The National Financial Prosecutor’s Office (PNF) will cross-appeal the verdict of the Paris court on Monday, which sentenced Nicolas Sarkozy to prison in the so-called “eigdropping” case, we learned on Thursday after the PNF.
This appeal, which is that of the former head of state and his co-defendants, will allow the court of appeals to have full latitude to re-judge the case, including going beyond the sentences previously given.
By law, in the absence of such an appeal by a government lawyer, the Court of Appeal cannot pass a heavy sentence at first.
In a landmark verdict on Monday, Nicholas Sarkozy was sentenced by the 32nd Correctional Cell to effect corruption and a three-year imprisonment sentence, one of which is closed.
His lawyer Thierry Herzog and former High Magistrate Gilbert Ezibert were granted the same approval, plus I was given a five-year ban on practicing for Harzog.
After becoming the first former head of state to be sentenced to prison, Nicholas Sarkozy immediately announced that he was about to appeal just like MM. Herzog and Ezibert.
The “eavesdropping” file should be withdrawn in 2022, then three people will again have the possibility to file an appeal in the caption. He faced ten years in prison and a fine of 1 million euros.
On TF1 Wednesday evening, the former president said he was the victim of a “deep injustice”. He had said in Le Figaro in the morning that he would not have refused to go before the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) if he had not won his case.
While some of his supporters spoke of “political justice”, Nicholas Sarkozy refused to use these words. If the PNF’s role in this trial was questioned by many, the former president assured that he was asking “not for the dissolution of an institution”.
“I will fight to the end so that the truth prevails”, he assured, also proclaiming: “I have been going through this persecution for ten years”.
Earlier, in a rare speech, the president of the Judicial Tribunal of Paris said “fully” to “respect the judicial institution”, after harsh criticism against the decision.