During a police control on the highway, in Saint Avold (France), on 11 December 1988, authorities stopped the appellant. It was ascertained that he transported in the car his mother-in-law, Algerian, who’s passport had expired six months prior.
The appellant confirmed to be aware of the irregular situation of his mother-in-law in France. He further acknowledged accommodating her. He justified his conduct with her debilitated health condition (diabetes and high blood pressure), which required her to be closely followed by a physician.
Legal findings:
The Court of First Instance of Sarreguemines (France) convicted the appellant of migrant smuggling, specifically facilitation of illegal stay. It sentenced the appellant to two months imprisonment suspended and a fine of 2000 Francs. The Court of Appeal of Metz (France) confirmed the decision on the merits but reviewed the penalty applied.
For further details see “History of Proceedings” and “Commentary”.
Commentaire / Faits marquants
The Court of Appeal of Metz (France) confirmed the decision of the Court of First Instance of Sarreguemines (France), thus convicting the appellant of migrant smuggling, in its modality of facilitation of illegal stay. In so doing, the Court considered that the appellant was aware of the irregular situation of his mother-in-law. By proving accommodation to her, he facilitated her illegal stay in the country, in the terms of Article 21 Ordonnance 45-2658 of 2 November 1945.
However, the Court of Appeal paid due care to the particular circumstances of the case and the special needs of the migrant. It thus reviewed the penalty by applying a full suspension thereof. That is, contrarily to the decision of he Court of First Instance of Serreguemines, the Court of Appeal suspended the execution of the fine (and not only of the imprisonment).
NOTE: As per French national law, the purpose of obtaining a financial or other material benefit is not a constitutive element of the crime but rather an aggravating circumstance (see SHERLOC Database on Legislation – France).
Date de la peine:
1989-10-04
Questions transversales
Responsabilité
Responsabilité pour
• Infraction consommée
Responsabilité fondée sur
• Intention criminelle
Responsabilité impliquant
• Auteur principal (d’une infraction)
enquête
Organismes concernés
• Criminal Police
• Public Prosecutor
Informations sur la procédure
Système juridique:
Droit civil
Décision judiciaire la plus récente:
Juridiction d’appel
Type d'Action Juridique:
Criminel / pénal
On 19 May 1989, the Court of First Instance of Sarreguemines (France) convicted the appellant of migrant smuggling. It followed the appeal herein under analysis.
Migrants
Migrant:
Sexe:
Femme
Nationalité:
Algérien
Mother-in-law of the appellant. Debilitated health condition, requiring close medical follow-up.
Défendeurs / Répondants de la première instance
Prévenu:
M.D.
Sexe:
Homme
Nationalité:
Algérien
Né/naissance:
1957
Raisonnement juridique:
On appeal, the Defence argued the appellant had acted out of concern for the debilitated health of his mother-in-law who required close medical follow-up.
Accusations / Demandes d’indemnité / Décisions
Prévenu:
M.D.
Charge:
Assisting the irregular entry, transit or stay of a foreigner in France
Statut:
Ordonnance 45-2658 of 2 November 1945Article 21
Verdict:
Guilty
Peine de prison:
2 Mois
Probation
Amende / Paiement à l’État:
2000
Francs
(Up to 10,000 USD)
Execution suspended
Tribunal
Cour d'appel de Metz
Sources / citations
Cour d’Appel de Metz Jugement 767/89 4 October 1989
