Jump to content

Non assistance for someone in danger


Recommended Posts

It seems that there is to be a court case in the highest court in the land brought against members of the French government for the equivalent of a criminal offence over Covid, alleging that not enough was done to help those who got the illness. The case is being brought, apparently by private individuals.

https://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-france/covid-19-une-enquete-judiciaire-sera-ouverte-contre-edouard-philippe-olivier-veran-et-agnes-buzyn-20200703

Norman, please have a read and see if I have got this right.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not quite "non-assistance" which is also an offence.
It is abstention de combattre un sinistre

'failure to combat a disaster' which is more appropriate for people in charge, and implies a deliberate intention not to take action, as opposed to the failure to act at the moment as in the case of the 'non-assitance' law

This has been rumbling away for a while, (many of the complaints were made at the start of the confinement) and now that things have calmed down, even if only temporarily, it has come to the surface.

In total 10 complaints were made but the other 9 have been dismissed.
They were  made against many Ministers accusing them of such  things as 'manslaughter' 'endagering life' 

More on the background  to this in the TV Prgramme

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They aren't MY figures..I was commenting the article as asked by WB which says "la Commission des requêtes de la Cour de justice de la République. Elle vient en effet de transmettre à François Molins «

procureur général près la Cour de cassation, ministère public près la

Cour de justice de la République, 9 plaintes, après avoir procédé à leur

jonction, aux fins de saisine ».
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, 9 complaints allowed to proceed but that number was seemingly whittled down from 90.

One of the complaints relates to masks, lack of them and official advice to wear them coming rather a lot later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seul est retenu « le chef d'abstention de combattre un sinistre, délit prévu et réprimé par l'article 223-7 du code pénal », a précisé vendredi soir la Commission des requêtes de la Cour de justice de la République.

That is the only charge that has been retained.

I have no idea how many people complained, and I repeat that I am simply commenting on the article in WB's link.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...