skip navigation

(Source picture: François Vogin/Wikipedia)

(Source picture: François Vogin/Wikipedia)

The Prosecutor v. Maurice Papon

Court Cour de Cassation, Chambre Criminelle, France
Case number 98-82.323
Decision title Judgment
Decision date 11 June 2004
Parties
  • The Prosecutor
  • Maurice Papon
Categories Crimes against humanity
Keywords crimes against humanity, deprivation of liberty, Murder
Links
Other countries involved
  • Germany
back to top

Summary

Maurice Papon was a civil servant in Occupied France during World War II holding the position of Secretary-General of the Gironde prefecture.

The Assize Court of Gironde – a criminal trial court hearing cases of defendants accused with the most serious crimes – convicted Papon of crimes against humanity and sentenced him to 10 years’ imprisonment for having aided and abetted the unlawful arrest and detention of hundreds of Jewish persons from 1942 until 1944, who were eventually deported and exterminated at Auschwitz.

Papon appealed the conviction but the Court of Cassation held that Papon had forfeited his rights to appeal when, instead of surrendering himself to the custody of the Court as he was legally obliged to do, he fled to Switzerland. Following a decision of the European Court of Human Rights condemning France for having breached Papon’s right of access to a court by holding that he had forfeited such right, Papon sought and obtained the re-examination of his appeal by the Court of Cassation, the highest judicial body in France. The Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the decision of the Assize Court, rendering irreversible Papon’s conviction. Papon died three years later.

back to top

Procedural history

On 2 April 1998, Maurice Papon was convicted by the Assize Court of Gironde for complicity in crimes against humanity and sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment.

Under an obligation to surrender to the custody of the Court, Papon applied to the Assize Court of Gironde and the Indictment Division of the Court of Appeal of Bordeaux for an exemption; the former refused for lack of jurisdiction, the latter dismissed the claim.

Papon left France for Switzerland and resided there until the Swiss authorities extradited him to France.

By a decision of 21 October 1999, the Criminal Division of the Court of Cassation declared that Papon had forfeited his rights to appeal his conviction on the grounds of Article 583 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, namely, that he had not surrendered to the custody of the Court and had not obtained an exemption that would otherwise excuse a failure to do so.

Papon seized the European Court of Human Rights and, by a decision of 25 July 2002, the Court held that the forfeiture of Papon’s right to appeal violated Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights, i.e., his right of access to a court.

Following this judgment, Papon filed a motion before the Commission for the Re-examination of Criminal Convictions (Commission de réxamen d;une condemnation pénale) with a view to having re-examined his appeal against the judgment of the Assize Court of Gironde. The Commission transmitted the request to the Court of Cassation so that it may rule on the appeal.

back to top

Related developments

Maurice Papon died on 17 February 2007 (see C.R. Whitney, 'Maurice Papon, Convicted Vichy Official, 96, Dies', The New York Times, 18 February 2007).

back to top

Legally relevant facts

From June 1942 until August 1944, Papon was the Secretary General of the Gironde préfecture in occupied France. During this time, Papon actively cotnributed to the implementation of Nazi policy against the Jewish population by arresting and interning 76 Jewish persons, amongst them children. After gathering them at a camp in Mérignac, most were transported in four convoys in the months of July, August and October 1942 and January 1944 to Drancy, before being deported to the cocnentration camp at Auschwitz where they were exterminated.

back to top

Core legal questions

  • Does the decease of a number of defence witnesses and the disappearance of potentially exculpatory documents breach the appellant’s right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights including the principle of equality of arms?
  • The public prosecutor, in the course of the trial, questioned the accused in relation to the organisation of a convoy of 2 February 1943, a fact which was considered by the Investigative Division of the Court of Appeal of Bordeaux but which was not included in the remand of the trial to Assize Court by the afore-mentioned Investigative Division. Does such a line of questioning breach the rights of the defence?
  • Did the legal representative of the civil parties breach the appellant’s right to a fair trial by making declarations to the press to the effect that the President of the Assize Court had familial relations with some of the victims deported in the convoys under the authority of the appellant?

back to top

Specific legal rules and provisions

  • Articles 6(1) and (3) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
  • Article 668 of the French Code of Criminal Procedure.

back to top

Court's holding and analysis

Whilst it is true that several defence witnesses have died or are incapable of testifying, there has been no violation of the appellant’s right to a fair trial or the principle of equality of arms as the same is true of prosecution witnesses (p. 2).

Whilst questions posed to the Court and to the jury can only relate to the offences contained in the indictment, nothing prohibits evoking, in the course of the trial, other facts not mentioned in the proceedings if the parties believe that this review may be helpful to the protection of their interests (p. 5).

The appellant may not raise the impartiality of the President of the Assize Court before the Court of Cassation by invoking an alleged breach of the European Convention on Human Rights so long as he did not raise the same complaint before the Assize Court and attempted to obtain the President’s recusal by virtue of Article 668 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the closure of oral proceedings (pp. 6-7).

The appeal was rejected in its entirety (p. 9).

back to top

Further analysis

back to top

Instruments cited

back to top

Related cases

  • Conseil d'Etat, Judicial Assembly, Papon v. France, Case No. 238689, Decision, 12 April 2002.
  • European Court of Human Rights, Papon v. France, Case No. 54210/00, Judgment, 25 July 2002.

back to top

Additional materials

back to top

Social media links