Prison sentences were requested Monday before the Marseille Criminal Court against two owners qualified by the accusation of "
sleep merchants
", during a hearing dedicated to substandard housing in the second largest city in France.
Read also: In Aubervilliers, the influence of sleep merchants
Fifteen months' imprisonment, nine of which were suspended and a fine of 50,000 euros were demanded against Chadi Younes, 46, a Marseille osteopath who owns about forty homes, tried for endangerment, degradation of apartments for the purpose of '' to remove their occupants and for not having complied with its rehousing obligations. On October 29, 2018, a week before the collapse of two buildings rue d'Aubagne, in the heart of Marseille, which had caused the death of eight people, the building owned by Chadi Younes had been urgently evacuated after the rupture of 'a main beam and the fall of part of the roof.
Five tenants, who became civil parties, all described an unsanitary condition of the building and water runoff from the roof. "
The stairwell was starting to crumble, the owner promised to do work all the time but he just took the money,
" testified a former occupant of the building. "
He is not a faulty owner but behaves like a sleep merchant
," insisted prosecutor Guillaume Bricier. His lawyer, Me Christophe Jervolino, denounced the desire of the Marseille prosecutor's office to "
make Chadi Younes an example
". “
There is an unfortunate chain of events which leads to the distress of families, but there is no
there is not always a person in charge, ”he pleaded.
During this hearing, six months in prison and a fine of 10,000 euros were also required against an owner judged for endangerment. Living in the Paris region, Georgette Tohouo, 60, acquired in 2007 two apartments in a degraded building in the 3rd arrondissement of Marseille, one of the poorest neighborhoods in Europe. She had acquired a T1 for 19,000 euros and a T3 for which she did not give the purchase price. On November 22, 2018, the floor of one of his apartments had collapsed and the toilet had passed through. It had not carried out the necessary work and was only partially paying its co-ownership charges.