Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Overview of Public Prosecutors in France: Position, Powers, and Accountability

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Public Prosecutors in the United States and Europe

  • 901 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter offers an overview of the position, powers, and accountability of public prosecutors in France.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See Article 32 para 1 of the French Code of Criminal Procedure (F-CCP): “Il [le ministère public] est représenté auprès de chaque juridiction repressive.”

  2. 2.

    Verrest (2000), pp. 212–213; Smedovska and Falletti (2008), p. 178.

  3. 3.

    Article 39 et seq. F-CCP. On the powers of the chief district prosecutors, see Marguery (2008), pp. 69–70.

  4. 4.

    Article 34 et seq. F-CCP. On the powers and functions of the general prosecutors, see Marguery (2008), pp. 68–69.

  5. 5.

    On the function of the general prosecutor at the Supreme Court, see Marguery (2008), pp. 67–68.

  6. 6.

    See Article 5 of the Magistrates Status Act 58-1270 of December 22, 1958; Ordonnance n 58-1270 du 22.12.1958 portant loi organique relative au statut de la magistrature. The position of the General Prosecutor’s Office at the Supreme Court does not exactly coincide with the parallel structure of the court system since the appellate prosecutors’ offices are directly subordinated to the Ministry of Justice and hence do not receive instructions from the General Prosecutor’s Office at the Supreme Court (see Dervieux 2006, p. 224; Smedovska and Falletti 2008, p. 179, n 6; Falletti 2005, p. 186; Grebing 1979, p. 26).

  7. 7.

    The supervisory power is restricted by the right to speak freely about the case before the court (“La plume est serve, mais la parole est libre”; “the pen is a slave, but the spoken word is free”). On this right, see Grebing (1979), p. 27; Smedovska and Falletti (2008), p. 179; Falletti (2005), pp. 192–193.

  8. 8.

    Article 3 para. 1, Magistrates Status Act.

  9. 9.

    Smedovska and Falletti (2008), pp. 179–180.

  10. 10.

    Smedovska and Falletti (2008), pp. 179–180; Grebing (1979), pp. 27–28.

  11. 11.

    Dervieux (2006), p. 224.

  12. 12.

    Stefani et al. (2010), Margin No. 175; Grebing (1979), p. 25; Smedovska and Falletti (2008), p. 180.

  13. 13.

    Verrest (2000), p. 227.

  14. 14.

    See Article 1 of the Act 58-1136 of November 28, 1958 concerning nominations to civil and military posts (l’ordonnance n° 58-1136 du 28 novembre 1958 modifiée portant loi organique concernant les nominations aux emplois civils et militaires) and Article 13 of the Constitution of the French Republic of October 4, 1958 (Constitution de la République française du 04 octobre 1958).

  15. 15.

    See Article 28, Magistrates Status Act.

  16. 16.

    Prior to the 2008 amendment of the French Constitution, the advice of the Superior Council of the Magistracy was not required for the appointment of the general prosecutor at the Supreme Court and the general prosecutors at the appellate courts.

  17. 17.

    The Superior Council of the Magistracy comprises magistrates and members outside the Judiciary, whereas magistrates are in the majority.

  18. 18.

    See Article 15, Magistrates Status Act.

  19. 19.

    Article 40 of the Decree 72-355 May 4, 1972 on the National School of Magistrates; Décret n°72-355 du 4 mai 1972 relatif à l’Ecole nationale de la magistrature.

  20. 20.

    In France, prosecutors and judges undergo the same formation since they both belong to the same body, namely the “magistrature”.

  21. 21.

    See Articles 22–25-4, Magistrates Status Act.

  22. 22.

    Smedovska and Falletti (2008), p. 183.

  23. 23.

    A law degree is not expressly required. However, in order to successfully pass the examination, candidates are supposed to have a high level of legal knowledge.

  24. 24.

    Article 13, Magistrates Status Act.

  25. 25.

    Article 28-2, Article 38-1 and Article 38-2, Magistrates Status Act.

  26. 26.

    Article 6, Magistrates Status Act provides the following: “I swear to perform my functions rightly and faithfully, to keep with trust the secret of deliberation and to always behave as an honourable and loyal magistrate.” (Je jure de bien et fidèlement remplir mes fonctions, de garder religieusement le secret des délibérations et de me conduire en tout comme un digne et loyal magistrat).

  27. 27.

    Supreme Judicial Council (2010), p. XI.

  28. 28.

    Students are called “judicial auditors”.

  29. 29.

    Article 19, Magistrates Status Act.

  30. 30.

    Article 14, Magistrates Status Act.

  31. 31.

    Article 50 of the Decree 72-355 May 4, 1972 on the National School of Magistrates.

  32. 32.

    For more information, see http://www.enm.justice.fr/formation-continue/accueil.php (accessed June 29, 2012).

  33. 33.

    See Vlamynck and Perez (2010), pp. 29–40; Stefani et al. (2010), Margin Nos. 370–377; Guinchard and Buisson (2011), Margin Nos. 246–267.

  34. 34.

    For an analysis of the Gendarmerie, see Matelly (2006).

  35. 35.

    Smedovska and Falletti (2008), p. 201; Verrest (2000), p. 228; Pradel (1993), p. 108.

  36. 36.

    The following have the status of judicial police officer: mayors and their deputies; officers and non-commissioned officers of the Gendarmerie, having at least 3 years’ service with the Gendarmerie, being designated by name by a decision of the Ministers of Justice and Defense upon receiving the concurring opinion of a commission; inspectors general, active police deputy-directors, general controllers, police superintendents and police officers; Civil servants appointed to the control and application group of the national police who have served for at least 3 years in this body, being designated by name by a decision of the Ministers of Justice and of the Interior upon receiving the concurring opinion of a commission (Article 16 F-CCP). For more details, see Vlamynck and Perez (2010), pp. 15–23; Stefani et al. (2010), Margin Nos. 380–386; Guinchard and Buisson (2011), Margin Nos. 269–275.

  37. 37.

    The following persons have the status of judicial police agent: gendarmes who do not hold the capacity of judicial police officer; civil servants from active service departments of the national police force; members and trainees who do not hold the capacity of judicial police officer (Article 20 CCP). For more details, see Vlamynck and Perez (2010), pp. 25–28; Stahl (2008), pp. 47–53; Stefani et al. (2010), Margin No. 387; Guinchard and Buisson (2011), Margin Nos. 276–279.

  38. 38.

    Stefani et al. (2010), Margin No. 388; Guinchard and Buisson (2011), Margin Nos. 280–283.

  39. 39.

    Stefani et al. (2010), Margin Nos. 389–391; Guinchard and Buisson (2011), Margin No. 284–291.

  40. 40.

    See Vlamynck and Perez (2010), p. 84; Stefani et al. (2010), Margin Nos. 419–420; Guinchard and Buisson (2011), Margin No. 269.

  41. 41.

    When following an inquiry conducted by the judicial police, a case is referred to an examining magistrate by the public prosecutor a preliminary judicial investigation (instruction préparatoire; Article 79 et seq. F-CCP) is opened. The submission of the case to the examining magistrate is compulsory in relation to felonies. It is optional for misdemeanors. It may also be initiated for petty offenses if it is requested by the district prosecutor pursuant to Article 44 (Article 79 F-CCP). For more information, see Vlamynck and Perez (2010), pp. 101–132.

  42. 42.

    See Vlamynck and Perez (2010), pp. 77–88; Stefani et al. (2010), Margin Nos. 410–428-4; for a detailed discussion see Guinchard and Buisson (2011), Margin Nos. 683–941.

  43. 43.

    See Vlamynck and Perez (2010), pp. 89–97; Stefani et al. (2010), Margin Nos. 429–440; for a detailed discussion see Guinchard and Buisson (2011), Margin Nos. 942–1024.

  44. 44.

    The French criminal justice system recognizes two types of investigation, namely the preliminary inquiry (enquête préliminaire; Article 75 et seq. F-CCP) and the flagrante delicto inquiry (enquête de flagrance; Article 53 et seq. F-CCP). The latter is not limited to cases where the offender has been caught while committing the offense, but extends to cases where the suspect is pursued by hue and cry, or is found in the possession of articles, or has on or about him traces or clues that give grounds to believe he has taken part in the felony or misdemeanor (Article 53 F-CCP).

  45. 45.

    For their powers in investigations of manifest offenses, see Vlamynck and Perez (2010), pp. 84–85. For their powers in preliminary investigations, see Vlamynck and Perez (2010), pp. 92–97. For an overview about the powers of the judicial police officers and the judicial police agents in the different types of inquiries, see Vlamynck and Perez (2010), pp. 141–142.

  46. 46.

    Where the inquiry is being carried out at the police’s own initiative, they give the district prosecutor an account of its progress once it has been running for more than 6 months (Article 75-1 F-CCP). The judicial police, carrying out a preliminary inquiry into a felony or misdemeanor, must inform the district prosecutor as soon as a person has been identified against whom there is evidence that he has committed or attempted to commit an offense (Article 75-2 F-CCP). See also Marguery (2008), p. 83.

  47. 47.

    See Stahl (2008), p. 83; Stefani et al. (2010), Margin No. 379; Guinchard and Buisson (2011), Margin No. 273.

  48. 48.

    Smedovska and Falletti (2008), p. 202.

  49. 49.

    See previously Sect. 8.2, para 3.

  50. 50.

    Smedovska and Falletti (2008), p. 202.

  51. 51.

    Steiner (2010), pp. 279–281; Pradel (1993), p. 116; For a detailed discussion, Guinchard and Buisson (2011), Margin Nos. 50–121.

  52. 52.

    E.g. The Act of December 30, 1996 amended Article 114 CCP and introduced the right of the lawyers to give their clients copies of any documents from the file that they receive, so that the defendant has the possibility to effectively prepare his defense.

  53. 53.

    Pradel (2008), pp. 142–143.

  54. 54.

    Stefani et al. (2010), Margin No. 300–309; Steiner (2010), pp. 291–292.

  55. 55.

    Steiner (2010), p. 292.

  56. 56.

    For more details concerning the principles governing the criminal proceedings, see Stefani et al. (2010), Margin Nos. 87–130.

  57. 57.

    Guinchard and Buisson (2011), Margin No. 1438.

  58. 58.

    The judicial police and the other officers with the power to investigate are required to notify the prosecutor of any crime that comes to their attention without delay (Articles 19, 27, 29 and 40 para. 2 F-CCP).

  59. 59.

    Marguery (2008), p. 80.

  60. 60.

    See Sect. 8.3.1, para 2.

  61. 61.

    For more details concerning civil actions, see Guinchard and Buisson (2011), pp. 1133–1214; Elliott (2001), pp. 32–34.

  62. 62.

    E.g. murder, rape.

  63. 63.

    E.g. theft, fraud, assault.

  64. 64.

    E.g. selling alcohol to someone under age.

  65. 65.

    The amount of the fine incurred ranges from €38 for the contraventions of the first class to €1,500 for the contraventions of the fifth class.

  66. 66.

    Article 521 para 2 F-CCP. See Stefani et al. (2010), Margin No. 481-1.

  67. 67.

    Article 521 F-CCP.

  68. 68.

    In exceptional cases, the decision to prosecute depends on a formal notice or a complaint from a victim or an authority (see Stefani et al. 2010, Margin Nos. 606–616).

  69. 69.

    Pradel (2008), p. 137.

  70. 70.

    “The [Penal] Code’s provisions are to be applied rigorously by prosecutors and police, both of whom are organized nationally and hierarchically and are subject, in theory, to greater control by superiors than under American practice” (Goldstein and Marcus 1977, p. 247).

  71. 71.

    Hodgson (2005), p. 229. See also Elliott (2001), pp. 25–26.

  72. 72.

    Hodgson (2005), pp. 230–231.

  73. 73.

    Hodgson (2005), p. 231.

  74. 74.

    Hodgson (2005), p. 231.

  75. 75.

    Smedovska and Falletti (2008), p. 192.

  76. 76.

    Stefani et al. (2010), Margin No. 601.

  77. 77.

    See also Sect. 8.5.1, para 5.

  78. 78.

    Stefani et al. (2010), Margin No. 599; Guinchard and Buisson (2011), Margin No. 1446.

  79. 79.

    Stefani et al. (2010), Margin No. 599; Guinchard and Buisson (2011), Margin No. 1450.

  80. 80.

    Stefani et al. (2010), Margin No. 595.

  81. 81.

    See Sects. 7.3.3.1.2 and 7.3.3.2 for Germany and Sect. 6.3.4.3 for Switzerland.

  82. 82.

    In order to better evaluate the proportion of dropped cases that really depend on the prosecution, non-prosecutable cases are deducted from the total treated cases. Of the cases annually treated by the prosecution service, around 70 % received are not prosecutable due to an unknown offender and unclear circumstances. Unclear circumstances include the following: The dossier does not bear evidence to the existence of a criminal offense, only contains an insufficiently clear offense or insufficient charges, or cannot be prosecuted on other, purely legal grounds. Cases dropped due to unclear circumstances constitute about 15 % of the non-prosecutable cases annually handled by the prosecution service.

  83. 83.

    For more details, see Guinchard and Buisson (2011), Margin Nos. 1456–1472.

  84. 84.

    Stefani et al. (2010), Margin No. 596; Guinchard and Buisson (2011), Margin No. 1474.

  85. 85.

    See Table 8.1.

  86. 86.

    For more details about those measures, see Guinchard and Buisson (2011), Margin Nos. 1478–1491.

  87. 87.

    Guinchard and Buisson (2011), Margin Nos. 1512–1523.

  88. 88.

    Guinchard and Buisson (2011), Margin Nos. 1597–1606.

  89. 89.

    Stefani et al. (2010), Margin No. 642; Guinchard and Buisson (2011), Margin No. 1532.

  90. 90.

    Guinchard and Buisson (2011), Margin No. 1531.

  91. 91.

    For a detailed analysis of the structure of this hearing, see Gonzalez Martinez (2006).

  92. 92.

    Stefani et al. (2010), Margin No. 426; Guinchard and Buisson (2011), Margin Nos. 1547–1548.

  93. 93.

    Stefani et al. (2010), Margin No. 641; Guinchard and Buisson (2011), Margin No. 1561.

  94. 94.

    Stefani et al. (2010), Margin No. 831.

  95. 95.

    For more details about the penal order proceedings for petty offenses, see Guinchard and Buisson (2011), Margin No. 2456.

  96. 96.

    Complementary measures are defined in Article 131-10 FCC and include the following: prohibition, forfeiture, incapacity or withdrawal of a right (e.g. suspension of driving licenses), an obligation to seek treatment or a duty to act, the impounding or confiscation of a thing, the compulsory closure of an establishment, the posting a public notice of the decision or the dissemination the decision in the press, or its communication to the public by any means of electronic communication.

  97. 97.

    Guinchard and Buisson (2011), Margin No. 2456.

  98. 98.

    Aubusson de Cavarlay (2006), p. 190.

  99. 99.

    In case of petty offenses, the offender has 30 days to lodge an appeal (Article 527 F-CCP).

  100. 100.

    A circular of the Ministry of Justice relating to the procedure of comparution sur reconnaissance préalable de culpabilité was distributed to the prosecutors and the judges at the time of its implementation (Ministry of Justice 2004).

  101. 101.

    Until December 2011, its scope of application was restricted to defendants charged with an offense carrying a penalty of a fine or imprisonment of up to 5 years.

  102. 102.

    See Article 222-9 et seq. FCC.

  103. 103.

    Ministry of Justice (2004), Section 1.2.2.2.

  104. 104.

    Guinchard and Buisson (2011), Margin No. 1584.

  105. 105.

    On the non-obligatory character for the prosecutor to assist at the public hearing, see Guinchard and Buisson (2011), Margin No. 1582.

  106. 106.

    On the various types of indictment, see Sect. 8.4.3.2.

  107. 107.

    http://www.senat.fr/dossier-legislatif/ppl10-331.html (accessed June 29, 2012).

  108. 108.

    Article 30 F-CCP enacts some of the Truche Commission’s recommendations. On the Truche Commission, see Sect. 8.5.1, para 7.

  109. 109.

    See Warsmann (2003), p. 82.

  110. 110.

    Marguery (2008), p. 73.

  111. 111.

    Smedovska and Falletti (2008), p. 199.

  112. 112.

    Smedovska and Falletti (2008), p. 199.

  113. 113.

    Marguery (2008), pp. 73–74.

  114. 114.

    Marguery (2008), p. 74.

  115. 115.

    The first sentence of Article 33 F-CCP states the following: “The public prosecutor is bound to make written submissions in conformity with the instructions given under the conditions set out in Articles 36, 37 and 44.”

  116. 116.

    Smedovska and Falletti (2008), p. 199.

  117. 117.

    Stefani et al. (2010), Margin No. 174; Guinchard and Buisson (2011), Margin No. 1100.

  118. 118.

    On the sanctions, see Sect. 8.5.2.2.

  119. 119.

    The second sentence of Article 33 F-CCP states the following: “The public prosecutor is free to make such oral submissions as it believes to be in the interest of justice.” Furthermore, Article 5 of the Magistrates Status Act also provides that prosecutors are free to speak at the session.

  120. 120.

    Stefani et al. (2010), Margin No. 174.

  121. 121.

    Hodgson (2005), p. 80.

  122. 122.

    For an overview and summary of the major affaires, see Hodgson (2005), pp. 80–81; Elliott (2001), pp. 27–28.

  123. 123.

    On the influence of François Mitterrand on the prosecution service, see Bancaud (2000).

  124. 124.

    In France, prosecutors (magistrats du parquet) and judges (magistrat du sièges) are members of the same professional body. Thus, the independence of the judges was also questioned.

  125. 125.

    Truche (1997), Chap. I, Section I-3.3.

  126. 126.

    Dalle and Soulez-Larivière (2002), p. 18.

  127. 127.

    Article L. 141-1 of the Judicial Organization Code; Code de l’Organisation Judiciaire.

  128. 128.

    Stefani et al. (2010), Margin No. 178.

  129. 129.

    Supreme Judicial Council (2010), p. X.

  130. 130.

    Supreme Judicial Council (2010), p. XI.

  131. 131.

    Judges are disciplined by the Superior Council of the Magistracy (Article 48, Magistrates Status Act).

  132. 132.

    Until 2010, the Minister of Justice approached the prosecutor general at the Court of Cassation as chairman of the Superior Council of the Magistracy’s prosecutorial panel.

  133. 133.

    Both proceedings concerned offenses committed outside the professional activity. These misbehaviors have been considered as failures to preserve honor, good standing, and dignity and thus constitute a disciplinary breach (Diego and Dubrocard 2009, Section 5.2.2).

  134. 134.

    Council of Europe (2010), Tables 11.36 and 11.39. A collection of all disciplinary decisions and disciplinary notices made since 1959 are to be found at http://www.conseil-superieur-magistrature.fr/discipline-des-magistrats (accessed June 29, 2012). According to this collection, disciplinary proceedings were conducted against 63 prosecutors between 1959 and 2010.

  135. 135.

    Council of Europe (2012), Table 11.54. It must be noted that no data are available concerning breaches of professional ethics and concerning professional inadequacy.

  136. 136.

    Council of Europe (2012), Table 11.58.

References

  • Aubusson de Cavarlay B (2006) The prosecution service function within the French criminal justice system. In: Jehle J, Wade M (eds) Coping with overloaded criminal justice systems. The rise of prosecutorial power across Europe. Springer, Berlin, pp 185–205

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bancaud A (2000) Le paradoxe français de la gauche au pouvoir: développement des libertés judiciaires et continuité de la dépendance de la justice. Droit et Société 44/45:61–81

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of Europe (2010) European judicial systems. Efficiency and quality of justice (data 2008). Council of Europe Pub., Strasbourg

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of Europe (2012) European judicial systems. Efficiency and quality of justice (data 2010). Council of Europe Pub., Strasbourg

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalle H, Soulez-Larivière D (2002) Débats, Justice: à la recherche de la bonne coupure. Le Monde, 30 May 2002

    Google Scholar 

  • Dervieux V (2006) The French system. In: Delmas-Marty M, Spencer JR (eds) European criminal procedures. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 218–291

    Google Scholar 

  • Diego O, Dubrocard M (2009) Evaluation of European judicial systems. Replies to the 2010 questionnaire by France. Council of Europe Pub., Strasbourg

    Google Scholar 

  • Elliott C (2001) French criminal law. Willan Pub, Cullompton

    Google Scholar 

  • Falletti F (2005) The French prosecution service. In: Tak PJP (ed) Tasks and powers of the prosecution services in the EU Member States, vol 1. Wolf Legal Publishers, Nijmegen, pp 175–201

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein AS, Marcus M (1977) The myth of judicial supervision in three “Inquisitorial” systems: France, Italy, and Germany. Yale Law J 87:240–283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gonzalez Martinez E (2006) The interweaving of talk and text in a French criminal pretrial hearing. Res Lang Soc Interact 39:229–261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grebing G (1979) Staatsanwaltschaft und Strafverfolgungspraxis in Frankreich. In: Jescheck H, Leibinger R (eds) Funktion und Tätigkeit der Anklagebehörde im ausländischen Recht. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 13–81

    Google Scholar 

  • Guinchard S, Buisson J (2011) Procédure pénale, 7th edn. LexisNexis, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodgson J (2005) French criminal justice. A comparative account of the investigation and prosecution of crime in France. Hart, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Marguery TP (2008) Unity and diversity of the public prosecution services in Europe. A study of the Czech, Dutch, French and Polish systems. Dissertation, Groningen

    Google Scholar 

  • Matelly J (2006) Une police judiciaire militaire? La gendarmerie en question. l’Harmattan, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Justice (2004) Circular of September 2, 2004 relating to the Procedure of Comparution sur Reconnaissance Préalable de Culpabilité [Circulaire du 2 septembre 2004 relative à la procédure de comparution sur reconnaissance préalable de culpabilité]. http://www.vie-publique.fr/documents-vp/circulaire_plaider_coupable.pdf. Accessed 29 June 2012

  • Ministry of Justice (2012) Statistical yearbook of the justice system 2011–2012 [Annuaire Statistique de la justice 2011–212]. Ministry of Justice, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Pradel J (1993) France. In: van Wyngaert CD (ed) Criminal procedure systems in the European community. Butterworths, London, pp 105–136

    Google Scholar 

  • Pradel J (2008) Criminal procedure. In: Bermann GA, Picard E (eds) Introduction to French law. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business, Deventer, pp 127–146

    Google Scholar 

  • Smedovska R, Falletti F (2008) Report on the prosecution service in France. In: Open Society Institute Sofia (ed) Promoting prosecutorial accountability, independence and effectiveness. Comparative research. Open Society Institute Sofia, Sofia, pp 175–210

    Google Scholar 

  • Stahl B (2008) Mémento de police judiciaire. Territorial ed., Voiron

    Google Scholar 

  • Stefani G, Levasseur G, Bouloc B (2010) Procédure pénale, 22nd edn. Dalloz, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Steiner E (2010) French law. A comparative approach. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Supreme Judicial Council (2010) Compendium of the judiciary’s ethical obligations [Recueil des obligations déontologiques des magistrats]. Dalloz, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Truche P (ed) (1997) Report of the commission to consider the justice system [Rapport de la Commission de réflexion sur la justice]. La Documentation française, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Verrest P (2000) The French public prosecution service. Eur J Crime Crim Law Crim Justice 8:210–244

    Google Scholar 

  • Vlamynck H, Perez É (2010) Droit de la police, 3rd edn. Vuibert, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Warsmann (2003) Report on the bill of law (no. 784) on the adaption of the judicial system to developments in criminality, part I, 2nd part [Rapport sur le projet de loi (no. 784), portant adaptation de la justice aux évolutions de la criminalité, tome I, 2ième partie]. http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/12/rapports/r0856-t1.asp. Accessed 25 June 2012

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Rechtswissenschaftliche Fakultät, Universitäre Fernstudien Schweiz, Brig, Switzerland

    Gwladys Gilliéron

Authors
  1. Gwladys Gilliéron
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Gilliéron, G. (2014). Overview of Public Prosecutors in France: Position, Powers, and Accountability. In: Public Prosecutors in the United States and Europe. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04504-7_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation