Victims' rights in criminal proceedings

The Criminal Chamber regularly rules on the rights of the victim (the right to join the proceedings as a civil party, the right to obtain compensation for the loss suffered) and on the rights of the person under investigation (rights of the defence, right to private life). The status of victim, and the rights associated with it by Article 10-2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is intrinsically linked to the existence of a loss. The possibility of a loss caused by an offence is a sine qua non for the admissibility of the civil-party joinder, while recognition and assessment of the loss are the centrepiece of the civil action brought before the criminal judge.

The conditions for joining as a civil party

The right to join as a civil party is conditional on the possible existence of a loss. This is illustrated in an original way by a recent decision (Crim., 25 June 2019, appeal no. 18-84653). The Criminal Chamber recalled the settled case law: "for a civil-party joinder to be admissible before the investigating court, it is sufficient that the circumstances on which it is based allow the investigating judge to accept as possible the existence of the alleged loss and its direct link with an offence under the criminal law".

The case concerned an armed robbery in a room of a Parisian private hotel, during which jewellery worth nine million euros was stolen from a client. The company owning the hotel had joined as a civil party on account of the direct and personal loss it considered it had suffered from the potential compensation owed to the client and the reimbursement of the nights, as well as the cancellations and the damage to its image. The investigating judges and the investigating chamber had declared the joinder inadmissible because the company was not itself a direct victim. The Criminal Chamber quashed the decision, holding that "if established, the offences prosecuted were liable to cause the NAF company a direct and personal loss flowing from the obligation for the hotelier, under Articles 1952 and 1953 of the Civil Code, to compensate the person staying with him who is the victim of a fraudulent taking".

The right to full compensation

The right to compensation translates mainly into compensation for the loss suffered, which presupposes its characterisation and assessment. Loss, according to settled case law based on Article 1240 of the Civil Code (formerly 1382), "must be repaired in full, without loss or profit for any party". Three recent decisions give examples of concrete questions put to the criminal judge in assessing the loss flowing from an offence.

In the first (Crim., 2 April 2019, appeal no. 18-81917), the facts concerned compensation of the losses caused to a woman by the death of her brother in a road accident for which the responsible party had been convicted of involuntary manslaughter. As an indirect victim, the deceased's sister, who had joined as a civil party, was awarded compensation for pretium doloris and the resulting permanent functional deficit (impairments of her physiological functions, persistent pain, loss of quality of life, definitive disturbances to her conditions of existence), as well as a distinct compensation for affection assessed in light of the bonds between the civil party and her deceased brother. The Criminal Chamber confirmed this distinction.

Limits and balance between heads of loss

In a second decision (Crim., 14 May 2019, appeal no. 17-87259), the case concerned an individual found guilty of unlawfully practising the regulated profession of municipal police officer. The employing municipality had joined as a civil party and obtained 4,700 euros in damages, but had been refused reimbursement of the salaries paid during the three years the individual had exercised the position. The Criminal Chamber confirmed that the salaries paid did not constitute a loss for the municipality, since it had benefited from the service rendered.

In a third decision (Crim., 26 June 2019, appeal no. 17-87485), concerning the sale of mattresses under counterfeit marks (the green cross and the pharmaceutical caduceus), to the detriment of the National Council of Pharmacists, the Court of Cassation recalled that only Article L. 716-14 of the Intellectual Property Code applies to set damages in counterfeit cases, and that the depreciation and trivialisation of the mark, which result from the harm to its reputation and distinctive character, cannot be compensated twice.