←back to thread

Secret 3D scans in the French Supreme Court

(cosmowenman.substack.com)
771 points abetusk | 2 comments | 18 Oct 24 08:50 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
myrmidon ◴[18 Oct 24 13:03 UTC] No.41879059[source]▶
This is utterly puzzling to me.

I just don't understand how you sit on the museums side of the trial on this, without seriously questioning your own position and conceding immediately.

They were basically arguing that they are entitled to hide those scan artifacts to better protect their gift shop?! How can they even reconcile those arguments with preserving the artists legacy/serving the common good?

I'm also surprised at how nonchalantly the french supreme (!!) court seems to cope with the museum just ignoring their two month deadline for three months in the new trial... Is there no equivalent to "contempt of court" in french law? Is this typical?

My conclusion is that there is either pure stubbornness or some weird, jealous hoarding mentality happening on the museums side, because I have no other explanation why they would fight so hard for their position seemingly against all reason.

replies(11): >>41879175 #>>41879296 #>>41879392 #>>41879429 #>>41879481 #>>41879707 #>>41879852 #>>41880042 #>>41880143 #>>41880378 #>>41887264 #
kergonath ◴[18 Oct 24 15:09 UTC] No.41880143[source]▶
> I'm also surprised at how nonchalantly the french supreme (!!) court seems to cope with the museum just ignoring their two month deadline for three months in the new trial...

The conseil d’État is nothing like a Supreme Court. It is an administrative body, not a court of law. This phrase was used because it was easier than explaining how it actually works to a presumably mostly-American audience. France has a civil law system, there cannot be anything like the American Supreme Court.

> Is there no equivalent to "contempt of court" in french law? Is this typical?

It is not a court, and it does not have the powers American judges have. The role of the Council of State (one of them, anyway, and the relevant one here) is to rule on administrative matters. They cannot decide to fine someone or put someone in jail. They can decide that a government body was wrong on something and make it change, that’s it.

replies(2): >>41881080 #>>41881227 #
rtsil ◴[18 Oct 24 16:40 UTC] No.41881080[source]▶
For the purpose of this matter, the Conseil d'État is a court, not an administrative body, it is the highest level and last resort of jurisdiction for administrative law, i.e. the law pertaining to relations between citizens and the State or the local governments. It intervenes as the highest appelate court of administrative tribunals. Its members are judges and their decisions are judgement.

But the Conseil d'État has also many other attributions that are non-jurisdictional.

> They cannot decide to fine someone or put someone in jail.

That's because only criminal court can do that. A divorce court cannot fine someone or put someone in jail. That doesn't make it any less of a court. A civil court doesn't fine, it only grants damages. That doesn't make it any less of a court.

replies(1): >>41881973 #
1. kergonath ◴[18 Oct 24 18:11 UTC] No.41881973[source]▶
> Its members are judges and their decisions are judgement.

They are civil servants, not magistrates. They don’t have the same independence and are nothing like American judges.

> That's because only criminal court can do that.

That was specifically addressing the contempt of court issue. The Council of State cannot do that. It can make the public institution do something, but it cannot punish the individual. Once the action was deemed illegal, the individual faces disciplinary action from their institution, but the Council does not decide this.

> That doesn't make it any less of a court. A civil court doesn't fine, it only grants damages. That doesn't make it any less of a court.

What makes it not a court in the American sense is that it does not have any magistrate. Commission would be a better word.

replies(1): >>41883491 #
2. rtsil ◴[18 Oct 24 21:06 UTC] No.41883491[source]▶
You are trying to relate two different legal systems that are don't necessarily have equivalence. The members, although not magistrates, are independent and factually irremovable. When they are in "court" formation as is the case here, they are judges by law, and it is a court. That's where you appeal the decisions of lower judges. Their decisions ("arrêt") are case laws and precedents that affect the entire justice system (in the relations between a citizen and the State).

> That was specifically addressing the contempt of court issue.

There is no such thing as contempt in the US sense, in French courts. The closest would be outrages, which does not apply to the issue in question (delay tactics). Many US legal concepts, even the most basic ones, are simply not transposable to the French system.