Does the Lille prosecutor’s office have a secret file of demonstrators in custody?

Monday, the administrative justice must study two requests in summary against a possible file of the parquet floor of Lille, denounced by Mediapartwhich would have identified the personal data of people arrested during the demonstrations against the pension reform, we learned from the applicants and the court.

These requests for interim freedom, which are based solely on the Mediapart investigation, will be examined during a hearing at 10:30 a.m. at the Lille administrative court, the court told AFP. One was written by the Association for the Defense of Constitutional Liberties (Adelico) and the Union of Lawyers of France, represented by Jean-Baptiste Soufron, the other by the League of Human Rights (LDH).

“Dedicated tools to monitor and process procedures”

According to the Mediapart article, “in at least two major courts”, including Lille, “duty substitutes” filled out “Excel tables with the surname, first name and date of birth of each demonstrator in custody” in the framework of the demonstrations, “as well as the criminal consequences given”. These files not declared to the competent authorities were “then to be transmitted to the general prosecutor’s office of the court of appeal”, says the online media.

Asked by Mediapart, the Ministry of Justice had acknowledged that “local initiatives” had “could lead to the establishment of dedicated tools to monitor and process procedures”, without formally mentioning “files”.

In the first request, the associations believe that such a practice “within the Lille prosecutor’s office” infringes the “fundamental freedoms to demonstrate, come and go as well as the right to privacy”. They ask the court to “put an end” to these “serious and manifestly illegal attacks”.

It is “a clandestine file which has never been authorized”, advanced to AFP Me Marion Ogier, lawyer for the LDH. “There is no legal framework and no guarantee,” she denounced. Contacted by AFP, the Lille prosecutor’s office and the general prosecutor’s office did not respond.

source site