While the administrative court censured an anti-begging decree taken by the city of Metz, lawyer Roland Perez details on Europe 1 the conditions which allow elected officials to take such measures and, conversely, those invoked by the justice when these orders are deemed illegal.

The Strasbourg administrative court examined a few weeks ago an anti-begging decree taken by the city of Metz, under pressure from traders and residents of certain neighborhoods who complained about the inconvenience caused on the sidewalks by the Homeless people have become more numerous because of the health crisis.

For a long time, begging was a crime.

It was not until the 1990s that begging was recognized as a state of necessity for people in need, most often without home or resources.

However, with a few exceptions, as lawyer Roland Perez reminds us on Europe 1.

>>

 Find all of Roland Perez's reviews in podcast and replay here

"We can say that no longer explicitly a crime, begging has become lawful. Unless it is accompanied by aggression, the presence of a so-called dangerous dog, which may suggest a threat, or when children are used to pity passers-by. In this case, begging becomes a crime again. All people used to beg, children and pregnant women, incur prison sentences ranging from 3 to 5 years and a fine of up to 5 years. reach 75,000 euros.

There is also the case where a municipality may feel that public order is threatened by the presence of people occupying public space, hindering the movement of passers-by and hindering the opening of businesses.

This is what happened in Metz with the anti-begging decree which was taken and submitted to the censorship of the administrative court.

What are the arguments of the Strasbourg administrative court?

Like many courts in France, concerned about the principle of fraternity regularly put forward by the Council of State with regard to precarious populations, the court annulled the anti-begging decree, based on the freedom to come and go, to move and to park.

Thus, without blatant demonstration of the fact that begging disturbs public order, for example by causing noise, endangering residents or dirtying and damaging the public domain, the courts considered that the decree was disproportionate to the goal. wanted by the mayor.  

However, the anti-begging decree limited this ban in time and targeted a specific perimeter in Metz ...

Indeed, the mayor of Metz had banned begging from 9 a.m. to 7 p.m., six days a week and in certain neighborhoods.

But that was not enough because public freedoms are tough, they must prevail over the interests of a few.

The freedom to come and go is essential in our democracies and must be reconciled with the violation of public order.

Mayors cannot therefore decide to restrict this fundamental freedom excessively without demonstrating why such a ban is necessary, proportionate and adapted to the situation of disturbance to public order reported. "