Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

France: Procedural Nullities and Exclusion

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Exclusionary Rules in Comparative Law

Part of the book series: Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice ((IUSGENT,volume 20))

  • 1407 Accesses

Abstract

In this chapter, we have the first thorough discussion of what many continental European countries call “nullities” which are violations of the rules of gathering or introducing evidence into criminal proceedings and lead to a negation of the validity of the investigative act in question and its removal from the case dossier and thus from the trial itself. The rules for nullities predate modern exclusionary rules, and often lead to exclusion of evidence, but the many exceptions to exclusion and the interpretations of these rules by the French courts, have led to a rather weak doctrine of exclusion of evidence when compared to other countries coming from similar traditions, such as Spain. Professor Pradel explains how “nullities” work in the French system, focusing, as do all the chapters, on violations of the right to privacy and the right to silence and human dignity during police interrogations.

Translated from the French by Josuha Walker and Stephen C. Thaman.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
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.

    According to H. Lévy-Brulh, “evidence is the process by which a fact or a right in controversy and in doubt acquires by means of a judgment in which it is implicated, the value of truth” Lévy-Brulh (1964, 7).

  2. 2.

    Pradel (2003, 84) and Sciortino-Bayart (2000).

  3. 3.

    Pradel et al. (2009, no. 250, 231).

  4. 4.

    CC decision no. 76–70 DC, Dec. 2, 1976; Jan. 19–20, 1981; Jan. 23, 1999.

  5. 5.

    CC decision no. 93-326 DC, Aug. 11, 1993, JCP 1993 II no. 66355; CC decision no. 04-492 DC, Mar. 2, 2004. There has been talk of the constitutionalization of the role of the lawyer.

  6. 6.

    CC decision no. 99-416 DC, July 23, 1999; CC decision no. 92-307 DC, Feb. 25, 1992; Julien-Laferrière, 1992 AJDA 656.

  7. 7.

    CC decision no. 94-343-344 DC, July 27, 1994, RJC I 592.

  8. 8.

    It should be remembered that they affect both the legislature and national judges. Indeed, according to Art. 46 ECHR “Any of the High Contracting Parties may at any time declare that it recognizes as compulsory ‘ipso facto’ and without special agreement the jurisdiction of the Court in all matters concerning the interpretation and application of the present Convention.” In practice, condemnations of states lead them inevitably to modify their laws and/or their jurisprudence.

  9. 9.

    For a recent detailed general study, see Renucci (2007).

  10. 10.

    We could also include Art. 3 ECHR on torture and inhumane and degrading treatment, which we will save until the third section.

  11. 11.

    Schenk v. Switzerland, (1991), 13 E.H.R.R. 242, 265–266, § 46; for a very similar formulation Barberà, Messegué & Jabardo v. Spain (1989), 11 E.H.R.R. 360, 384–385, § 68.

  12. 12.

    Schenk v. Switzerland, 13 E.H.R.R. 242, 265–266.

  13. 13.

    Ibid, 266, § 47.

  14. 14.

    Khan v. United Kingdom (2001), 31 E.H.R.R. 45; P.G. v. United Kingdom (2008), 46 E.H.R.R. 51; Allan v. United Kingdom (2003), 36 E.H.R.R. 12.

  15. 15.

    For a general comparison, see Pradel (2008, 240).

  16. 16.

    The president of the criminal chamber is the renowned Maurice Patin, who in the 1960’s wrote many notes defending his theory founded on the trust due to the judge and regarding the disasters resulting from nullities, including in relation to public opinion.

  17. 17.

    Guinchard and Buisson (2011, 1293), Desportes and Lazerges-Cousquer (2009, 1230), and Pradel (2011, 684).

  18. 18.

    Which leaves a large amount of discretion to the judge of nullities.

  19. 19.

    Cass. crim., Jan. 29, 2003, Bull. crim., No. 22.

  20. 20.

    Statistically, for each decision to nullify there are three decisions refusing to do so.

  21. 21.

    Cass. crim., Jan. 22, 1953, JCP 1955 II no. 7456, note J. Brouchot.

  22. 22.

    Cass. crim., July 13, 1971, Bull. crim., No. 230.

  23. 23.

    Cass. crim., Apr. 15, 1991, Bull. crim., No. 179; JCP 1992 II no. 21795, note W. Jeandidier.

  24. 24.

    CC decision no. 93-325 DC, Aug. 13, 1993, Rec. 224.

  25. 25.

    CC decision no. 92316 DC, Jan. 20, 1993, RFDA 902, note F. Pouyaud; Renoux and De Villiers (2005, 590). In this case an administrative agency (le Service Central de Prévention de la Corruption) was given by law a right to disclose any documents they got their hands on, without cause or restrictions, which allowed them to withhold documents without limitation and summon anyone, with no respect given to the right to a defense or the adversarial principle. The general principle of liberty was violated and therefore so too was the constitutional principle of personal liberty.

  26. 26.

    CC decision no. 94-352 DC, Jan. 18, 1995, Rec. 170.

  27. 27.

    Renoux and de Villiers (2005, 591).

  28. 28.

    Cass. crim., June 15, 1995, Bull. crim., No. 210; Recueil Dalloz 1994, 613, note C. Mascala; Cass. crim., Apr. 6, 1994, Bull. crim., No. 136.

  29. 29.

    CC decision no. 99-416 DC, July 23, 1999, Recueil Dalloz 2000, Somm. 265, obs. Marino; RTD civ. 1999, 725, obs. Molfessis.

  30. 30.

    Whose first section reads: “Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.”

  31. 31.

    Guerra v. Italy (1998), 26 E.H.R.R. 357.

  32. 32.

    Niemietz v. Germany (1993), 16 E.H.R.R. 97.

  33. 33.

    Burghartz v. Switzerland (1994), 18 E.H.R.R. 101.

  34. 34.

    CC decision no. 83-164 DC, Dec. 29, 1983, Rec. 67, JCP 1984 II no. 20160, note R. Drago & A. Decocq: decision safeguarding individual freedom in all respects, in particular the inviolability of the home. See also CC decision no. 93-325 DC, Aug. 13, 1993, Rec. 224.

  35. 35.

    Funke v. France (1993), 16 E.H.R.R. 297, 326, § 48; Crémieux v. France (1993), 16 E.H.R.R. 357, 373, § 31; Miailhe v. France (1993), 16 E.H.R.R. 332, 351, § 28.

  36. 36.

    CC decision no. 94-352 DC, Jan. 18, 1995, Rec. 170; CC decision no. 96-377 DC, July 16, 1996, Rec. 87; CC decision no. 97-389 DC, Apr. 22, 1997, Rec. 45.

  37. 37.

    CC decision no. 97-389 DC, Apr. 22, 1997, Rec. 45.

  38. 38.

    CC decision no. 96-377 DC, July 16, 1996, Rec. 87.

  39. 39.

    CC decision no. 2004-492 DC, Mar. 2, 2004, étude J. C. Schoettl, Gaz. Pal. 2004, doctrine, p. 3.

  40. 40.

    CC decision no. 89-268 DC, Dec. 29, 1989, Rec. 110.

  41. 41.

    Cass. ch. mixte, Dec. 15, 1988, JCP 1989 II no. 21263, obs. Dugrip; Hatoux (1988).

  42. 42.

    (§§ 56 para. 1, 76 para. 3 CCP).

  43. 43.

    § 706-91 para. 2 CCP.

  44. 44.

    § 706-93 para. 1 CCP; de Lamy (2004, 1910), Vergès (2004, 184), and Pradel (2004, no. 134), AJ pénale, 2004, 184; J. Pradel, JCP 2004 I no. 134.

  45. 45.

    Cass crim., Jan. 15, 1997, Bull. crim., No. 14. Wiretapping a lawyer may take place “only in exceptional cases”, if there is evidence the lawyer participated in a crime, and in the absence thereof, the report recounting the conversations constitutes a nullity.

  46. 46.

    (§ 100-7 CPP).

  47. 47.

    Huvig v. France (1990), 12 E.H.R.R. 528, 545, § 35; Kruslin v. France (1990), 12 E.H.R.R. 547, 565, § 36. RUDH 1990, 18, obs. G. Cohen-Jonathan; Dalloz 1990, 353, note J. Pradel.

  48. 48.

    Klass v. Germany (1979–1980), 2 E.H.R.R. 214.

  49. 49.

    Malone v. United Kingdom (1985), 7. E.H.R.R. 14.

  50. 50.

    As it does not involve a search, the formalities of searches laid out in §§ 56 et seq. CCP do not apply (presence of attesting witnesses and prohibiting searches between 9:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.), Cass. crim., Dec. 8, 1979, JCP 1980 II no. 19337, note Davia.

  51. 51.

    Cass. crim., Mar. 1, 2006, Bull. crim., No. 59; Dalloz 2007, 1504, note J. Pradel; See also Verny (2004, 777).

  52. 52.

    Pradel (2008, 468).

  53. 53.

    Contrary to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Art. 14 §3(g).

  54. 54.

    Saunders v. United Kingdom (1996), 23 E.H.R.R. 313, 337, §§ 68–69: “The right not to incriminate oneself lies at the heart of a fair procedure … It is primarily concerned with respecting the will of an accused person to remain silent”; See also Pradel et al. (2009, 389).

  55. 55.

    Cass. crim., Dec. 23, 1847, D. 1848 I no. 29, a decision invoking the risk of disturbing social order and the “sacred duty the oath imposes”.

  56. 56.

    Pradel (2008, 280–281).

  57. 57.

    §§ 222-11, 222-12 Penal Code. Of course disciplinary measures and civil liability are also imposed upon the perpetrator.

  58. 58.

    See the Grange case, which lasted ten years for procedural reasons. Couvrat (1989, 409).

  59. 59.

    Selmouni v. France (2000), 29 E.H.R.R. 403, 442, § 101; RTDH 2000, 138 obs. Lambert; Recueil Dalloz 2000, Somm. 179, obs. J. F. Renucci; Recueil Dalloz 2000, Somm. 31, obs. Y. Mayaud.

  60. 60.

    Art. 3 ECHR: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”.

  61. 61.

    Cass. crim., Feb. 26, 1991, Bull. crim., No. 97.

  62. 62.

    Cass. crim., May 4, 2008, RSC 2008, 930, obs. Finielz.

  63. 63.

    Cass. crim., Sept. 21, 2005, AJ pénal 2006, 127; Cass. crim., May 27, 2008, Bull. crim., No. 132.

  64. 64.

    § 63-4 CCP

  65. 65.

    Salduz v. Turkey [GC], (2009), 49 E.H.R.R. 19, 421, 437, § 55. See also, Pishchalnikov v. Russia, No. 7025/04, ECHR, 24 Sept. 2009; Dayanan v. Turkey, No. 7377/03, ECHR, 13 October 2009, Gaz. Pal. Dec. 3, 2009, note H. Matsopoulou.

  66. 66.

    There is, admittedly, a part of the doctrine which fights back against this strangling of nullities, but that is not our opinion. See Pradel (2008–2009, 780).

  67. 67.

    We especially think of the ECHR, most notably Art. 3 (on torture), Art. 6 (on fair trials) and Art. 8 (on privacy).

Bibliography

  • Couvrat, P. 1989. Le Contrôle Pénal de la Police. Droits de L’individu et Police, Revue Themis, Faculté de droit de Montréal, Canada, 409–418.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Lamy, B. 2004. La lutte contre la criminalité organisée. Dalloz chron, 1918–1990

    Google Scholar 

  • Desportes, F., and L. Lazerges-Cousquer. 2009. Traité de Procédure Pénale. Paris: Economica.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guinchard, S., and J. Buisson. 2011. Procédure Pénale, 7th ed. Paris: Litec.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatoux, B. 1988. Le droit de visite et de saisie des agents des administrations en matière fiscale, douanière et de concurrence. Paris: Librairie de la Cour de cassation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lévy-Brulh, H. 1964. La Preuve Judiciaire. Paris: Rivière.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pradel, J. 2003. Les Principes Constitutionnels du Proces Penal, no. 14. Les Cahiers du Conseil constitutionnel, Paris 84–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pradel, J. 2004. Vers un aggiornamento des réponses de la procédure pénale à la criminalité. Apports de la loi du 9 mars 2004. La Semaine juridique, I, n°132, 134, 821–828, 881–887.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pradel, J. 2008. Droit Pénal Comparé, 3rd ed. Paris: Dalloz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pradel, J. 2011. Procédure Pénale, 16th ed. Paris: Cujas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pradel, J., G. Corstens, and G. Vermeulen. 2009. Droit Penal Européen, 3rd ed. Paris: Dalloz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renoux, T., and M. De Villiers. 2005. Code constitutionnel. Paris: Litec.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renucci, J.F. 2007. Traité de Droit Européen des Droits de L’homme. Paris: LGDJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sciortino-Bayart, S. 2000. Recherches sur le Droit Constitutionnel de la Sanction Pénale, Doctoral Thesis, Aix-Marseille 3 (digital copy, not published).

    Google Scholar 

  • Vergès, E. 2004. La notion de criminalité organisée après la loi du 9 mars 2004. AJ pénal, 181–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verny, E. 2004. Les Sonorisations et Fixations D’images Décidées par le Juge D’Instruction. Revue Pénitentiaire et de Droit Pénal 4: 777–786.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Poitiers, 33, rue des Couronneries, 86000, Poitiers, France

    Jean Pradel (Professor Emeritus)

Authors
  1. Jean Pradel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jean Pradel .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , School of Law, Saint Louis University, Lindell Boulevard 3700, St. Louis, 63108, Missouri, USA

    Stephen C. Thaman

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Pradel, J. (2013). France: Procedural Nullities and Exclusion. In: Thaman, S. (eds) Exclusionary Rules in Comparative Law. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 20. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5348-8_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation