“As the Court of Justice of the Republic is not adapted to its function, the consequences remain to be drawn”

2023-12-14 08:30:07

Rarely has an institution seemed more moribund. By judging, before releasing him, on November 29, Eric Dupond-Moretti, Minister of Justice, for “illegal taking of interests”, the Court of Justice of the Republic finally convinced him of his infirmity.

Read also: Eric Dupond-Moretti definitively acquitted after the prosecution said it would not appeal to cassation

We knew the incongruity of the meeting between the defendant and his judges. A political leader, the first was judged by a panel composed mainly of his peers: in addition to three magistrates, six deputies and six senators. They had already crossed paths, during parliamentary debates or questions to the government. No impartiality was possible there: his political friends were pushed towards indulgence; his opponents, to severity. This justice could only be biased or suspected of being biased. Whatever decision was made, its authority was destined to be challenged.

Added to this was a pernicious mix of genres, all the more zany as it involved judging a potential conflict of interests. This Keeper of the Seals was implicated by magistrates’ unions, due to measures taken against magistrates, following an investigation carried out by magistrates. He was tried after hearing witnesses from his administration and the requisitions of the attorney general at the Court of Cassation, over whom he in principle exercises his hierarchical authority.

Because he was a minister in office, the event was unprecedented. So that this jurisdiction appeared, in fact, to replace the National Assembly. It was in this instance, and not at the Palais-Bourbon, that his retention in government was at stake: his resignation would have been necessary if he had been convicted. This trial thus took on the appearance of an ersatz imposition of ministerial responsibility.

Institutional fiasco

It is true that the motion of censure, under the Fifth Republic, seems paralyzed: no government has been overthrown since October 1962. Added to this is the abandonment, moreover welcome, of the so-called “Balladur” jurisprudence. Since 1992, she wanted the indictment of a minister to force him to resign from the government. This rule was rightly criticized. It ignored the presumption of innocence of ministers – indictment does not necessarily lead to conviction.

It potentially unbalanced powers, by giving any investigating judge the possibility of obtaining the resignation of a minister. It was ignored, in this case, when the Minister of Justice was indicted by the investigating committee of the Court of Justice of the Republic, then referred to its trial panel.

You have 65% of this article left to read. The rest is reserved for subscribers.