“When we discredit the judicial institution, I am discredited me,” said Me Jérôme Giusti, lawyer at the Paris Bar

This text corresponds to part of the transcription of the interview above. Click on the video to watch it in its entirety.

Lucie Chaumette: We will come back to certain remarks made by the former President of the Republic in the Sunday newspaper This weekend. Nicolas Sarkozy declares that “All the limits of the rule of law have been raped”. He adds that he will not give in “Faced with lies, plots, insults and practices contrary to the rule of law”. Is it precisely these statements that are problematic today?

Jérôme Giusti: Exactly. They seem excessive to us in relation to what we can expect from the defense of a litigant. It is obviously not a question of condemning Nicolas Sarkozy in advance: he has the right to defend himself, like any citizen. As a lawyer, I understand the difficulties encountered by those condemned at first instance, and, in the case of Mr. Sarkozy, to a particularly infamous sentence. But there is a limit not to be crossed. What challenged us is that he invokes the rule of law and the very notion of human rights, to return them in a way against court decisions, as if they were, in essence, contrary to the rule of law.

Lucie Chaumette: Does that seem condemnable to you?

Jérôme Giusti: Yes, because the judicial authority, precisely because it is impartial and independent, constitutes one of the foundations of the rule of law. It was this reversal of the concepts made by Mr. Sarkozy who led us to react.

Lucie Chaumette: Nicolas Sarkozy criticizes a court decision concerning him, but he still has the right to criticize justice, right?

Jérôme Giusti: Of course. The penal code sanctions the fact of discrediting the judicial authority, but it at the same time provides for an exception: technical or legal criticisms, or those which tend to the reform of a decision, are perfectly eligible. The difficulty is abuse. When we go beyond the simple criticism of a judgment to accuse magistrates of having plotted, lied or governed their powers, we cross a threshold. This type of purpose is, in my opinion, completely excessive. Moreover, the Court of Cassation has already condemned similar declarations several times, notably in 1997 and 2001.

Lucie Chaumette: Why did you decided, with around twenty lawyers, to build up for defenders of the judicial institution? Already last week, the president of the Paris judicial court and the PNF spoke. Was not enough?

Jérôme Giusti: We are auxiliaries of justice, we are lawyers, and Nicolas Sarkozy is also our colleague. When he reacts hot, at the end of the audience, I can understand emotion and outburst, even if his words were already criticized. But three days later, in a written forum, he reiterated his accusations in a outrageous manner. This is when the problem becomes major. He calls out to me as a citizen, hence the complaint for outrage with magistrates that we have filed with my colleagues, but also as a lawyer. Because to discredit the judicial institution is also to discredit those who work there on a daily basis, of which we are part.

Lucie Chaumette: However, the magistrates did not file a complaint. Do you regret it?

Jérôme Giusti: I don’t understand it. This is precisely why we took the initiative to do so.

Lucie Chaumette: Nicolas Sarkozy is not the sole politician to have criticized the rule of law after a judicial decision. We remember in particular the reactions of Marine Le Pen, for example during his conviction at first instance in the case of European parliamentary assistants. Why did you choose to target Nicolas Sarkozy, and no other political leaders?

Jérôme Giusti: We cannot attack everyone. We make choices, because we also have firms to run. What concerned us here is first of all that Mr. Sarkozy is a former President of the Republic.

Lucie Chaumette: So is that what changes?

Jérôme Giusti: Yes. As a former head of state, he is the guarantor of institutions, in particular the independence of the judicial authority. But he is also a lawyer. And when you are a lawyer, you can’t say everything freely. Of course, the defense of a client in court allows great freedom of speech. But outside, we are bound by our oath, which imposes dignity and probity. In my eyes, Nicolas Sarkozy, as a lawyer, should have made more measured remarks with regard to the judicial authority. I do not dispute his right to express themselves, but the way he did it incompatible with the responsibility hers.

–

This text corresponds to part of the transcription of the interview above. Click on the video to watch it in its entirety.