Analysis
14 July 2022

Homologation of a guilty-plea procedure: no appeal is possible against a decision of denied in the absence of a misuse of powers by the judge

The criminal division of the Court of Cassation has stated that a judge’s refusal to approve a second sentence proposed by the Public prosecutor does not constitute a ground of appeal. In fact, the Court confirmed its position according to which an appeal cannot be lodged against the refusal of a guilty-plea procedure if the judge did not exceed his powers.

 

A person prosecuted for money laundering accepted a sentencing proposal from the Financial Prosecutor’s Office in the context of a guilty-plea

As a reminder, this procedure known as “the French guilty plea”, under which a prosecuted person acknowledges his/her involvement in the alleged offense, was introduced by the law of March 9, 2004[1]. This procedure is based on the idea that the participation of the person prosecuted in the judicial process through his/her admission of guilt allows for a better efficiency of justice.

The Public Prosecutor proposes a sentence which can be accepted or refused by the person who admitted his/her participation in the alleged offense. To abide by the principles of separation between the prosecuting authority and the judgment authority, the sentence proposal, if accepted by the prosecuted person, is then submitted to a judge who can either decide to approve the sentence or refuse to do so based on the ground for refusal listed in article 495-11-1 of the Code of criminal procedure.[2]

In this case, the judge decided not to approve the sentence proposed by the Public Prosecutor on July 6 of 2021.

The Financial Prosecutor then submitted a new sentence proposal to the judge.

On October 12 of 2021, the judge ruled that the new proposal was not admissible. The Financial Prosecutor’s office lodged an appeal before the court of cassation.

 

I. The judge’s refusal to approve a guilty-plea procedure prevents the implementation of a second sentence proposal

In this decision of May 17, 2022, the Criminal division of the court of cassation held that article 495-12 of the Code of criminal procedure[3] does not provide for the possibility to submit a second sentence proposal as part of the guilty-plea procedure when the first proposal of the Public Prosecutor was refused by the judge.

The Code of criminal procedure provides that when the sentence proposal is refused, the Public Prosecutor may refer the case to the Correctional court according to the procedures provided for in article 388 of the Code of criminal procedure (voluntary or immediate appearance, summons) or require the opening of a judicial investigation.[4]

To reach that conclusion, the Court relied on the parliamentary work done in the context of the Perben I law of March 9, 2004 and the of the law of October 23, 2018. The Court found that the legislator did not wish to broaden the scope of article 495-12 of the Code of criminal procedure by allowing the Public Prosecutor, faced with a sentence that had not been approved by the judge, to propose a new sentence via this same procedure.

 

II.  The impossibility of lodging an appeal against a ruling refusing to approve a guilty-plea procedure

In this case, the judges of the Court of Cassation confirmed that the law does not provide for the possibility of lodging an appeal against a ruling refusing to approve a guilty-plea

On this matter, the Constitutional Court had already ruled that the non-appealability of a ruling by which the judge denies the sentence proposed during a guilty-plea procedure does not breach of the Constitution. The rational is that in case of refusal of the guilty-plea procedure, the case is referred to the Correctional court, where the failed guilty-plea procedure is not disclosed, and that therefore the prosecuted person is not deprived from the right to an effective remedy.[5]

However, the Court expresses a reservation by clarifying that an appeal is however possible when the judge has exceeded his/her powers.

The Court of cassation ruled that by refusing to approve a second sentence proposal, since there is no specific provision of the law which allows him/her to approve such a proposal, the judge did not exceed his powers. Therefore, the Court ruled that the appeal in cassation was inadmissible.

The Court has once again limited the scope of the notion of excess of power after having recently considered that the fact that a judge does not give reasons for his decision to refuse a guilty plea procedure does not constitute an excess of power, since by doing so, the judge does not disregard his/her duty or the scope of his/her powers.[6]

 

Related content

Publication
27 February 2024
New sustainability reporting obligations in France: what’s new?
Navacelle contributes to The Legal Industry Reviews' fifth edition about the transposition of the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) in...
Publication
The discreet ramping up of environmental criminal law
5 December 2023
The discreet ramping up of environmental criminal law
Navacelle contributes to The Legal Industry Reviews' fourth edition about recent gradual application of environmental criminal law in France, with...
Analysis
UBS
17 November 2023
Saga UBS: second reassessment of the UBS’s historic financial penalty
On November 15, 2023, as part of the UBS saga that began on 20 February 2019, the judges on the...
Press review
12 April 2024
Press review – Week of 8 April 2024
This week, the press review covers the Panama Papers trial which opened on Monday, 8 April, the decision rendered against...
Press review
5 April 2024
Press review – Week of 1 April 2024
This week, the press review covers the conviction by the American justice system of the crypto assets platform FTX‘s former...
Publication
1 April 2024
The Validity of Arbitral Awards and the Public Policy Nature of International Sanctions
This article by Stéphane de Navacelle, Julie Zorrilla and Gregory Arnoult, is part of the Transnational Dispute Management (TDM) Special...
Press review
29 March 2024
Press review – Week of 25 March 2024
This week, the press review covers the opening of proceedings against Google, Apple and Meta by the European Commission for...
Press review
22 March 2024
Press review – Week of 18 March 2024
This week, the press review covers the report of the French Court of Auditors on the financial situation of the...
Press review
15 March 2024
Press review – Week of 11 March 2024
This week’s press review covers the implementation by the AMF of two guidelines issued by the European Banking Authority, the...
News
11 March 2024
Webinar: The role of the investigating lawyer (in French)
Stéphane de Navacelle and Julie Zorrilla discussed the role of the investigating lawyer during the Paris Bar's Entrepreneurial Bar training...
Press review
8 March 2024
Press review – Week of 4 March 2024
This week’s press review covers the conviction of Apple to a 1.8 billion euros fine by the European Commission for...
Press review
1 March 2024
Press review – Week of 26 February 2024
This week’s press review covers Washington's adoption of new sanctions against Russia, the involvement of a French municipal agent in...
Analysis
26 February 2024
A flexible approach of the principle of loyalty regarding the evidence in civil matters –...
The decision of 22 December 2023 recognizes the admissibility of evidence obtained or produced in an illicit or unfair manner...
Press review
23 February 2024
Press review – Week of 19 February 2024
This week’s press review covers Donald Trump and his sons’ conviction for fraud in New York, the decision of Paris...