Espionage of François Ruffin: the ECHR rules the appeal against the agreement concluded by LVMH "inadmissible"

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled Thursday, May 4 “inadmissible” the requests of LFI deputy François Ruffin against the judicial convention of public interest (CJIP), which allowed LVMH to avoid prosecution in exchange for the payment of a fine of 10 million euros in the Squarcini case.

The rebellious deputy and the newspaper Fakir, which he founded, had seized the court installed in Strasbourg after the rejection of appeals and priority questions of constitutionality. They had been filed after validation at the end of 2021 by a Parisian judge from the CJIP by which LVMH had paid a fine of ten million euros and thus avoided prosecution in the investigation into a spy system in which the ex- head of internal intelligence Bernard Squarcini is indicted.

At the end of December, the Paris prosecutor’s office requested a trial for 11 people, including Mr. Squarcini, in this case. As a civil party with Fakir, Mr. Ruffin denounces the “surveillance” to which they were subjected “for almost three years” by Mr. Squarcini at the request of LVMH, during the filming of Merci Patron, his satirical and award-winning film on the luxury giant.

Before the ECHR, the two applicants argued in particular “that the absence of an available remedy against the order” validating the CJIP had violated “their right to an effective judicial remedy”. They also believed that the agreement was intended to “cover allegedly criminal acts of private espionage and infiltration” of the Fakir newspaper which “infringed” their privacy and their freedom of expression, recalls the Court in its judgment.

However, the ECHR found “no appearance of violation of the right of access to a court”, the two applicants having “failed to exercise their right to seek compensation for the damage resulting from the offense of which they were allegedly victims”, she points in her stop.

They “yet had this right before and during the validation hearing” of the CJIP and “do not provide convincing explanations on the reasons for its non-use”, continues the judicial arm of the Council of Europe.