Because C8's license was about to expire and because C8 did not respect the specifications of its license.
And audiences don't come into play.
And no, “why not another” does not in any way constitute an argument in favor of the harassment thesis. Unless we prove beforehand that there would be “another” which was recently renewed even though it respected its specifications as poorly as C8. Except that no channel has been called to order as often as C8 and for such serious facts. So we do not have an example of a channel which in the same situation as C8 would have been renewed.
Another point also poses a problem from a strictly legal point of view, without any substantive judgment: the ARCOM decision was rendered “against” C8 (and again, factually, it is not even a decision “against” » C8, there was a call for tenders and the file of another candidate was judged to be better… the ARCOM decision is therefore not legally a sanction against C8). It would therefore logically be up to C8 to complain in court, since she would be the victim, not to Hanouna, who is not the legal representative of C8. So even if it were admissible, I don't see how Hanouna's complaint could change anything for C8.
Incidentally, has the complaint even been filed, or is this yet another PR stunt from Hanouna? Because I searched a bit, I didn't find anything indicating that he actually filed a complaint… And it wouldn't be the first time that he claims to take legal action without actually doing so… A bit along the lines of elsewhere of the false “viewer” whom he had invited a few days after announcing that he was going to file a complaint, a viewer who also claimed to want to file a complaint, and who in fact turned out to be an employee of the sister channel CNews (which, incidentally, therefore strengthens the case against C8).
And what is certain is that if there was a complaint, there was no interim order to suspend the decision pending a judgment on the merits. Otherwise Hanouna would have already bragged about it. So even if the complaint is admissible and under investigation, that does not call into question the non-renewal of C8, and even if the courts ultimately decided to condemn ARCOM, it would then undoubtedly only be financial compensation, because By the time this is judged and all appeals have been made, the new channel will have already taken over, and it will be very complicated for the courts to force the shutdown of this new channel to reinstate C8.
Above all, they have demonstrated that they do not learn from their mistakes and that even when called to order and punished, they continue in excess and abuse… Let us remember in particular that each time, instead of making honorable amends, Hanouna to cry all his crocodile tears…
Which inevitably devalues their file even more in the context of a call for tenders…
It's like that in any market, if among the candidates there is one who has already failed you multiple times in previous markets, the fact of not retaining his file because of that is unlikely to be considered abusive by the courts eh… If a construction company accumulates delays and poor workmanship on all its latest public projects and it is rejected for its application for the call for tenders for the renovation of the town hall, it's not because the mayor harasses one of his employees.
