Amnesty Application for Involuntary Homicide with Separate Labor Law Convictions
France (FR)
Synthèse Legislator
Généré par l'IAThe case concerns individuals definitively convicted by a single judgment for involuntary homicide and separate labor law infractions, all committed prior to an amnesty law of July 16, 1974. A request was made to declare the homicide conviction amnestied, but the appellate court correctly ruled that because distinct convictions were pronounced for the separate offenses, the combined provisions of Articles 16 and 23 of the amnesty law, which preclude amnesty where distinct convictions are pronounced, rendered those specific provisions inapplicable, leading to the conclusion that the involuntary homicide offense was indeed amnestied under Article 6 of the same law, a ruling upheld by the high court in rejecting the appeal.
Regeste Legislator
Généré par l'IAARTICLES 16 ET 23 DE LA LOI DU 16 JUILLET 1974, ARTICLE 6 DE LADITE LOI [LOI DU 16 JUILLET 1974; Amnesty Application for Involuntary Homicide with Separate Labor Law Convictions: A request was made to declare the homicide conviction amnestied, but the appellate court correctly ruled that because distinct convictions were pronounced for the separate offenses, the combined provisions of Articles 16 and 23 of the amnesty law, which preclude amnesty where distinct convictions are pronounced, rendered those specific provisions inapplicable, leading to the conclusion that the involuntary homicide offense was indeed amnestied under Article 6 of the same law, a ruling upheld by the high court in rejecting the appeal.
Mots-clés
Généré par l'IADispositions légales citées
Généré par l'IADécisions connexes
Généré par l'IAQuestions juridiques clés extraites par Legislator
Généré par l'IAThese articles, when combined, were found by the Court of Appeal (and upheld by the Cour de cassation's rejection of the appeal) to be inapplicable in this case because distinct sentences were pronounced.
The Court of Appeal concluded that the involuntary homicide offense was amnestied under this article, a conclusion upheld by the rejection of the appeal.
Texte complet
LA COUR,
VU LA REQUETE DU PROCUREUR GENERAL PRES LA COUR D'APPEL DE ROUEN ET LE MEMOIRE EN DEFENSE ;
SUR LE MOYEN DE CASSATION, PRIS DE LA VIOLATION DES ARTICLES 16 ET 23 DE LA LOI DU 16 JUILLET 1974 PORTANT AMNISTIE ;
ATTENDU QU'IL APPERT DE L'ARRET ATTAQUE QUE X... ET Y... ONT ETE DEFINITIVEMENT CONDAMNES PAR UN MEME JUGEMENT POUR DES FAITS COMMIS LE 21 FEVRIER 1973, D'UNE PART A QUATRE MOIS D'EMPRISONNEMENT AVEC SURSIS ET 8000 FRANCS D'AMENDE POUR HOMICIDE INVOLONTAIRE, D'AUTRE PART A DEUX AMENDES DE 2000 FRANCS CHACUNE POUR INFRACTIONS A LA LEGISLATION DU TRAVAIL ;
QUE SAISIE D'UNE REQUETE TENDANT A VOIR DECLARER AMNISTIEE LA PREMIERE DE CES INFRACTIONS, LA COUR D'APPEL, APRES AVOIR CONSTATE QUE DES CONDAMNATIONS DISTINCTES AVAIENT ETE PRONONCEES, EN A DEDUIT A BON DROIT QUE LES DISPOSITIONS COMBINEES DES ARTICLES 16 ET 23 DE LA LOI DU 16 JUILLET 1974 ETAIENT INAPPLICABLES EN L'ESPECE ET QUE, PAR SUITE, LE DELIT D'HOMICIDE INVOLONTAIRE ETAIT AMNISTIE EN VERTU DE L'ARTICLE 6 DE LADITE LOI ;
D'OU IL SUIT QUE LE MOYEN NE PEUT ETRE ACCUEILLI ;
ET ATTENDU QUE L'ARRET EST REGULIER EN LA FORME ;
REJETTE LE POURVOI.