After an unprecedented trial in France, Justice Minister Éric Dupond-Moretti was acquitted on Wednesday by the Court of Justice of the Republic (CJR) in a conflict of interest case, a decision that clarifies his political horizons.
The judges of the CJR, the only court that can judge the actions of a member of the government, declared the former star of the Bar “not guilty” and rejected the applications alleging a conviction that would have led to the removal of his duties as a former star of the Bar.
“The law required that. “It’s obviously a satisfaction, an enormous feeling,” reacted Jacqueline Laffont, one of his lawyers, to the press.
Prosecutors had asked for a one-year suspended prison sentence against the minister because he is suspected of exploiting his position to argue with four judges whom he had criticized as a lawyer.
The court considered that the “material element” of the unlawful taking of interests was well founded, but not the intentional element. “At no time” did the minister express “hostility, contempt or desire for revenge” towards the four judges, said CJR President Dominique Pauthe.
The 62-year-old ex-defense lawyer, who was appointed to the government in the summer of 2020 to everyone’s surprise, an eruptive and divisive personality, has always maintained his innocence in this affair, which was triggered at the end by an unprecedented complaint from the judges’ unions of 2020.
“Resignation” in the balance sheet
During the trial, the first in France of a sitting justice minister, his lawyers insisted he was “not guilty of anything” and claimed that a conviction, even “the lowest,” would lead to his “resignation.”
In a first reaction, the Insoumis MPs from the radical left opposition called for the removal of the CJR – consisting of three professional judges and 12 parliamentarians from all sides, who has long been accused of clemency.
French President Emmanuel Macron has always maintained his trust in his minister despite the furor that this affair has caused in the judiciary. According to the presidential entourage, Mr Dupond-Moretti was due to be received by Emmanuel Macron in the afternoon.
On this as on other issues, the head of state refused to apply an unwritten rule that has long been in force in France, according to which an accused minister must resign from office.
The Minister for Small and Medium Enterprises Alain Griset was only forced to resign in 2021 after his six-month suspended sentence.
If he had been found guilty, Éric Dupond-Moretti would have suffered the same fate: Citing a “clear rule,” Prime Minister Elisabeth Borne had ruled out continuing in office if convicted.
This minister is a heavyweight in the government and is at the forefront against the far right. He achieved unprecedented increases in the judicial budget, which suffers from chronic underfunding in France.
“decision maker”
Another member of the government, Labor Minister Olivier Dussopt, is currently on trial in Paris for favoritism stemming from his mandate as an elected local official in the late 2000s. On Wednesday, the public prosecutor’s office applied for a ten-month probation against him, a prison sentence and a fine of 15,000 euros.
The Dupond-Moretti affair began at the end of June 2020 on the sidelines of a corruption case against former President Nicolas Sarkozy.
The weekly Le Point reveals that judges from the National Financial Prosecutor’s Office (PNF) have been examining telephone bills of several lawyers, including Eric Dupond-Moretti, in order to identify a possible mole who would have informed Mr Sarkozy that he was being wiretapped.
Eric Dupond-Moretti, one of France’s best-known lawyers at the time, denounced a “Barbouzard investigation.”
While in government, he ordered an administrative investigation into three PNF judges after receiving a report ordered by his predecessor.
In another case, he decided to open an investigation into a fourth judge, a former judge seconded to Monaco, whose “cowboy” methods he had denounced as a lawyer and against whom he had filed a complaint on behalf of a client for breach of confidentiality law of the lesson.
The minister, “who knew better than anyone what conflicts of interest he might have with the judges concerned,” should have refrained from being a “decision-maker,” the inquiry concluded.
“I did what any justice minister would have done in my position,” defended the minister.