Sixteen defendants, co-owners, trustee, social landlord, up to a former deputy mayor of Marseille, will appear until mid-December for the fatal collapse of 63 and 65 rue d'Aubagne on November 5, 2018, drama that has become the symbol of the scourge of substandard housing.
This Thursday, November 7, the trial opens into the collapse of the buildings on rue d'Aubagne in Marseille, which occurred in 2018. In total, 16 defendants will be tried.
They are dismissed for various charges, the two most serious of which are: involuntary manslaughter by clearly deliberate violation of a security obligation, an offense punishable by a maximum of five years in prison; the subjection of several vulnerable people, including at least one minor, to unworthy accommodation conditions, an offense punishable by 10 years of imprisonment.
Julien Ruas, only politician prosecuted
Julien Ruas was the 21st deputy on the organization chart of the municipality headed by Jean-Claude Gaudin, ex-mayor LR, who died in May 2024 after reigning 25 years over France's second city. He was in particular responsible for the prevention and management of urban risks, the policing of buildings in danger and the protection of populations.
Through his delegations, he was “at the heart of the fight against degraded and unworthy housing” et “his position as an elected official gave him the political weight necessary for decision-making”estimate the investigating judges, according to whom the organization of its services was “generally incoherent and fallible”with “a blatant lack of staff”of the “processes at worst non-existent, at best fluctuating”. Hence these numerous reports processed “with a lightness that questions”.
The former deputy, still municipal councilor but in opposition since the victory of the left in 2020, “did not fail in his obligations”replies one of his lawyers, Me Erick Campana, interviewed by AFP, and “he hopes that his innocence will emerge from the trial”.
Co-owners
Around ten co-owners of 65 rue d'Aubagne were summoned to appear directly by civil parties, in particular for not having carried out the work necessary to secure the building. Their possible criminal liability was not accepted by the investigating judges.
Among these, Xavier Cachard, at the time LR vice-president of the Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur regional council, who owned an apartment in the building and was the lawyer for the trustee, the Liautard firm. His attitude consisted of “trying to 'play for time' and limit financial costs” for the co-owners and the trustee, noted the investigating magistrates.
The trustee
The Liautard firm had been the trustee of 65 rue d'Aubagne for more than 10 years and the investigation revealed an administration “failing” of the building, or even “certain incompetence” of its managers, with “cosmetic procedures” even counterproductive.
As for the tenants' alerts, they were insufficiently taken into account, undoubtedly so as not to “upset the co-owners”.
L’expert
Richard Carta, a recognized expert specializing in old buildings, was commissioned to carry out a danger assessment on October 18, 2018, two and a half weeks before the tragedy. But, during this visit, he allegedly committed “negligence”failing to visit the cellar and not questioning the inhabitants. “An inexplicable lack of curiosity”according to the investigation.
The same evening of his assessment, all the tenants of the building, except those in an apartment, were authorized to return home.
He has “the personal feeling of being the fuse of this file”explains to AFP one of his lawyers, Me Cyril Gosset, referring to a “traumatic case for the protagonists, the victims and the people of Marseillais in general”.
The building next door
The social landlord Marseille Habitat, owner of the adjoining building, at 63 rue d'Aubagne, is suspected of having allowed this unoccupied building to deteriorate, letting it leave in “a process of ruin”which indirectly put the residents of 65 at risk.
Marseille Habitat left this building “degrade yourself further and further, making your own personal contribution”noted the instruction, according to which “it is feared that this wait-and-see attitude was motivated by financial criteria”.
