2024-01-11 06:15:06
In 2017, the first French head of state to go to the European Court of Human Rights to give a speech, Emmanuel Macron affirmed that terrorism was the first challenge encountered in the European area. However, he intended to fight against « within the framework of the rule of law, and in particular under the control of the judge ». In May 2023, during the fourth summit of the Council of Europe, he defended a « European conception of humanism, based on law and freedom ».
How, then, can we explain the deafening silence which reigns at the top of the State, barely a few months later, in the face of a Minister of the Interior who is freeing himself from respect for the most fundamental republican rules?
Let’s recall a few facts. An Uzbek national, considered by Gérald Darmanin to be radicalized, was included in the report file for the prevention of radicalization of a terrorist nature. On November 13, 2023, the minister made the decision to expel him. This man is therefore no longer in France.
However, he should not have been removed: since March 2022, he has been the subject of an interim measure adopted by the European Court of Human Rights. Very rarely granted, such a measure generally aims to prevent inhuman and degrading treatment in the event of the return of a person to a third State, during the duration of the proceedings before the Court. The Council of State ordered, on December 7, 2023, his return to France, considering that the referral decision violated his right to an effective judicial remedy, guaranteed both by the Constitution and by the European Convention on Human Rights . An unprecedented dismissal from the Minister of the Interior provisionally concludes the matter: « I decided to send him back to his country (…)what do everyone’s decisions matter?. »
Destabilizing strategy
In doing so, it violates the Constitution, both because it is based on the principle of separation of powers and because it gives international law greater authority than the law.
Faced with the limits posed by the law from which he is trying to free himself, he seems to hope for political gains greater than the indignation caused by his contempt for obligatory jurisdictional decisions. The strategy thus displayed, of which nothing prevents us from thinking that it could be deployed in fields other than the fight against terrorism, can only prove to be profoundly destabilizing for order and social peace, which the Minister must take care to preserve.
You have 70% of this article left to read. The rest is reserved for subscribers.
#State #gain #Minister #Interiors #noncompliance #court #decisions