Extract
[...] Court of Cassation, Criminal Chamber June 2017, n°17-82.068, QPC - Do articles 222-1 and 224-2 of the Penal Code respect the principle of legality? Commentary on the judgment : Cass. Crim June 2017, n° 17-82068, QPC In the context of penal law, the principle of legality of offenses and penalties constitutes an essential guarantee for litigants. In fact, such a principle requires that offenses be defined with precision in order to allow each person to understand the sanctioned behaviors and to prevent any arbitrary interpretation of the texts. [...]
[...] The conformity of penal provisions to the principle of legality The principle of legality requires that incriminations be written in a clear and precise manner, in order to ensure legal security. The Court of Cassation states that Articles 222-1 and 224-2 of the Penal Code meet this requirement before highlighting that their application is reinforced by the articulation between domestic law and France's international commitments Clear and precise provisions ensuring legal security According to the doctrine and more particularly Xavier Pin, 'the principle of legality imposes a balance between a sufficiently precise definition of the offenses and a reasonable margin of interpretation left to judges to adapt to specific cases' (Pin, French Penal Law and Legal Security, 2016). [...]
[...] Finally, this ruling illustrates the way the Court of Cassation reconciles the imperatives of repression and the guarantees of litigants. By validating these incriminations, it demonstrates that French penal law is able to effectively sanction acts of exceptional gravity while respecting the principle of legality and the fundamental rights of the accused. It Ultimately, it demonstrates its attachment to a modern conception of penal law, based on a balance between repression and respect for fundamental principles. This approach joins the analysis of Jacques-Henri Robert, according to which 'the effectiveness of penal law depends on a constant adaptation to contemporary challenges, while preserving the essential guarantees of litigants' (General Penal Law, 2019). [...]
[...] In addition, the judges recall that the incriminations in question are based on objective criteria, such as the author's intention and the gravity of the acts in question, which excludes any legal uncertainty. This rejection of the QPC also reflects the Court of Cassation's recognition of the importance of these provisions in the repression of serious crimes. In fact, the suppression or questioning of these incriminations would risk compromising the fight against particularly serious behaviors, such as those attributed to the applicant. [...]
[...] Thus, by validating articles 222-1 and 224-2 of the Penal Code, the Court of Cassation affirms that these provisions are clear, precise, and in conformity with the principle of legality, while inscribing themselves in a global approach to protecting fundamental rights. However, However, if the Court of Cassation has been able to demonstrate that penal incriminations fully respected the principle of legality, it has also been confronted with the priority constitutional question raised by the applicant. The study of this problem highlights the rigor of its control, while affirming the practical effectiveness of the incriminations in question. II. [...]
