Associations react to the toughening of the global security law on squats

In the law on global security definitively adopted on April 15, a provision that went unnoticed during the debates, article 1er bis A, risk of singularly complicating the life of squatters. It is already raising the anger of 18 associations fighting against poor housing, including Emmaus, the Abbé-Pierre Foundation, Médecins du Monde, Droit au logement (DAL), and Secours Catholique. Thursday, April 29, they seized the Constitutional Council to request its invalidation.

The article in question was introduced very late in the discussion by an amendment by Senators (LR) Laurent Duplomb and Bruno Retailleau, co-signed by 168 of their colleagues, and it profoundly modifies article 226-4 of the Penal Code which represses the offenses of bringing in and keeping in the home of others. The penalties, first, are multiplied by three, rising to three years in prison and a fine of 45,000 euros, “Ie 81 times the monthly active solidarity income, which is completely disproportionate because squats are often the work of homeless people, who do it out of ultimate necessity”, argues Lorraine Questiaux, lawyer carrying the appeal of associations.

Read also The government calls on the prefects to facilitate “forced evacuations” of squatted housing

The new text also authorizes the municipal police and the rural guards to note the infractions, the initial object of this law. But, more importantly, it no longer limits this offense to intrusions into the home and extends them to everything “Professional, commercial, agricultural or industrial premises”. Strangely, the senators’ discussion did not focus at all on the question of squats, but on “Illegal intrusions into farms, which have been increasing in recent years”, explained Mr. Duplomb. Clearly targeted, the clandestine videos of associations for the defense of the animal condition, such as L214, which have little to do with the long-term occupation of vacant premises.

The precedent of the ASAP law

The Minister of the Interior, Gérald Darmanin, present in the Senate on March 16, also noted the ambiguity of this text: “The violations of agricultural holdings are unbearable and scandalous and I associate myself perfectly with your remarks”, he replied on behalf of the government, before estimating that “This amendment tends to create, cleverly, a new offense. You operate a necessary confusion, legally quite fragile and which could be challenged by the Constitutional Council, between the violation of domicile and the violation of the agricultural exploitation ”.

You have 48.17% of this article to read. The rest is for subscribers only.