The Constitutional Council has made its decision on an appeal by Cédric Herrou, a farmer who became a symbol of defending migrants in the Roya Valley, on the border with Italy.
Selfless help — this is his case as well as that of other humanitarian activists — should not be subject to prosecution, in the name of the “principle of fraternity.”
The opinion issued by the Constitutional Council was awaited in France, but also across Europe.
Humanitarian organizations that assist migrants across Europe are regularly criticized by governments.
The most extreme example is certainly that of Hungary, where Prime Minister Viktor Orban has passed a law that makes anyone helping asylum seekers subject to criminal prosecution.
“By repressing any assistance to the movement of foreigners in an irregular situation,” the Constitutional Council considers that the legislature has not respected the balance between “principle of fraternity” and “safeguarding public order.”
With this decision, the highest French court has censured provisions of the Code on the Entry and Residence of Foreigners, which stipulated that anyone helping migrants to enter France illegally risks up to five years in prison and a 30,000-euro fine, under what is commonly called the “crime of solidarity.”
However, the law stipulates that a person cannot be convicted for the help they provide, under two conditions: if they provided legal advice, food, accommodation, or medical care to ensure dignified and decent living conditions, or if they provided any other assistance aimed at preserving dignity or physical integrity, provided their help did not result in a direct or indirect counterpart.
Conversely, “assistance with illegal entry” remains punishable.
In the Alpes-Maritimes, where there is a “hot” border line that has led to various moments of tension between the prefecture and migrant aid associations, this decision was eagerly awaited for the operational implications it will certainly have.
Deputy Eric Ciotti — a proponent of a hardline stance who has called for military intervention in the Mediterranean (!!!) — immediately criticized the “political (???)” decision of the Constitutional Council on migrants, which he claims further weakens the necessary authority of the State and strengthens the power of pseudo-humanitarian associations.
This definition, “political,” is astonishing: why wouldn’t the Constitutional Council be the faithful interpreter of the “charter and its values,” especially in the face of abuses that are, indeed, political?
As is often the case, the moral drift leads to disregarding the rule of law! to suit one’s “political” conveniences.
Mala tempora currunt!
