Claire Arnoux: We are talking about the examination of the thugs pay bill, which begins today in the Senate, with a rather particular resonance following the destruction that occurred on October 17 and 24. The text plans to expand the financial responsibility of participants in violent assemblies. First of all, what does this law add to the texts that already exist?
Olivia Ronen: The question is excellent because indeed, what we often forget is that the texts already provide the possibility, for people who are found responsible for certain damage, to pay and ensure repair. So this is something that is already provided for in the legislation. Furthermore, there were also certain forms of solidarity that could apply, particularly when the damage was committed by minors, since the parents are civilly responsible. This means they must also provide for repairs and pay any damages that may be owed. There, this law, what it provides again, is a kind of collective responsibility, a joint responsibility of all the people who would be present on site at the time when damage was committed. And that’s truly innovative. For what ? Because, even if we are not the author of the damage, even if we have not committed any reprehensible acts per se, we could be, under this law, condemned to pay damages and to pay for the damage committed by others.
Could the simple fact of being present in this gathering, even as an observer, make this person responsible?
It was the Senate which added some small exceptions, for example for journalists, who could be present without risking being convicted themselves. Despite this, all other demonstrators who could behave completely peacefully and not at all condone the violence or damage committed to property could be accused of simply having been present. We therefore arrive at this no-fault liability, which is still very complicated. However, one condition is provided for by law: there must have been a summons to disperse. This is therefore also a parameter to take into account: has a request for dispersal been made by the authorities? Here too, this poses a difficulty, insofar as certain elements can be subject to interpretation. It is not so much the summons to disperse itself that raises questions, but the message must still be clear. And the question that arises is that of the reasonable time to disperse. Because we hear a summons to disperse, but we may not always have the possibility of leaving, especially if we are exhausted, as we have seen recently.
Madjid Khiat: This is an extremely important point, I think, because we, reporters on the ground, also notice that, sometimes, it is difficult to leave the scene, to leave a place where the police have issued a summons. The Minister of Housing and Cities, who was my guest earlier, nevertheless states that this will not concern everyone, but only particular cases. He gave a rather interesting example: on October 17, we saw young people climbing onto the roofs and throwing projectiles at the police. In this specific case, they indicate that all of these people will be affected. What we understand, however, is that this falls within the discretion of the police. I have a legal question, in terms of law: do you think that this text will pass the Constitutional Council?
This is a real question. Several elements could prevent the text from passing through. Even if it is difficult to move forward, it is true that before proposing this law, an opinion from the Council of State was issued to try to give a legal framework to all of this. Despite this, the principle of personal responsibility is extremely important, whether in civil law, that is to say in relations between private interests, or in criminal law, because we are only responsible for what we do ourselves. These are therefore already two guiding principles of law in general. It could also be considered that this law excessively infringes on the freedom to demonstrate.
Because the corollary of this responsibility is that we no longer dare to go and demonstrate?
Exactly. If we risk ending up with thugs, as happens in almost every demonstration, even though the majority of demonstrators are completely peaceful and demonstrate without difficulty, the simple risk of finding ourselves with thugs in the same place as us could dissuade us from going to demonstrate.
Does this mean that any demonstrator could be presumed responsible for damage committed near their path?
Exactly. This is also the will of the government, because Laurent Nunez himself said that it was a kind of presumption of responsibility of each person present. Here too, another difficulty arises, and this is what pushes many law professors to intervene to say that this will generate a lot of litigation: many elements can be subject to interpretation. I told you earlier, there is the question of the summons and the reasonable time within which it is possible to leave. There is also the question of proximity, of distance.
Madjid Khiat: This distance is not specified in the text. When we talk in particular with members of the executive, they explain that this is a matter for the discretion of the police. It will therefore depend on their assessment on the ground, but also on their professionalism. This raises questions, in any case.
This generates litigation and it is true that the more a text of law is subject to assessment, the more it can be discussed and generate difficulties on a criminal and civil level.
