♥️♥️ If you liked this video, don't hesitate to like it, comment and subscribe so you don't miss the next ones ♥️♥️ If you want to follow our news, join us on our networks: 📸 instagram: / filezdroit 🐦 twitter: / droitfilez ⚠️ Warning ⚠️ The sole purpose of this video is to help you understand judgments that are sometimes quite complex. They are in no way intended to replace the doctrine which constitutes a solid source of knowledge. Do not forget that plagiarism is prohibited and severely punished in the academic context. It is therefore essential to cite your sources and put your quotes in quotation marks. ⤵️ Here is the text of the video ⤵️: judgment of the Criminal Division of the Court of Cassation rendered on June 1, 1992. The two defendants in this case are managers of a medical analysis laboratory. Like any health profession, their activity is highly regulated. The prices to be charged are set by decree in order to be covered by social security according to article L.162-38 of the Social Security Code. In this case, a decree of November 30, 1989 of the Minister of Health relating to the nomenclature of medical biology acts was adopted and modified the pricing of fees for professionals in the sector. In January 1990, agents of the Competition Administration conducted an investigation within the species laboratory and discovered that on two occasions our defendants had applied the new nomenclature, but kept the old coefficients when invoicing, resulting in an erroneous price calculation to their advantage. The Versailles Court of Appeal thus sentenced the two managers to pay a fine of 2,500 francs each for practicing illegal prices. However, they appealed to the Court of Cassation. According to them, there was no reason to sentence them since Article L.162-38 of the Social Security Code, serving as the legal basis for their conviction, refers to the prices jointly set by "the ministers responsible for the economy, health and social security". However, the decree of 30 November 1989 that they violated had been issued by the Minister of Health and Social Protection and the Minister of Agriculture, without any intervention from the Minister of the Economy. This small confusion, which seems to be a detail at first, nevertheless contravenes a fundamental principle of our criminal law: the principle of legality. Because this means that by pronouncing the conviction of the two defendants, the Court of Appeal would therefore have implicitly presumed that Article L.162-38 also applied to decrees issued without the agreement of the Minister of the Economy. The question then arose: Can the criminal judge pronounce a sentence on the simple presumption that the text on which the prosecution is based applies to the case? These two articles thus constitute two general principles of our criminal law, requiring legislators to comply with the rules of law that are superior to them, and then requiring the criminal judge to apply these laws strictly. By our decision of 1 June 1992, the Court of Cassation then assumed its role as guardian of the great principles and protected the principle of legality of offences and penalties by overturning the solution of the Versailles Court of Appeal. Since a "penalty can only be applied if it is enacted by law", the senior judges set out the corollary of this rule: "it is not up to the criminal courts to rule by induction, presumption, analogy or for reasons of general interest". In other words, the judge must strictly apply the criminal law and is exempt from any other mode of interpretation. According to the Court of Cassation, if the 1989 decree modifying the pricing of medical biology acts did not come from the Minister of the Economy, this meant that this decree was foreign to the field of price regulation. It could therefore not serve as a basis for criminal prosecution for illicit pricing practices. For the record, this ruling forced the Competition Directorate to abandon more than two hundred procedures for illegal pricing practices initiated on the basis of Article L.162-38. There you have it, lawyers, I hope my explanations were clear! Thank you for being ever more numerous to follow us, it warms our hearts! As for me, I'll see you next week. And until then... keep going!! The ruling: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/juri/i...