The Outreau case left a lasting impression: thirteen people were acquitted after being held in pre-trial detention for up to three years. This legal drama, which highlighted the ordeal of the wrongly accused, is a poignant illustration that the legal system is not infallible. Behind the mistakes lie shattered lives, destroyed reputations and lost years. Fortunately, French law provides for compensation mechanisms to repair, as far as possible, the damage suffered by victims. These mechanisms, which are based on the responsibility of the players in the judicial systemThese rights are often misunderstood. Understanding your rights is the first step to obtaining fair compensation.
Compensation for unjustified pre-trial detention
Often preceded by a gruelling period in police custody, pre-trial detention represents one of the most serious infringements of personal freedom prior to any trial. The legislator has therefore established a right to compensation for people who, after being remanded in custody, are finally found innocent.
Article 149 of the Code of Criminal Procedure states that any person who has been remanded in custody and who benefits from a decision to dismiss, acquit or acquit that has become final is entitled to full compensation. This compensation covers the moral and material harm caused by the imprisonment, regardless of the reasons for the favourable decision. This right to compensation arises from malfunctions in the system, such as the gross negligence or denial of justiceThe case of Loïc Sécher, acquitted after seven years in prison for a rape he denied, illustrates the need for this right to compensation. The case of Loïc Sécher, acquitted after seven years in prison for a rape he denied, illustrates the need for this right to compensation. If the error is the result of gross negligence, it is sometimes possible to go beyond the sole liability of the State to seek compensation. engage the individual liability of a magistrate or expertopening up other avenues of appeal.
The request for compensation must be made by petition to the first president of the relevant court of appeal (for example, the Paris court of appeal for cases heard within its jurisdiction). A time limit of six months must be observed from the date on which the decision to dismiss the case, acquit or acquit has become final. Failure to meet this deadline may result in your rights being forfeited. The assistance of a lawyer, although not compulsory, is strongly recommended in order to put a precise figure on the losses and present a solid case. To determine the amount of compensation, a precise quantification of the loss and compensation for loss of opportunity are key elements, often requiring legal expertise to maximise compensation.
Compensation following a retrial
The review of a final criminal conviction is an exceptional procedure, brought before the Court of Revision and Reconsideration. It makes it possible to correct the most serious miscarriages of justice by overturning a judicial decision that has become res judicata.
Article 622 of the Code of Criminal Procedure strictly defines the cases in which an appeal may be lodged: the discovery of a new fact or an element unknown at the time of the trial that could establish the innocence of the convicted person and, in some cases, identify the true perpetrator. This remedy is rare, with only a handful of favourable decisions each year.
When a review results in acquittal, article 626 of the same code provides for full compensation for material and non-material damage. This compensation, which is often substantial, is intended to compensate for the years of detention, the loss of income, the damage to reputation and the costs incurred. Famous cases illustrate the scale of these reparations, such as that of Patrick Dils, who was awarded a million euros after fifteen years in prison for a murder he did not commit, or that of Roland Agret, who fought for years to have his innocence recognised after being convicted of murder, a battle that has become emblematic of the French miscarriage of justice. More recently, the case of Rida Daalouche, who received compensation in December 2023 after a miscarriage of justice kept him behind bars for ten years, confirms this trend. The State can then take action against those who caused the error through their own fault.
Compensation for legal costs incurred
Even in the absence of detention, a person wrongly prosecuted suffers significant financial loss as a result of the costs involved in defending themselves. In addition to defence costs, other forms of damage may be caused by the judicial system, in particular those resulting from unreasonable delays in justicewhich may also give rise to compensation.
Article 800-2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure allows the court that dismisses, acquits or acquits a case to award compensation for legal costs incurred. However, this reimbursement is not an automatic right. The judge has discretionary powers, and the amount awarded rarely covers the full amount of the lawyer's fees. The request must be made before the close of the hearing, otherwise it will be inadmissible.
Holding the State liable: the basis for compensation
The right to compensation for a miscarriage of justice is based on a fundamental principle: the responsibility of the State for the malfunctioning of the public justice system. This liability is the cornerstone that justifies compensation for victims, whether they have been wrongfully detained or wrongfully convicted. It is a concrete manifestation of the fundamental principles of state liability for judicial malpractice. This responsibility is not only a legal principle, but also a political issue, regularly debated in the National Assembly and overseen by the Keeper of the Seals.
The principle of liability for judicial malfunction
The public service of justice, like any other State service, can make mistakes. This principle has its roots in historic battles against injustice, such as the one led by Bernard Lazare during the Dreyfus affair, which highlighted the fallibility of the State and the need to make good a wrongful conviction. When an erroneous judicial decision causes damage, the State may be held liable. For a long time, only gross negligence, i.e. an exceptionally serious error, would entitle the State to compensation. However, case law has evolved. A landmark ruling by the Conseil d'Etat (CE, 21 March 2011, Krupa) accepted that the State could be held liable for simple misconduct in the exercise of its judicial function, provided that direct damage had been caused. This development greatly facilitates the compensation process for victims.
Gross negligence and denial of justice: specific conditions
Although simple negligence is now more commonly accepted, gross negligence and denial of justice remain important grounds for State liability. Gross negligence is characterised by a gross failure, an error so obvious that it would not have been committed by a normally diligent magistrate. In another context, such a systemic failure may echo the recent British Post Office scandal, where massive software errors (Post Office Horizon) led to hundreds of wrongful convictions, illustrating a large-scale malfunction. Denial of justice is when a court refuses to rule on a claim or takes an abnormally long time to reach a decision. Although these situations are more difficult to prove, they give rise to a right to full compensation for the damage suffered.
Personal liability of magistrates or legal experts
Engaging the personal liability of a member of the judiciary or an expert is a separate and much more restrictive procedure. It is only possible in cases of exceptionally serious personal misconduct, such as fraud, embezzlement or a blatant denial of justice. In the majority of cases, the action for compensation must be brought against the State, which represents the public service of justice as a whole. The State then has a recourse action against the magistrate at fault, but this procedure is very rare.
Limitation periods: crucial information
The right to compensation is governed by strict time limits. Knowledge of the statute of limitations is therefore essential if you are not to lose your rights. This information is crucial. A summary of time limits is often available on government websites, but the assistance of a lawyer is still the best way of ensuring the security of the procedure. Failure to comply with the compliance with statutory limitation periods may result in the foreclosure of your rights to compensation.
What is the starting point for the limitation period?
The starting point of the limitation period is a key factor. As a general rule, the limitation period begins to run from the day on which the acquittal, acquittal or dismissal decision becomes final. It is from this date that the miscarriage of justice is officially recognised and that the victim can legitimately make a claim. In the case of unjustified pre-trial detention, the time limit is six months. For example, if an acquittal becomes final on 15 January, the claim must be lodged before 15 July of the same year. For other liability claims against the State, different time limits may apply, making the advice of a lawyer essential to secure the procedure.
Interruption and suspension: when can the deadline be modified?
The running of the limitation period is not always linear. It can be affected by two legal mechanisms: interruption and suspension. Interruption wipes out the period that has already elapsed and starts a new period of the same duration. This is the case, for example, when legal action is taken. Suspension, on the other hand, temporarily halts the running of the time limit without erasing the time that has already elapsed; the time limit resumes where it left off. These mechanisms are complex and their application depends on the specific circumstances of each case. An error of assessment can be fatal to an action for compensation.
Specific time limits in non-criminal civil matters
While the most widely publicised miscarriage of justice is in criminal matters, it can also occur in civil matters (for example, an erroneous judgement on property rights). In this case, the ordinary rules of prescription apply. Liability claims against the State for malfunctioning of the justice system are generally time-barred after four years from the first day of the year following the year in which the damage occurred. The starting point is often the date on which the erroneous court decision became final, but more complex situations may exist, justifying an in-depth legal analysis.
Proving error and prejudice: the keys to fair compensation
Obtaining compensation for a miscarriage of justice is not limited to proving the error itself; it is just as important to demonstrate the extent of the damage suffered. The quality of the evidence provided will largely determine the amount of compensation awarded.
Burden of proof: who has to prove what?
The general principle, laid down in article 1353 of the Civil Code, is that anyone claiming performance of an obligation must prove it. In a claim for compensation, it is therefore up to the victim to demonstrate the existence and extent of his or her losses. This means that they must gather together all the information needed to put a figure on the material losses (lost income, expenses incurred) and to justify the extent of the non-material harm (suffering, damage to reputation).
Quantifying the damage: material, moral and loss of opportunity
Material damage is the most tangible. It includes loss of wages, loss of professional opportunities, legal fees for the defence, and any other costs directly linked to the legal proceedings. Non-material damages, which are more subjective, are intended to compensate for psychological suffering, the anguish of detention, damage to honour and reputation, and sometimes the consequences of degrading treatment. A third type of loss, "loss of opportunity", may also be compensated. This is the loss of a reasonable chance of obtaining an advantage or avoiding an inconvenience. For example, a person who has been unjustly imprisoned may have lost the chance to conclude an important contract or to pass an exam. Quantifying these losses is a delicate exercise that requires solid, well-documented arguments.
Methods of proof: from official documents to digital evidence
To support their claim, victims may use any form of evidence permitted by law. Traditional forms of evidence include pay slips, tax returns, contracts, medical or psychological reports, press articles and statements from relatives. In the digital age, new forms of evidence have emerged. Electronic communications (e-mails, text messages) and audio and video recordings can have evidential value, provided their authenticity and integrity are guaranteed. The judge will have full discretion to assess the strength of each piece of evidence presented in the case file.
Recourse in the event of refusal or insufficient compensation
The rejection of a claim for compensation or the award of an amount deemed insufficient is not inevitable. The law provides specific legal remedies for contesting such decisions and asserting one's rights in full. Cases such as Outreau have had a profound impact on French society, to the point of inspiring a French film, Présumé coupable, which retraces the ordeal of Alain Marécaux, one of those acquitted. This film, like Marécaux's book, has become a benchmark for understanding the impact of a miscarriage of justice.
For compensation for pre-trial detention, an appeal may be lodged with the National Commission for Compensation for Detention (CNRD). Made up of senior magistrates from the Cour de cassation, this body re-examines the case and may overturn the decision of the first president, often by increasing the amounts awarded. When all national remedies have been exhausted, the case may be referred to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). If it finds a violation of the Convention, in particular of the right to liberty or to a fair trial, it may award "just satisfaction" to the victim.
The path to redressing a miscarriage of justice is often long and complex. It requires a precise knowledge of the procedures, whether it involves an acquittal handed down by a criminal court or an acquittal handed down by an assize court, an appeal against which is heard by the Criminal Division of the Court of Cassation. If you have been the victim of a miscarriage of justice, don't wait to assert your rights. Our firm can assess your situation and guide you through the often complex process of claiming compensation.. The right legal advice can make a significant difference to the recognition of your loss and the amount of compensation you receive.
Sources
- Code of Criminal Procedure, articles 149 to 150, 622 to 626 and 800-2
- Civil Code, article 1353
- European Convention on Human Rights, articles 5, 6 and 41
- Case law of the Conseil d'État (in particular CE, 21 March 2011, Krupa)
EN 
FR