Le Figaro Nantes
On Friday, June 2, the Administrative Court of Appeal of Nantes rendered its judgment on a story dating back to the time of the demonstrations against the airport of Notre-Dame-des-Landes. As noted by Ouest France, the judges rejected the request of a protester who had appealed to the administrative court after being hit by police shots.
On February 22, 2014, this 29-year-old individual, then a carpenter, lost his left eye and saw his nose fractured after being hit by a shot from the police. The scene took place near the parking lot of Little Holland and Daviais Square, in Nantes, where violence broke out again this Thursday, June 6 on the occasion of the fourteenth mobilization against the pension reform. The young man had then asked for compensation of 520,435.71 euros in compensation for damages.
" READ ALSO "The State has learned absolutely nothing from Notre-Dame-des-Landes": the residents of the airport of Nantes between anger and bitterness
No fault of the State
In the deliberation, the Court of Appeal stated that "by thus remaining in the middle or in the immediate vicinity of the clashes between law enforcement officers and small groups of violent individuals, Mr. B... committed a certain imprudence which constitutes a fault on the part of the victim such as to exonerate the State of its responsibility". Moreover, in acknowledging his "peaceful behaviour", the court considers that he "was on the scene as a participant in the demonstration" and that "he cannot be regarded as a third party unrelated to the police operation during which his injury occurred". Finally, it is specified that the police forces did not make "inadequate, irregular or disproportionate use of the dangerous devices at their disposal constituting a fault such as to engage the responsibility of the State".
After the rejection of this appeal decision, an appeal in cassation before the Council of State is possible. The primary health insurance fund of Puy-de-Dôme, which had claimed nearly € 73,000 in connection with health expenses and disability pension, was also rejected.
