Europe 1 with AFP 11:54 am, November 26, 2021

Closed at the end of June, the PPDA case is entering a new legal stage. The writer Florence Porcel lodged a complaint with civil proceedings for rape against Patrick Poivre d'Arvor in order to obtain the seizure of an examining magistrate, thus paving the way for the opening of a new investigation. His first complaint against Patrick Poivre D'Arvor, who denied these accusations, was filed in February and then closed at the end of June by the Nanterre prosecutor's office for "insufficient evidence".

Closed at the end of June, the PPDA case is entering a new legal stage. The writer Florence Porcel lodged a complaint with civil proceedings for rape against Patrick Poivre d'Arvor in order to obtain the seizure of an examining magistrate, thus paving the way for the opening of a new investigation. She accuses the former star presenter of the TF1 newscast of having forced her to have sex in 2004 and fellatio in 2009. Her first complaint against Patrick Poivre D'Arvor, who denied these accusations, was filed in February and then closed at the end of June by the Nanterre prosecutor's office for "insufficient evidence".

After a classification without follow-up by magistrates of the public prosecutor's office, a plaintiff can constitute a civil party in order to cause the referral to a judge to investigate again the alleged facts.

Florence Porcel's new complaint, recently filed in Nanterre, thus allows the quasi-automatic appointment of an examining magistrate, subject to the payment of a deposit, a sum intended to cover the fine in the event of abusive denunciation.

Contacted, Ms. Porcel's lawyers said they did not wish to comment.

PPDA's lawyer, Jacqueline Laffont, was not immediately reachable. 

>> READ ALSO - PPDA case: the eight witnesses of “Liberation” launch the association # MeTooMédias

"Insufficient evidence"

The PPDA case erupted in February, with the filing of Florence Porcel's first complaint.

A four-month preliminary investigation was then carried out by the Nanterre prosecutor's office.

A total of twenty-three women had testified, nine of whom had chosen to file a complaint for rape, sexual assault or sexual harassment.

Most of the charges were time-barred, which had resulted in the investigation being dismissed without further action.

However, the facts put forward by Ms Porcel were not time-barred.

They had been classified for "insufficient evidence".