Application of Nullum Crimen Principle in Habitual Offenses: A French Court of Cassation Analysis
Download
Read an extract
Themes
Nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege, Penal Code article 112-1, sexual harassment law, Constitutional Council censorship, vide juridique, habitual offense, incrimination law repeal, precise dating of facts, Court of Cassation Criminal Chamber, QPC defendant, law in force, date of commission, August 8 2012, new text entry into force, punishment according to law, criminal jurisprudence, cassation judge, judicial vacuum, Priority Constitutional Question, law contrary to Constitution, re-incrimination, Article 112-1 Penal Code application, penalties legally applicable, criminal law in time, moral harassment, loi 2002-73, crime establishment, criminal offense dating, French criminal law, criminal conviction, cassation decision, criminal chamber jurisprudence.
Reader
Abstract
Extract
of 5
Abstract
Unlock the nuances of French jurisprudence on the principle of nullum crimen, nulla poena, sine lege, as interpreted by the Court of Cassation in a landmark case involving sexual harassment. Discover how the court navigated the "vide juridique" created by the Constitutional Council's censorship of a law, temporarily decriminalizing sexual harassment, and its implications on habitual offenses. This analysis delves into the court's reasoning on the obligation to precisely date infractions, the application of Article 112-1 of the Penal Code, and the consequences for convictions involving repealed laws. Understand the court's stance on the necessity of demonstrating the occurrence of incriminating facts after the law's re-establishment, ensuring justice is served while upholding the rule of law. Explore the intricacies of French legal proceedings and the Court of Cassation's role in shaping jurisprudence on complex legal matters.
Extract
[...] During this period, article 222-33 of the Penal Code issue of the loi du 17 January 2002 was repealed on 4 May 2012. It was necessary to wait for the entry into force of the loi du 6 August 2012 to incriminate this offence again. After an investigation initiated by the 3 victims and plaintiffs, the Correctional Chamber of the Court of Appeal of Reims, on 10 February 2016, convicted Mr. X for sexual harassment. This one then appeals in cassation with the means, the violation of articles 61-1 of the Constitution and 23-5 of the Organic Law of 10 December, in arguing also its priority constitutional question on the subject of article 222-33 of the Penal Code where he contested the clear and precise, arbitrary risk factor of the judge. [...]
[...] The "judicial vacuum" caused by the Constitutional Council preventing temporarily the incrimination of sexual harassment On May a law came to modify the definition of the crime of sexual harassment, this law was declared, on the occasion of a Priority Constitutional Question, contrary to the Constitution. The new Law No. 2012-954 of August was then reinstated in another version the crime of sexual harassment. The consequence of this legislative and jurisdictional situation is major. In fact article 222-33 of the Penal Code was no longer applicable and therefore sexual harassment was no longer incriminated during this period equivalent to three months. [...]
[...] It is true that the facts were dated, or too imprecisely 'in 2012' and did not allow it to be known under which law they were then. It appears that this obligation is not as rigid at all times, its rigidity comes from this particular legislative context, the Court affirms thatthe court of appeal, which retained against the defendant words or behavior with a sexual connotation without dating them all, did not enable the Court of Cassation to verify that those it took into account were committed as from 8 August 2012 », it is interpreted that this level of requirement in terms of precision on dates is only raised when there is a doubt about the applicable law If the jurisprudence is clear on the obligation to date precisely the infractions, it must here delve into it from the angle of habitual infractionsB). [...]
[...] The rejection of the last paragraph of Article 112-1 of the Penal Code The entirety of the Court of Cassation's control in this case rests on knowing whether it is possible to condemn the defendant without disregarding the provisions of Article 112-1 of the Penal Code. As seen previously, it eliminates the first two paragraphs of this article from the framework of the trial, it is not possible, according to its interpretation, to clearly identify a law in force incriminating the facts alleged, these facts not being able to be dated and spreading over a period during which their incrimination was temporarily lifted. [...]
[...] An obligation, including for habitual infractions The sexual harassment offense is indeed a habitual offense. The Court does not revisit the characterization of the facts, which are well recognized as 'propos or behaviors with a sexual connotation, imposed repeatedly [ . ] which infringe on her dignity due to their degrading or humiliating nature, or create a situation that is intimidating, hostile or offensive towards her». Here we therefore have the repetition, indispensable to a habitual offense. The Court, in its final ruling, has expanded its obligation to date the constituent elements of the offense to their entire 'retained against the accused of the proposals or behaviors with a sexual connotation without dating them all ». [...]
