The group is familiar with the process, which allows it to reach an agreement with the courts to end prosecutions.
Has Nestlé bought its peace with the courts? The Eau88 collective and the Vosges Nature Environnement (VNE) association are in any case denouncing the Public Interest Judicial Convention (CJIP) signed between the Épinal public prosecutor’s office and Nestlé Waters. The transactional mechanism would put an end to two criminal proceedings opened against the agri-food giant.
The CJIP concerns two preliminary investigations targeting the multinational, one concerning potential illegal drilling in the water table, the other on prohibited treatments that Nestlé has admitted to having implemented for its mineral waters. The system allows for the payment of a fine and/or the conduct of a compliance program, as well as compensation for damages.
But it has “neither the nature nor the effects of a judgment of conviction”, and “does not entail a declaration of guilt”, specifies the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Asked about the content of this agreement, the Epinal public prosecutor’s office did not respond. The CJIP must be approved by the court during a hearing on Tuesday. The VNE, Foodwatch and Eau88 associations were invited to quantify their losses but denounce the solution chosen.
This agreement “would amount to sweeping the matter under the carpet and allowing Nestlé Waters officials to get away with it without any explanation or consequences other than the payment of a sum of money,” Foodwatch said, calling for the approval to be rejected.
According to the association’s lawyer, François Lafforgue, the offences “repressed by the Public Health Code and the Consumer Code, including deception, cannot be the subject of a CJIP, which can only relate to offences provided for and repressed by the Environmental Code”.
“The provision is a bit wicked, it allows people who have money to escape a judgment and a criminal record,” deplores Bernard Schmitt, from the Eau88 collective, who had filed a complaint in 2020 on potential illegal drilling. But in the absence of an agreement, “since Nestlé has lawyers and a lot of resources, and the justice system has few resources, we will find ourselves five to ten years later with crimes that everyone will have forgotten and a ridiculous sanction… So what do we do?”
“It’s a bitter potion that we’re swallowing. The tool is far from perfect, but in environmental terms, it allows for a faster response,” says François Zind, lawyer for Eau88.
Etude d’impact
“We demanded that there be, in the agreement, an impact study on the quantities of water in the water tables and the impact” of Nestlé’s activity, he adds. Without the agreement, “we would have to do seven or eight years, as multinationals know how to do, and we no longer have that time in relation to the climate emergency and what we think is an overexploitation of the resource.”
“This is indicative of a justice system that is not functioning properly. If justice had the means to function, we should have a proper trial,” believes Jean-François Fleck of VNE.
The association nevertheless responded to the request for an estimate of its damages: “We could refuse to take part in this procedure, but then it would be done without us, there would be even fewer consequences for Nestlé.”
In September 2022, Nestlé France had already signed a CJIP with the prosecutor of Charleville-Mezières, after the pollution of the Aisne River in 2020, causing the death of around six tonnes of fish. While denying that its Challerange (Ardennes) factory was the source of the pollution, despite the findings of the gendarmes and the French Office for Biodiversity, the multinational had accepted a fine of 40,000 euros.
