Extract
[...] The conformity of penal law to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms Court of Cassation, Criminal Chamber, January - Case Summary By a decision of 16 January 2001, the Court of Cassation overturned the compatibility between freedom of expression and disclosure of information related to a civil party's constitution before a judicial decision. Facts : In this case, in 1997, the spouses D filed a complaint with a civil party's constitution against X for illegal taking of interests. [...]
[...] Solution : The Court of Cassation answered in the negative. Thus, it quashed the judgment rendered by the Aix-en-Provence Court of Appeal on the grounds that "Article 2 of the law of July by the general and absolute prohibition it enacts, establishes a restriction on freedom of expression that is not necessary for the protection of the legitimate interests listed in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, What'being incompatible with these conventional provisions, it cannot serve as a basis for a criminal convictionpenal ». [...]
[...] By this decision, the Council recognizes that the law does not determine what it means, but the judge has interpreted this provision, the judge has interpreted it, and the legality is preserved. This is why there is a reversal of logic, the judge can interpret the law, so we will consider that even if the law is vague, imprecise, it's not a problem, we will complete it. The judge must be able to interpret the law without risk of arbitrariness, and therefore the judge will complete the law. [...]
[...] It was only after the condemnation in France in the ECHR ruling "Eon against France" of March that the text providing for the latter offense was abolished." Finally, this ruling demonstrates the importance of the task of verifying, in light of international imperatives, whether each of the press offenses provided for by our laws are still necessary in a democratic society. However, since the legislature has failed to carry out this examination, it is up to the judges to perform this tedious work in two ways. Either by using the procedure of the priority constitutional question, or by applying Article 55 of the Constitution, which, as we have already mentioned, gives precedence to international treaties over laws. In the case at hand, it is obviously the second procedure that is chosen by the judges. [...]
[...] Compliance of Criminal Law with the Constitution Constitutional Council May 2012, No. 2012-240 QPC What reflection inspires this solution? The first decision is that of the Constitutional Council of 4 May 2012 relating to the crime of sexual harassment. Without going back into the details of the decision, the issue at stake is the definition of the crime of sexual harassment. In fact, at the time when the offense is contested, the incriminating text simply provided that the crime of sexual harassment is the fact of 'harassing someone in order to obtain sexual favors'. [...]
