The Paris Court of Appeal on Friday (November 9th) sentenced pulmonologist Michel Aubier to a fine of 20,000 euros, for lying to senators about his ties with the Total group.
The pneumologist Michel Aubier was sentenced Friday, November 9 appealing a fine of 20,000 euros for having lied in 2015 to senators on its links with the group Total, a mitigated sentence compared to that pronounced in first instance.
The Paris Court of Appeal found the doctor guilty of "false testimony" , confirming the first conviction in France for this offense before the national representation.
But it imposed a penalty lower than the sentence that was required on October 5, a fine of 30,000 euros. The court has "significantly mitigated the penalty pronounced" by the Criminal Court of Paris, said Michel Aubier's lawyer, François Saint-Pierre.
On July 5, 2017, the retired doctor was sentenced to six months suspended sentence and a fine of € 50,000. Mr. Aubier was not present at the deliberations.
Appeal in cassation possible
His lawyer said "think about the interest of an appeal in cassation" . "I argue that in law, prosecution has no legal foundation. And on the other hand, Mr. Aubier made a mistake and not a deliberately false testimony , " said Saint-Pierre.
On April 16, 2015, this asthma specialist and chief of the pneumology department at Bichat Hospital was heard by a senate commission of inquiry on the "economic and financial cost of air pollution" as representative of the Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP).
To the question of possible "links of interest with economic actors" during his swearing, the pulmonologist, accustomed to the TV channels, had assured to have "none" .
However, various press articles revealed in March 2016 that he was an employee of the Total group, which had employed him since 1997 as a medical consultant.
The investigation, triggered after a report from the presidency of the Senate to the public prosecutor, had revealed that he received in 2015 about 6,000 euros per month for this activity. He also held shares and was a member of the Board of Directors of Total Foundation.
At his appeal, the pulmonologist assured himself that he had "not really understood the question asked" and maintained that he had confused "link of interest" with "conflict of interest" .