The couple sentenced to leave the Grasse court on Tuesday -
F. Binacchi / ANP / 20 Minutes
Prosecuted for home invasion, the squatters of a house in Théoule-Sur-Mer were sentenced to eight months in prison.
They must also pay nearly 15,000 euros to the owner.
The defendants arrived in front of the criminal court in Grasse with their two children, one in a stroller and the other on his mother's arm.
A presence which complicated the launch of the debates, this Tuesday afternoon, at the eagerly awaited trial of the squatters of a house in Théoule-sur-Mer (Alpes-Maritimes) at the end of the summer.
“You had no one to keep them,” asks President Christian Legay.
“No, we don't have a family here,” the couple replied.
It is finally a lawyer, present in the room, who volunteers to take a look at the two little ones, one and a half and eight months old, in the anteroom of the courtroom.
The couple of "squatters" of Théoule-sur-Mer was sentenced to 8 months suspended prison sentence
- Fabien Binacchi (@fabienbinacchi) October 27, 2020
If they do not have a nanny, Abdellah Zerhima, 24, and Jihan Zidouli, 25, now have an address in Hyères (Var) in due form.
The husband found a job as a sorting agent at Chronopost.
From August 21 to September 7, they stayed without rights or titles in the second home of a retired couple from Lyon.
A squat that they tried to explain at the bar without showing any real regret and which ultimately earned them an eight-month suspended prison sentence.
For violation of domicile.
Against 1,500 euros, according to them
This very media affair was launched by the call of a real estate agent.
Henri Kaloustian, 74, had appointed this Riviera professional to find a new owner for his holiday home with sea view, acquired in 1987 in this locality near Cannes.
A visit is scheduled.
A man and a woman, who say they are "at home", are already there.
Arrived from Montereau-Fault-Yonne (Seine-et-Marne) by car and, according to their declarations, to flee a man released from prison who had "threatened" them, the husband and wife could have taken possession of the accommodation as a result. of a chance encounter.
After a few courtesies and exchanges of cigarettes at a gas station, an enigmatic inhabitant of the working-class district of Ranguin, in Cannes, allegedly offered their “help”.
“We had already been there for two weeks.
We contacted social services in Nice, Cannes and Le Cannet without being able to find accommodation.
I even called people who were renting apartments on LeBoncoin but the response was always the same: 'you only have an RSA, that's not possible'.
With the children, it became really complicated, ”explained at the helm, pregnant, Jihan Zidouli, holder of a diploma of senior laboratory technician and unemployed.
Her husband, a temporary worker in the 77, no longer had any activity.
“And this man told us he could help us,” the couple explains.
For the payment of 1,500 euros, the mysterious contact would then have opened the accesses to the villa, a few kilometers away.
The couple were well aware that it was a squat.
"A certain sense of ownership"
“You explain to the real estate agent, then to the gendarmes, then even to the owner who came down on the spot, that you are at home.
You even go so far as to take out an electricity contract in your name.
It can leave thoughtful on a certain feeling of appropriation ", exposes the president of the court which reframes the defendants when they" seem to pass for the victims ".
He recalls that in the hearing of Henri Kaloustian, he reported that the woman threatened to "send people with Kalashnikovs" to him.
“Mr. Kaloustian threatened us with this and people even came to the villa one night at 3 am to break down the door,” the couple reports.
"It's a total trauma and stress"
A "grotesque scenario" for Me Renaud Bron.
“It never appears in the file.
The couple also tells us about a Zorro, who fell out of nowhere, and who came to their aid.
These stories are not responsible.
This family which is not in distress, since it benefited from a social housing of the F4 type, knew very well what it was doing ”, contends the lawyer of the owner, before asking nearly 9,000 euros for damage and 15,000 euros for moral damage.
“We do not measure the psychological effect that a squat can have on a victim.
A house is memories of families, beds that we would like not to see occupied by strangers.
It is a total trauma and stress that my client, who suffers from hypertension, could have saved himself, ”pleads the council.
The accommodation was released after several twists and turns on September 7, and in particular after an altercation between the two squatters which resulted in another trial for the husband on Tuesday afternoon.
Author of threats against his wife, he was sentenced to another three-month suspended prison sentence.
According to prosecutor Delphine de Lorgeril, the couple, "who showed little regret", did not face "a situation of imminent danger".
“They are themselves put in this precarious situation and they cannot take advantage of it to justify the squat,” she declared, followed in her requisitions by the court.
An amendment to speed up procedures
Already known to justice, she for rebellion, he for use of narcotics and driving without a license, the couple therefore received an eight-month suspended sentence.
They will also have to pay 5,000 euros to the owner for moral damage and also reimburse repairs already assessed on doorframes.
Another procedure is underway for damage to the interior of the house.
The affair had triggered a number of reactions to the highest summits of the state.
In early October, the National Assembly voted for a new system against squatters, which facilitates their eviction from a second home.
The owner of the accommodation may refer the matter to the prefect, who will have forty-eight hours to respond before giving the squatter or squatters a formal notice to leave the premises.
This administrative procedure is intended to be much faster than a classic appeal, which can take years.
The owner of the squatted house in Théoule-sur-Mer wants the trial to "prevent this problem from happening to others"
What will be the consequences of the “anti-squat” amendment?