This document discusses the concept of justifying facts in penal law, including the conditions and legal consequences of such facts, as well as the probatory regime in matters of justifying fact.
Extract
[...] In practice, legitimate defense is excluded due to necessity when the aggressor is frightened by the weapon directed against them raises their hands in the air or when the aggressor lightly wounded ends up on the ground and no longer constitutes a danger. 2. Proportionality > The response must also be proportionate to the gravity of the act of aggression. > The assessment of proportionality is a factual condition that falls within the sovereign power of appreciation of the judges. [...]
[...] This is the case in matters of legitimate defense. According to the provisions of Article 122-6 of the Penal Code, legitimate defense is presumed when the offense was committed either "to repel at night entry by breaking, violence or ruse into a inhabited place" or "to defend oneself against the perpetrators of theft or looting executed with violence". In these two cases, the aggression is both so unjust and so serious that it is appropriate to grant enhanced protection to the victim. [...]
[...] > In principle, the administration cannot impose penalties However, exceptionally, it can impose penalties in matters of economic offense or the Competition Council can impose sanctions on companies II- The application of the law in time (prohibition of retroactive texts) > There is no retroactive text in criminal law EXCEPT when the rule is softer > The principle of non-retroactivity of penal law is provided for in Article 112-1 of the Penal Code This is a principle consecrated by civil law provisions and having constitutional value > The principle of non-retroactivity of penal law means that one cannot be prosecuted or condemned for acts that have only become reprehensible after their occurrence ? [...]
[...] In the latter case, the defense will then be nothing other than revenge because it is no longer necessary. > In the same vein, the invocation of legitimate defense is ineffective if the response proceeds from a future aggression. This rule has given rise to abundant jurisprudence on what is called "thief's traps"." To defend his residence against potential burglaries, the owner sets up an electrical or explosive system. In the event of injury or death of the perpetrator of a burglary attempt, can we speak of an attempt at legitimate defense?? [...]
[...] In 1949, the Court of Cassation ruled that there is no proportionality between the threat and the response in the fact of shooting the author of a simple slap. Or, in the fact that a woman who was pushed by her attacker and had her clothes grabbed by the collar to hit him in the eye with a stiletto heel. > Article 122-5, paragraph 2 of the Penal Code provides that legitimate defense of property does not authorize the omission of a voluntary homicide. [...]
