Analyse
14 juillet 2021

Préserver la primauté du droit à une procédure régulière et à un procès équitable dans le contexte particulier de la pandémie de coronavirus (En anglais)

Bastille Day Newsletter 2021 - Enforcement & Court Decisions

 

The Coronavirus crisis has confronted judges, lawyers, clerks, and litigants with unprecedented difficulties, which have sometimes led to an acceleration of the digitalization of justice and in particular of criminal justice[i]. This can notably be witnessed with the issue of “video-hearings” in criminal proceedings.

To face the peculiar situations generated by the crisis, several texts were adopted aiming at adapting the rules of criminal procedure and those applicable to the criminal courts, including Order no2020-303 of 25 March 2020[ii] and Order no.2020-1401 of 18 November 2020[iii] which have proved to be quite controversial.

Article 5 of Order no.2020-303 provides for the possibility to use audiovisual means of telecommunication before all criminal courts, except for those dealing with crime cases, without needing to obtain the parties’ consent[iv]. Article 2 of Order no.2020-1401 provides for the very same possibility before all criminal courts, no distinction being made[v].

On 12 February 2021, the summary proceedings judge of the Council of State (“Conseil d’État”), highest French administrative court, judged that Article 2 of Order no.2020-1401, insofar as it allows the use of videoconferencing in criminal courts, without the parties’ consent and without subjecting this option to any legal condition or any precise criterion, seriously infringed the rights of defense[vi].

This decision is in line with that of 27 November 2020, in which the Council of State also suspended the possibility for the Assize Court, criminal court solely responsible for judging crimes, to impose videoconferencing under the same conditions[vii]. In view of the oral nature of criminal proceedings, the Council of State emphasized the fundamental need for the parties to the trial to be physically present during the closing arguments, particularly because the accused has a right to speak last[viii].

However, the decision only applied to the hearing of severe criminal cases, due to their complexity. To the contrary, the Council of State considered that for criminal matters involving a lesser category of crimes, the increased use of videoconferencing was “made necessary by the great practical difficulties encountered by prison administration in extracting prisoners, given the particularly heavy burden imposed by the current health situation, and by the fight against the spread of the pandemic within prisons and judicial courts”[ix].

Furthermore, the Council of State reminded that judges were supposed to assess whether such difficulties justify the use of videoconferencing considering the inmate’s health and the stakes of the hearing, and to ensure that the means of telecommunication chosen enable certification of the inmate’s identity and guarantee the quality of the transmission and the confidentiality of communication, especially when it comes to attorney-client privilege[x].

Finally, the Council of State indicated that using videoconferencing could help avoid postponing hearings, thus contributing to the respect of the right of litigants to have their cases heard within a reasonable time[xi].

And yet, a month later, the Council of State censored Article 5 of Order no.2020-303, providing for the possibility of video-hearings before all kinds of criminal courts, for its “unconventionality”[xii]. In this decision of 5 March 2021, it stated that, given the importance of the guarantee attached to the physical presentation of the accused before the court, the fight against the Covid-19 pandemic could not justify any infringement to the right to a fair trial guaranteed by Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights[xiii].

It must also be noted that the Constitutional Council, in charge of analyzing the conformity of the legislation to the French Constitution, had already ruled on the unconstitutionality of Article 5 of Order no.2020-303. While recognizing that such a provision pursued “the objective of constitutional value of health protection” and satisfied the “constitutional principle of continuity of justice functioning”[xiv], the Constitutional Council ruled that Article 5 of Order no. 2020-303 is unconstitutional because the judges’ decision to use audiovisual means of communication in criminal cases is not subjected to any legal condition or bound by any precise specific criteria[xv].

It stems from these various decisions that the question of whether imposing video-hearings complies with the respect of defense rights is a sensitive one, certainly still subject to differing views. Besides, the Covid 19 crisis has raised not only videoconferencing issues, but also issues related to the public’s access to hearings (Article 4 of Order no. 2020-1401)[xvi] and the extension of pre-trial custody periods (articles 15, 16 and 17 of Order no. 2020-303)[xvii].

The challenge lies in deciding whether the restrictions imposed on the normal functioning of justice sufficiently guarantee due process and fair trial rights and are justified and proportionate to the sanitary situation at the time of the hearing[xviii].

Contenu similaire

Analyse
19 mai 2025
CJIP Paprec : retour sur la répression pénale en cas de violation des règles d’attribution...
Le 10 février 2025, Paprec a signé une Convention judiciaire d’intérêt public (CJIP) afin de mettre fin aux poursuites à...
Événement
4 mars 2025
Paris Arbitration Week 2025 – Red flags et arbitrage : tendances et outils pour lutter contre la corruption
Navacelle organise aux côtés de Forensic Risk Alliance une conférence sur le thème de la conformité et l'arbitrage le 8...
Revue de presse
13 juin 2025
Revue de presse – Semaine du 9 juin 2025
Cette semaine, la revue de presse revient sur la mise en examen de Pascaline Bongo dans une affaire de corruption...
Actualité
13 juin 2025
Navacelle accueille Maxime Desplats en qualité d’associé
Navacelle est heureux d’annoncer l'arrivée et l’association de Maxime Desplats.
Actualité
12 juin 2025
Enquêtes internes : recommandation de 7 garde-fous juridiques pour plus d’efficacité
Le journal Les Echos publie un entretien croisé de Stéphane de Navacelle, Dominique Perben (Simon Associés) et Raphaël Gauvain (Stephenson...
Revue de presse
6 juin 2025
Revue de presse – Semaine du 2 juin 2025
Cette semaine, la revue de presse revient sur la coordination au niveau français des sanctions économiques décidées par l’Union européenne,...
Press review
6 juin 2025
Press review – Week of 2 June 2025
This week’s press review covers the coordination at the French national level of the economic sanctions decided by the European...
5 min
Revue de presse
30 mai 2025
Revue de presse – Semaine du 26 mai 2025
Cette semaine, la revue de presse revient sur la condamnation de la banque Edmond de Rothschild pour des faits de...
Événement
26 mai 2025
[Webinaire] Coopération renforcée contre la corruption : perspectives croisées Royaume-Uni, Suisse et France (en anglais)...
Les co-présidents du comité international de lutte contre la corruption de la section du droit international de l'American Bar Association...
Revue de presse
23 mai 2025
Revue de presse – Semaine du 19 mai 2025
Cette semaine, la revue de presse revient sur le positionnement d’Emmanuel Macron en faveur de la suppression de la Directive...
Revue de presse
16 mai 2025
Revue de presse – Semaine du 12 mai 2025
Cette semaine, la revue de presse revient sur la prise de position du chancelier allemand Friedrich Merz, qui appelle à...
Revue de presse
9 mai 2025
Revue de presse – Semaine du 5 mai 2025
Cette semaine, la revue de presse revient sur la démission de François Commeinhes de son poste de maire de Sète...
Revue de presse
2 mai 2025
Revue de presse – Semaine du 28 avril 2025
Cette semaine, la revue de presse revient sur les réquisitions prises à l’encontre de François Fillon dans l’affaire des emplois...