The Chambéry Court of Appeal ordered the release, under judicial supervision, of the indicted in the fire of Courchevel (Savoie), which had killed two people in 2019, following a procedural error, has learned AFP from judicial sources.
Read also: Fatal fire in Courchevel: the prosecution calls for the indictment of the owner of the building
On January 20, 2019, in the upscale resort of Courchevel, a fire had been caused in a building belonging to a businessman from the resort, and in which seasonal workers were accommodated.
Two of them died, a 32-year-old woman and a 50-year-old man, and around 20 others were injured.
The indicted was arrested in March of the same year and, since then, he changed lawyers eight times, until the last change occurred "
in October 2020
", said the prosecutor of Chambéry, Pierre-Yves Michau .
This last modification would not have been communicated to all levels of the institution and, during the debate on the extension of his pre-trial detention before the liberty and detention judge, on March 19, the lawyer summoned was not the correct one.
Another hearing date was then decided, March 26, said a judicial source.
But this time the right lawyer had not been summoned within the allotted time.
In this case, the investigative chamber of the Court of Appeal of Chambéry "
is obliged to note the nullity of the deposit warrant
", explained a judicial source.
The prosecutor confirmed that it was a "
dysfunction which undermined the fundamental rights of the defendant
".
The young Algerian national, known to the police for acts related to drug trafficking, was placed under "
strict
"
judicial control
, specifies the judicial source, with in particular the confiscation of his passport and the ban on leaving the department of Hérault where he resides.
At the time of his arrest in 2019, he was trying to leave the country for Spain.
In addition, in May 2020, the Chambéry public prosecutor's office had called for the additional indictment of the businessman and owner of the building, for "
unintentional homicides and injuries by manifestly deliberate violation of an obligation of safety or prudence
" , “
Accommodation of workers in non-compliant premises
”, and “
non-compliance with the rules for the maintenance of residential buildings
”.
Almost a year later, no additional indictment was decided, in this criminal section, by the examining magistrate.
