Fréderic, Marco, Sven v. Public Prosecutor

Three individuals stole two large advertising banners for BMW and Volvo electric car models to reuse them at a protest against the tax policy favoring electric vehicles. The defendants applied for acquittal on the grounds of necessity, arguing that the right to health and the protection of a healthy environment (Article 23 of the Constitution and Article 2 of the ECHR) clearly outweighed the right of ownership of the two advertising banners, the value of which was trivial in relation to the interest being protected, and that the climate emergency represented a certain, serious, and present danger. In a decision dated December 14, 2023, the judge rejected the plea of necessity, stating that the offenses committed were not likely to prevent or stop the damage to the environment. On the other hand, the judge noted that punishing such acts could be contrary to freedom of expression (Article 10 of the ECHR). The judge believes that the exercise of freedom of expression may, under certain conditions, provide grounds for an absolute or mitigating excuse. In this case, the judge found that the offenses committed were part of a debate of general interest aimed at raising public awareness and alerting the State to the consequences of pollution, global warming, and tax incentives for purchasing cars marketed as low-polluting. The judge regarded the theft of a symbolic object as relatively minor when weighed against the goal pursued by the defendants and determined that convicting them would constitute a disproportionate infringement on their freedom of expression. Therefore, the judge acquitted the defendants and accepted the benefit of an excuse. The district attorney appealed this decision.