PARIS -

Eleven years later, from within the 32nd Chamber of the Paris Criminal Court, members of the government of former French President Nicolas Sarkozy found themselves forced to explain to the judiciary on charges of corruption, nepotism and embezzlement of public funds worth millions of euros, on political advice and opinion polls between 2007 and 2012.

Former French President Nicolas Sarkozy (centre) arrives at the court last March (European)

The Elysee polls case

The events of the case began in July 2009, during Sarkozy's presidency, when the Court of Audit issued a report indicating numerous irregularities in opinion polls conducted by the president's office, such as the possibility of Sarkozy's marriage to the model and singer Carla Bruni.

This is the first time that the Court has the right to delve into the financial affairs of the Elysee Palace.

According to the report, several agreements were signed at a cost of 7.5 million euros between the palace and the companies "Giacometti" and "Publifact" owned by Patrick Buisson, Sarkozy's advisor.

And the signing between the two parties took place without respecting the rules of competition in government departments, which stipulate the issuance of a public announcement or a tender to give an equal opportunity for companies to submit their offers.

After environmental activist Raymond Avrilier was able to obtain the report, the anti-corruption association Anticorruption filed a complaint in February 2010.

Member of the association, lawyer Jerome Kirsenti, told Al Jazeera Net that it usually relies on press investigations, whistleblowers, or State Audit Bureau reports to file complaints before the courts.


Involvement of well-known personalities

The former Minister of the Interior, who is close to Sarkozy, Claude Gueant, was referred to court on charges of nepotism, embezzlement of public funds, and negligence. On Tuesday, November 9, the prosecution demanded a one-year prison sentence and a fine of 30,000 euros.

Gueant is suspected of orchestrating the signing of contracts with the two companies, and has endorsed other surveys with Ipsos, Ifop, TNS and Opinion Way.

Gueant was previously convicted in the case of "criminal affiliation" by the investigative judges in charge of the Libya financing file during Muammar Gaddafi's rule of Sarkozy's campaign in 2007. Like him, the Elysee chief of staff, Emmanuel Mignon, faces a fine of 10,000 euros for the same charges.

Patrick Poisson, president of the two companies and a former adviser to the Elysee, is suspected of embezzlement worth 1.5 million euros, after selling surveys requested by local media at an average profit margin of 65.74%.

Accordingly, he was charged with concealing nepotism, embezzlement of public funds, and misuse of social property, on suspicion of collecting about 180,000 euros in personal expenses for his companies.

Last Wednesday, the public prosecutor demanded a two-year prison sentence and a fine of 100,000 euros, as well as a fine of 550,000 euros against his two companies.

Lawyer Jerome Kirsenti asserts that Poisson is a very important figure in the Elysee, as he was the mastermind of the national identity and ideology of Nicolas Sarkozy.

"He enriched himself with public money through contracts that do not comply with the common law," he adds.

Agreements with opinion poll companies revealed corruption, nepotism and financial embezzlement in the Elysee Palace during Sarkozy's term (Al Jazeera)

Other provisions and fines

As for the former director of the "Ipsos" polling institute, Pierre Giacometti, he signed a contract with the Elysee on March 16, 2008, on behalf of the company for more than two million euros, and his task was to provide strategic advice and communication.

Concerning the charge of concealing nepotism, the prosecution requested a six-month suspended prison sentence and a fine of 70,000 euros, and another against his company of 250,000 euros.

In the same vein, Julian Valbrit, Sarkoi's adviser, who ordered surveys via email or phone from polling institutes, is also on trial.

The Ipsos institute, the most prominent in French opinion polls, was also sentenced for its participation in concealing the nepotism in the polls ordered by Valbrit, with a fine of 1.5 million euros.

The defendants justified in their defense that the Elysee Palace polls constituted a "tradition" that exempted them from applying the rules of public contracts.


Sarkozy's absentee

This case is considered a precedent in the history of the French judiciary, as justice has not forced a head of state before to testify in a courtroom.

Under Article (67) of the constitution, "the head of state enjoys criminal and civil immunity for acts committed before and during his presidential term."

Hence, Nicolas Sarkozy, who is protected by immunity, cannot be prosecuted in the Elysee polls case.

But the judges decided to summon him to testify on Tuesday, the second of November, as "necessary to show the truth", and for being the first beneficiary of opinion polls, but he refused and denounced the "unconstitutional" decision.

Lawyer Jerome Kirsenti says the anti-corruption association Anticor considers Sarkozy "the main absentee" in the case, and said that if he had continued to refuse, the court would have ordered the police to bring him in by force.

This constitutes a historical threat, as no judge has ever threatened a former President of the Republic and forced him to come by force.

As a result, Sarkozy was forced to appear in court to testify earlier this month.

The investigation into suspicions of corruption by Sarkozy's aides and in opinion poll agreements has begun since 2010 (Al-Jazeera)

The Fifth Republic

Lawyer Kersenty notes that Anticorruption ran into obstacles in 2010, as anti-corruption associations were not entitled to become a civil party or file a complaint under French law.

He adds, "Before Sarkozy's accession to the presidency in 2007, the Elysee was an outlaw, and there had been no practice of public institutions at all since the beginning of the Fifth Republic."

The Public Prosecutor at the time relied on Article (67), saying that immunity is like a “hat” extending its validity to all employees and collaborators in the Elysee.

Therefore, it is necessary to go to the Court of Cassation to decide the issue of corruption and embezzlement.

This is what the association did and did not stop at the justifications for the prosecution, because immunity is limited to the president and does not include his employees.

Kirsenti says that the president's immunity is important because it contributes to maintaining the stability of the country, but it should be called "inviolability" and be effective during the presidency only, so that the judge can consider his actions after the end of his term, "because it is not possible to present a blank check for procedures that may be illegal, followed by impunity under the pretext of immunity.”

The disclosure of corruption scandals in Sarkozy's state established new judicial pillars (Al-Jazeera)

independence of justice

While the investigative judge began examining the merits of the case 11 years ago, the Court of Accounts has been submitting annual reports to monitor the Elysee's expenditures, especially those related to surveys and communications.

This "antibody" became a civic party that brought the presidential palace into the hearing for the first time in the history of the Fifth Republic, and contributed to changing its old custom, so that François Hollande, who was later elected, appointed Christian Taubira as the Guardian of the Seals.

The "Cahuzac" scandal rocked the French political scene in 2012, when it was proven that the Minister of Economy and Finance, Jerome Cahuzac, had secret accounts in Switzerland, and led to the emergence of the "transparency law" adopted by the French Parliament in 2013, and laid two pillars in the French judiciary;

The first is to establish the Office of the National Financial Prosecutor, independent of the political authority, and the second is to allow anti-corruption associations to become civil parties, which was not possible before.

Now, attorney Jerome Kirsenti is awaiting the outcome of deliberations on January 21, 2022, with the hope of achieving complete independence of justice from political power.