The summary judge”orders provisional decisions within a short period of time, without ruling on the merits of the case” (vie-publique.fr). The decisions rendered this Tuesday, December 23 by that of Avignon go precisely in this direction.
In the result of the deliberation, he declared in particular “inadmissible the action brought by the Rosmerta association and Ms Chantal Raffanel against the RN“, and he “dismisses all requests, rejects the surplus and awards €1,500 under article 700 (payment of compensation covering costs not included in costs, Editor's note)”.
As a reminder, on December 16 at the Avignon court, Rosmerta (“place for welcoming unaccompanied minors and families in exile”) demanded the removal from Facebook of a letter from the federation of the Vaucluse National Rally addressed to the presumed prefect, between others, “the opaque management of funds affected by the association“and the fact that”their constant support for illegal immigration represents a threat to the order and security of our department“.
False, defamatory and potentially dangerous assertions, for Me Véronique Marcel who defends the association.
“Material errors” versus “application of law”
“This is very good news, because law trumps politics; it was a technical procedure which did not open to debate on the merits, which was recognized by the judge hearing the summary proceedingsrejoices Me Valéry Dury, the lawyer for the RN federation. Afterwards, to be honest, it is tiring for elected officials and the movement to have to go to court every week for an unfortunate letter which, objectively, is not reprehensible on the merits. It is a letter to the prefect, there are no outrageous terms, it is a position supported by documents.“
And on Facebook, it's “(a letter which) is addressed to subscribers, an open letter which shows activists that elected officials are doing their job.”
Obviously, Me Marcel does not see it that way. “The action is declared inadmissible for very questionable reasons (and) two material errorsshe challenges. On the one hand, the court committed confusion (between the two summons issued to the RN). On the other hand, he says that the signatories would not be the authors of the publication and that sharing on their own Facebook page would not be proven, whereas a bailiff's report states the opposite.“
Therefore, “a request for rectification of material error will be filed and an appeal seriously considered if the errors are not corrected.”
