“there is no material evidence;
witnesses, there are none;
there is only the word of Jean-François P. ”
And the lawyer concludes:
"Can the mere word of a co-defendant be proof?
Can the fate of a man depend on the words of his co-defendant?
This is not sufficient and the court can therefore only release Jean-Louis B. ”
Read also: Ikea trial: unions and (ex-) leaders clash at the bar
Closing the ban on defense pleadings, Me Emmanuel Daoud also asked for the release of the company Ikea France.
“I am not trivializing, but we must restore to this file the proportion it has. Do not come and tell me that we are facing a generalized espionage system! ”
, claimed the lawyer.
"The mountain gave birth to a mouse, or rather an April Fool's Day since it is April 1."
The required fine, two million euros, however, did not make the company smile.
"It seems excessive to me,
" concluded Me Daoud, before the floor was given last to the defendants and then the president closed the hearing.