statements of Eliane Houlette in front of the parliamentary commission of inquiry on the independence of the judiciary arouse a stir. Interviewed on 10 June, the former head of the parquet national financier (PNF) states that the general prosecutor’s office of Paris, directed by Catherine Champrenault, had assailed claims relating to the preliminary investigation opened against Francis and Penelope Fillon, about the remuneration received by the latter in its quality – challenged – to a parliamentary attaché.
According to Ms. Crook, he would have been respondent to open a judicial inquiry, that is to say, to entrust the investigations to an investigating judge, only qualified to speak of the indictments. The member of parliament for the Eure-et-Loir, Olivier Marleix, has asked, with his colleagues LR of the commission, that it to hear, under oath, the attorney general.
see also : Case Fillon: a procedure is now rotten from the inside
Catherine Champrenault denies, in a statement released Friday, have exercised the slightest pressure on the PNF. It is stated that its “action is always taken in the exercise of its legal powers to ensure the application of the law and the proper functioning of the prosecutors under his authority”.
however, according to the testimonies collected by The Figaro with several prosecutors, it is not customary for an attorney general to hold the hand of an attorney – especially an attorney with a national remit – to get him to open a judicial information. Article 36 of the code of criminal procedure has, of course, that “the attorney general may direct the prosecutors of the Republic, by written instructions, and the record of the proceedings, to institute or to prosecute or apply to the competent court of such written address that the attorney general considers appropriate”.
“political Assassination”
If statements there has been – the statement of Ms. Champrenault evokes a “letter of 17 February, 2017” in favour of a judicial information of a nature to “allow the development of an adversarial debate” – they would be out of a file. The board of Mr Fillon argues that this is not the case (read his interview on page 3). Who is telling the truth? In addition, the proceedings were already underway, led by a PNF that does not pass for a den of penguins: why him dictate his conduct in a folder that is also sensitive?
see also : The family of François Fillon are upset by revelations of the former prosecutor.
The case Fillon has been the subject of a treatment of a haste out of the ordinary. The revelations of the Canard enchaîné, January 25, 2017, result in the triggering of a preliminary investigation the same day. A month later, the PNF opens a judicial investigation – his old boss claims to have taken this decision of authority, without any pressure and hierarchical. On march 14, 2017, the former prime minister, presidential candidate, is examined. You know the rest.
see also : Affaire Fillon: Jean-Luc Mélenchon, the ally of circumstance
A legal argument can explain this acceleration: the new limitations act, on the point of enter into force, would have considerably reduced the size of the folder. The camp of the candidate sees in it a “political assassination”. At the time, François Hollande was still the head of State. His keeper of the Seals, Jean-Jacques Urvoas, will later be convicted by the Court of justice of the Republic, ” for having passed on an accused is not like the others (Thierry Solère, elected LR) of elements of an investigation the aimed, thus violating the secrecy of investigations.
The editorial team conseilleAffaire Fillon: “The affairs that concern policy are dealt with under the subordination to the ruling power,”The ex-prosecutor who pursued François Fillon sows the douteAffaire Fillon: a year ago, Eliane Houlette was in denial about having been pressionsSujetsFrançois FillonÉliane HouletteParisAffaire FillonAucun comment
there are currently no comments on this article.
Be the first to give your opinion !
I write a comment
