Please note that the English translation provided here is merely a google translate.
COMPLAINT TO THE COURT OF REQUESTS COMMISSION
JUSTICE OF THE REPUBLIC
FOR : (Plaintiffs)
Mr. Eddie PUYJALON, in his capacity as president of the Mouvement de la Ruralité
Having for lawyer:
Maître Fabrice DI VIZIO, Lawyer at the Paris Bar – Toque E0306
203 rue Vaugirard – 75015 Paris
Telephone: 01 78 82 00 15 – Fax: 01 78 82 00 19
AGAINST : (Respondents)
Mr Jean CASTEX, Prime Minister
Mr. Olivier VERAN, Minister of Health and Solidarity
Madame Barbara POMPILI, Minister of Ecological Transition
Madame Elisabeth BORNE, former Minister for the Ecological and Inclusive Transition
IN THE HONOR OF EXHIBITING YOU
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
I – PRESENTATION OF THE FACTS
The Mouvement de la Ruralité is a French political party created in 2019. Its objective is to defend the values and interests of the rural world and its stakeholders.
Since 2016, Mr. Eddie PUYJALON is president of this party. He is also a member of the Regional Council of the New Aquitaine region.
The Rurality Movement is committed to the fight against the dangers of wind energy.
He was particularly interested in the health problems suffered by people and animals since the arrival of the Quatre-Seigneurs wind farm.
In June 2013, eight turbines placed in the municipalities of Abbaretz, Nozay, Puceul and Saffré in the Pays de la Loire are put into service by the company ABO Wind.
From the start of its installation, in October 2012, the breeders of farms located in proximity to wind turbines note the appearance of behavioral disorders in their animals.
Mr Didier POTIRON and Mrs Céline BOUVET indeed remark on their respective herds of dairy cows that they are stressed, difficult to milk, that their immune defenses weaken, their mortality increases, as the number of mastitis and calving becomes more complicated. All these problems have the obvious consequence a drop in milk productivity and a deterioration in its quality (Exhibit 1).
A few months after the commissioning of the wind farm, the breeders reported the situation to the company operating the wind farm, which in turn sends its geobiologists to the field. These the latter focus first on a problem of water faults in the rock underground caused by digging the foundations of wind turbines that they vainly attempt to solve (part 2 and 3).
On August 22, 2014, Mr. Didier POTIRON, Mrs. Céline BOUVET and Mr. Antoine LANDAIS seized the Prefecture of the Loire which will organize a meeting following which will be decided on the establishment of an expertise of the Permanent Group for Safety Electric (GPSE) directed by Madame Arlette LAVAL (room 4).
It is not until May 2015 that the first GPSE reports will be submitted and that they will attest to the reality of the problems faced by breeders in these terms: “the animals of this herd exhibit indisputable behavioral disorders ”(Exhibit 5).
Years go by and further studies go by – on infrasound measurements, on the evaluation of the geological context or the analysis of the drilling water – but without that the explanatory factors of the disorders are not revealed (ANSES website).
A technical incident leading to a failure of the electrical system from 02/28/2017 to 04.03.2017 revealed that unusual tensions persist even after a blackout power supply.
These studies have not made it possible to precisely identify the cause of the health problems described, they are still continuing today under the leadership of ANSES. The reports are expected for the first half of 2021 (exhibit 6).
On top of these behavioral and performance disorders of farm animals are superimposed serious health problems for people living near the wind farm. These the latter describe various symptoms that also manifested themselves at the onset of wind turbines.
Madame Céline BOUVET suffers in particular from sleep disorders, dizziness, headache, eye burns and abdominal pain (Exhibit 7). This symptomatology is shared by the majority of its neighbors (Exhibit 8) and is also described in the report on wind turbines carried out by the University of Nantes (Exhibit 9).
Moreover, these symptoms are not specific to the neighbors of the QuatreSeigneurs wind farm but are shared by those of other parks in France such as in the Midi-Pyrénées (room 10) or in Auvergne (room 11).
Then, in November 2019, a study by the Regional Health Agency (ARS) confirmed the existence of a “cluster” of pediatric cancers by revealing that the number of pediatric cancers on the sector of seven municipalities of the Pays de la Loire over the period 2015-2019 was larger than the national average observed in France (Exhibit 12).
Following this discovery, the association ToxSeek urgence analyzed the hair of 21 children in the town of Sainte-Pazanne, in Loire-Atlantique. The results of these analyzes are alarming since 36 metals were found out of the 46 that were analyzed by the laboratory, thus demonstrating an abnormal receptivity in subjects living nearby from the wind farm (exhibit 13).
On January 4, 2020, it is Madame BOUVET’s turn to benefit from a screening for pollutants on her hair, the results of which are just as worrying. The values of many metals such as Mercury, Cerium, Dysprosium, Gadolinium, Lanthanum, Neodymium and Praseodymium (nanoparticles found in rare earths) are found indeed well above normal (exhibits 13 and 14).
Today, more than seven years after the commissioning of the QuatreSeigneurs wind farm, these health problems persist despite the mobilization of the Mouvement de la Rurality for them to be resolved.
The party has indeed been the initiator of numerous alert letters, in particular to the President of the Republic (Exhibit 15), the Prefect of Loire-Atlantique (Exhibit 16) and
Ministers of Health and Ecological and Inclusive Transition (exhibits 17, 19 and 20).
The serious health problems caused by wind turbines, as well as for humans, animals and the environment.
The Prime Minister, for his part, was briefed on the dangers of wind power by a letter sent to him by Mr. Julien AUBERT, Member of the 5th district de Vaucluse (room 18).
It is in the face of the inertia of the public authorities to combat this serious public health problem that Mr. Eddie PUYJALON has decided to file this complaint.
II – PROCEDURE
Article 68-1 of the French Constitution of October 4, 1958 states, in its first paragraph:
“The members of the Government are criminally responsible for the acts accomplished in the performance of their duties and qualified as crimes or misdemeanors when they been committed ”.
In the particular case, Mr. Eddie PUYJALON intends to see Mr. Jean sanctioned:
CASTEX, Prime Minister, Mr. Olivier VERAN, Minister of Health and Solidarity,
Madame Barbara POMPILI, Minister of Ecological Transition and Madame Elisabeth
BORNE, former minister of ecological and inclusive transition.
Article 13 of organic law n ° 93-1252 of 23 November 1993 on the Court of Justice of the Republic states that:
“Under penalty of inadmissibility, the complaint lodged with the by a person who claims to have been wronged by a crime or an offense committed by a member of the Government in the exercise of its functions must contain the name of the member of the Government targeted by the said complaint and the statement of the facts alleged against it; it must be signed by the complainant.
No civil party constitution is admissible before the Court of Justice of Republic.
Actions for compensation for damages resulting from the crimes and offenses prosecuted before the Court of Justice of the Republic can only be brought before the common law jurisdictions ”.
In the particular case, this complaint specifically targets Mr. Jean CASTEX, Mr. Olivier VERAN, Madame Barbara POMPILI and Madame Elisabeth BORNE for the offenses detailed below.
III – QUALIFICATION OF INFRINGEMENTS
On November 19, 2008, the European Union, concerned about the increase in detriment of the environment, adopts the directive that gave birth to criminal law…
European environment (Directive 2008/99 / EC).
Article 3 a) of this directive obliges member states to: “ensure that a criminal offense when unlawful and committed intentionally or negligently or at least serious:
a) the release, emission or introduction of a quantity of substances or radiation ionizing in the atmosphere, soil or water, causing or likely to cause death or serious injury to persons, or substantial deterioration in quality air, soil quality, or water quality, or flora or fauna ”.
The French authorities did not consider it necessary to transpose the said directive, considering that domestic law was already in compliance
- Therefore, the offense of intentional introduction into the atmosphere of substances causing the death of several people or serious injuries to several people provided for in Article 3
a) of Directive 2008/99 / EC constitutes the offense of administration of substances harmful to article 222-15 of the penal code
- This community offense also seems to constitute the offense of omitting
- fight a disaster likely to create a danger to the safety of persons foreseen article 223-7 of the penal code.
The complainant therefore maintains that the offense of aiding and abetting was committed administration of harmful substances (A) and, in the alternative, that of omission of (duty)
1) Légifrance website – Official Journal – Directive 2008/99 / EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on the protection of the environment through criminal law
2) “Birth of environmental criminal law (regarding Directive 2008/99 / EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of November 19, 2008 on the protection of the environment through criminal law) ”- Damien ROETS – European Journal of Environmental Law / Year 2009 / 13-3 / pp. 271-283 fight a claim (B) both related to the introductory community offense in the atmosphere of substances causing the death of several people or serious injuries to several people.
A – PRINCIPALLY, ON THE OFFENSE OF ADMINISTRATION OF HARMFUL SUBSTANCES
1 – Aiding and abetting the administration of harmful substances
After having stated in its article 121-6 that the accomplice of an offense will be punished as his author, the penal code specifies what is meant by “accomplice” in article 121-7:
“A person who knowingly, by aid or assistance, is an accomplice to a crime or an offense facilitated preparation or consumption.
An accomplice is also the person who by gift, promise, threat, order, abuse of authority or of power will have provoked an offense or given instructions to commit it. “
Complicity by aid or assistance consists of participation in the criminal action, supplied before or while it is consumed. The accomplice thus provides the means necessary for the offense to be committed.
Case law widely understands the concepts of “aid or assistance”, which include both the supply of goods and the provision of services. As an example, it was judged that the mayor who issues a building permit contrary to an urban planning regulation is accomplice of the beneficiary of this permit3
In this case, the choice to increase the number of wind turbines in the national territory and to to maintain despite the appearance of serious public health problems belongs to the members of government.
This policy thus enabled the commission of the continuing offense of administering harmful substances by wind farms present on the national territory.
2 – Administration of harmful substances
Article 222-15 paragraph 1 of the penal code provides that:
“The administration of harmful substances which have affected the physical integrity or psychic of another is punished by the penalties mentioned in articles 222-7 to 222-14-1 according to the distinctions provided for by these articles. “
3 Cass. crim., June 14, 2005, n ° 05-80.916: JurisData n ° 2005-029308; Dr. pen. 2005, comm. 145, note J.-H. Robert
In law, there is no definition of the concept of “harmful substances” created by Article 222-15 of the Criminal Code.
However, the text indicates that these harmful substances must “harm the physical or psychological integrity of others “.
It can thus be deduced from this that any product likely to cause bodily harm may qualify as a harmful substance within the meaning of Article 222-15 of the Criminal Code.
The assessment of the harmful nature of the substance administered is obviously a matter of the sovereign appreciation of the trial judges4
Case law broadly accepts the notion of “substance” which can be in form, liquid, solid or gas. By way of illustration, the Court of Cassation recognized the quality of substances harmful to tear gas5, tranquilizers such as valium6 or to end caps for sheaths surrounding nuclear fuel rods placed in a car and thus exposing the victim to radiation7
Likewise, the case law retains a broad conception of the concept of “administration”. Harmful substances can thus be administered directly or indirectly to the victim, against their will or even with their consent. There may thus be administration of harmful substances even when the victim voluntarily accepts it, because not being aware of the damaging consequences of products. This is the case by example of the injection of a product into the bladder of a patient to relieve pain although the administrator of the product knows it is perfectly harmful8
This is also the case with the employee who gave his employer’s wife doses of medication well higher than those prescribed by his doctor9
It is interesting to recall that, in the contaminated blood case, the decision adopted by the Cour de cassation had been strongly criticized by the doctrine and in particular by the professor Michèle-Laure RASSAT who demonstrated that the facts could have been reclassified as administration of harmful substances. According to her, knowingly administering a product considered, even wrongly, as not systematically fatal, must fall within the administration qualification of harmful substances10
4 Cass. crim., May 2, 1867: DP 1869, 5, p. 235
5 Cass. crim., February 9, 1933, Gaz. Pal. 1933, 1, p. 697
6 Cass. crim., June 14, 1995 – n ° 94-83.025
7 TGI Cherbourg, March 31, 1981: D. 1981, jurispr. p. 536, note D. Mayer; Rev. sc. crim. 1982, p. 119, obs.
8 Cass. crim., 5 July 1928: Bull. crim. 1928, No. 197; S. 1930, 1, p. 37
9 Cass. crim., May 10, 1972: D. 1972, jurispr. p. 733
10 Cass. crim., June 18, 2003, n ° 02-85.199, note M.-L. Rassat
In this case, thousands of wind turbines are present on the national territory. They have been established – and continue to be – at the end of wind power projects subject to common law of town planning and therefore building permits.
The eight wind turbines at the Quatre-Seigneurs wind farm have been installed in four municipalities of Loire-Atlantique with the agreement of residents who then had no awareness of their harmfulness.
The installation of these wind turbines near people falls under the qualification of harmful substances in that they generate health pollution.
The commissioning of wind turbines in fact administers several substances harmful to humans the former being of a visual nature (a), the latter of a sound nature (b).
a – Harmful substances of a visual nature
A working wind turbine generates a periodic moving shadow created by the passage regular rotor blades in front of the sun and the effect of which is often referred to as strobe. These characteristic shadow passages are perceptible at moments of sunrise and sunset at a distance of a few hundred meters from the wind turbines (Single Authorization Application File – Company “NORDEX VII SAS Wind Farm” – Martinpuich / Le Sars wind farm project (62) Chapter E – Impacts and measures – p. 407).
The report of the National Academy of Medicine does not retain the risk of so-called epilepsy photosensitive linked to the “moving shadows” of wind turbines because this requires “the weather conditions and exceptional hours ”(Exhibit 21).
The fact remains that this risk can probably materialize as exceptional, which is undoubtedly the case for Madame Murielle POTIRON, who saw his epileptic seizures have increased since the commissioning of the QuatreSeigneurs wind farm (room 22).
In addition, a running wind turbine also generates repetitive flashing and incessant traffic lights which, although located below the epileptogenic threshold, do not remain (no) less anxious for residents (exhibit 21).
Finally, the National Academy of Medicine draws particular attention to the health consequences of the most important form of visual disturbance, that of disfigurement of the landscape.
The latter must be considered:
“As arising not from a problem of environmental aesthetics (…) but from a real health nuisance. Indeed, the “visual pollution” of the environment that wind farms cause with the corollary of real estate depreciation nearby homes which generates feelings of annoyance, irritation, stress, of revolt with all the resulting psychosomatic consequences ” (exhibit 21).
The wind farm therefore administers harmful substances of a visual nature to its residents. by its moving shadows, its traffic lights and its disfigurement of the landscape.
b – Harmful substances of a sound nature
As the National Academy of Medicine points out in its report on wind turbines, the noise generated by the rotor of the wind turbine and by the rotation of its blades, especially when they pass in front of the mast, is mainly composed of low frequencies11 and infrasound12 (exhibit 21).
Infrasound and low frequency noise can cause discomfort even when not are not audible. This is explained by the sensitivity of certain auditory nerve cells, the outer hair cells, to this type of acoustic vibrations. So even levels inaudible infrasound and low frequency noise can be perceived as a pressure in the ears (Website of the Federal Public Health Service of Belgium).
The World Health Organization (WHO) published in 2018 guidelines for noise in the environment in Europe clearly establishing that noise is a risk major environmental impact for the physical and mental health and well-being of individuals. In recommending that decision-makers take the necessary measures to reduce pollution sound of wind turbines, which must not emit noise greater than 45 decibels during day, WHO comes to recognize that wind farms are a source of health problems (“Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region” 2018).
Along the same lines, the French Agency for Environmental and Occupational Health Safety (Afsset) affirmed in an opinion that the potential impacts of noise on health are numerous.
Chronic exposure to noise leads in particular to changes in the endocrine level, one of the major consequences of which is damage to the immune system of individuals exposed. Afsset concludes in particular that the noise emissions from wind turbines on display exterior can be the source of discomfort (Opinion of Afsset – Health impacts of noise generated by wind turbines – March 2008).
Also in its report on wind turbines, the National Academy of Medicine confirms the harmful role of wind noise on the health of local residents and emphasizes in particular that:
“The intermittent, random, unpredictable, pervasive nature of the noise generated by the rotation of the blades, occurring when the wind picks up, varying with its intensity, 11 Between 20 and 100 Hz 12 Below 20 Hz prohibiting any habituation, can undoubtedly disrupt the psychological state of those exposed to it ”(Exhibit 21).
The National Academy of Medicine also claims the negative effect of wind turbine noise on sleep. The report indicates that the sleep disturbances induced by wind turbines have been objectified by sonographic recordings made by clinics of the sleep. These studies conclude that within a 1.5 kilometer perimeter the noise emitted by wind turbines would disrupt the quality of sleep (in particular: Hulmes KI, Brink M, Basner M. Effects of environmental noise on sleep. Noise & Health 2012).
Remember that the minimum regulatory distance away from wind turbines from first dwellings is only 500 meters away, even though several reports recommended at least double the distance (in particular: Chouard CH et al. “The impact of the operation of wind turbines on human health “Report to the National Academy of Medicine – 2006).
The same report also recalls that sleep disorders is the most common complaint. constant reported by residents of wind farms (exhibit 21).
Regarding infrasound, a study suggests that it is likely to affect the device auditory (“Responses of the ear to low frequency sounds, infrasound and wind turbines” Alec N Salt 1, Timothy E. Hullar).
Another study reports that the infrasound produced by wind turbines could trigger in residents predisposed to symptoms identical to those of sickness transport by stimulation of otoliths 13 (“Tuning and sensitivity of the human vestibular system to low frequency vibration ”- Todd N), which would explain the sensations of dizziness and nausea reported by neighbors of wind farms.
Wind turbines are therefore generators of harmful noise pollution by continuous emission of infrasound and low frequencies.
Therefore, the wind turbines present on the national territory continuously administer substances harmful to their eyesight and hearing their residents who are necessarily affected in their physical and mental integrity.
2 – The attack on the physical and psychological integrity of others
The offense of administering harmful substances is an offense of result. The harmful character of the administered substance is not sufficient, it is also necessary that the victim has suffered an attack on his physical integrity.
13 Mineral concretions of the inner ear which is used for balancing (Robert’s definition)
3 – The intentional element of the offense of administering harmful substances
To characterize the offense of article 222-15 of the penal code, it is necessary that the perpetrator has had knowledge of the harmfulness of the substance, knowledge which is often confused with
the intention to harm the physical or mental integrity of the victim.
The Aix en Provence Court of Appeal, however, ruled that the voluntary administration of substances harmful to health is carried out even if the accused would not have acted with intent to harm, since the administration of the product repeated several times, the voluntary character of the administration thus residing in the renewal of the action16
In this case, the residents of the Quatre-Seigneurs wind farm and in particular the breeders have both the wind farm operators and the Loire-Atlantique Prefecture were alerted, as soon as the appearance of health problems, that is to say when the park was put into service in June 2013 (exhibit 3 and 4).
The Rurality Movement alerted the President of the Republic, the Minister of Health, the Minister of Ecological and Inclusive Transition as well, and the Prefecture of Loire-Atlantique (exhibits 15, 16, 17 and 19).
He was particularly concerned about the acceleration of wind farm projects in the territory national while the health risks due to wind power are recognized by scientific studies more and more numerous.
The Prime Minister was also questioned about the dangers of wind power by a
letter dated July 16, 2020 sent by Mr. Julien AUBERT, deputy of the fifth district of Vaucluse (room 18).
In addition, many studies have been conducted to determine the cause of the disorders, sanitary conditions suffered by residents of the Quatre-Seigneurs park and they recognized several times their existence and even the concomitance of their appearance with the wind farm service, especially for farm animals (Exhibit 5).
Thus, the harmful nature of wind turbines for the physical and mental health of others is a well-known health concern that no one can ignore today, especially since all the actors likely to stop this administration of harmful substances have been alerted, as has been demonstrated.
In any case, and even if it is obvious that the installation of the wind turbines did not have initially intended to harm others, keeping them in service for more than seven years,
16 CA Aix-en-Provence, Apr 7, 1993: JurisData n ° 1993-045023
despite the observation of serious disturbances to the physical and mental integrity of its residents, here demonstrates the voluntary nature of the administration of harmful substances.
The intention to harm is thus characterized by the repetition of the aid to the administration to living near wind farms with harmful substances of sound and visual nature produced by wind turbines and seriously affect their physical and mental integrity.
Therefore, the offense of aiding the administration of harmful substances is characterized in all its elements.
B – AS A SUBSIDIARY, ON THE OFFENSE OF OMISSION TO FIGHT A CLAIM
Article 223-7 of the Penal Code states that:
“Anyone who willfully refrains from taking or provoking the measures allowing, without risk for him or for third parties, to fight a disaster of a nature to creating a danger to the safety of persons is punished by two years imprisonment and a fine of 30,000 euros ”.
This offense supposes several conditions to be characterized.
1 – The existence of a “disaster likely to create a danger to the safety of persons”
Neither the Penal Code nor case law has defined the contours of the concept of “disaster”.
The text only indicates that the incident must be “such as to create a danger for the safety of persons ”, which means that the disaster cannot be limited to creating a danger for goods.
Moreover, contrary to the provisions of article 223-5 of the penal code, which punishes voluntary obstruction of the arrival of emergency services in the event of a “disaster presenting a danger to the personal safety “, the incident must, in the context of Article 223-7 be” of a nature “to create a danger, so that a potential danger is likely to qualify the offense.
In this case, the installation of wind turbines is by nature potentially dangerous since they fall under the Classified Installations for the Protection of the Environment (ICPE) regime.
Article 511-1 of the Public Health Code defines them in particular as: “the facilities operated or owned by any natural or legal person, public or private, who may present dangers or inconveniences either for the convenience of the neighborhood, either for public health, safety or sanitation, or for agriculture, or for protection of nature, the environment and landscapes (…) ”.
The quality of the claim can also be deduced from all the national, European and international organizations set up to analyze and limit the health problems that can be caused by wind turbines.
Regarding the specific case of the Quatre-Seigneurs wind farm, it is difficult to count the number of studies carried out. ANSES summarizes as follows: “The expertises have focused on zootechnical, veterinary and electrical aspects, confirming the presence of disorders, without determining the cause (s). (…) Further investigations have been initiated: infrasound measurements, evaluation of the geological context, analysis of drilling, without any explanatory factors for the disturbances having been demonstrated. Measurements electromagnetic fields, a behavioral and health study, as well as a study geobiological, have been carried out “(ANSES website).
Studies are also still in progress, in particular to explain the disorders health observed in farm animals since the establishment of the wind farm (Exhibit 6).
It should also be remembered that the health of local residents has been seriously affected, such as report the various testimonies and medical certificates attached to this complaint.
The concomitance of the appearance of a cluster of pediatric cancers, as well as the
proven presence of heavy metals on hair samples from different residents analyzed by the ToxSeek Laboratory also suggest that the QuatreSeigneurs wind farm presents a danger to the health of local residents (exhibits 13 and 14).
The health problems caused by wind turbines in wind farms, and in particular that of Quatre-Seigneurs, therefore constitute a “disaster likely to create a danger for the people’s security “.
2 – Refraining from taking specific measures to combat the disaster
The Chairman of LMR has initiated numerous alert letters to the attention of in particular the President of the Republic (exhibit 15), the Prefect of Loire-Atlantique (exhibit 16) and the Ministers of Health and the Ecological and Inclusive Transition (exhibits 17, 19 and 20).
Prime Minister has been warned of health problems caused by energy wind turbine in a letter sent to him in July 2020 by Mr. Julien AUBERT,
Member of the fifth constituency of Vaucluse (room 18).
These alerts did not make the various members of the government react, who abstained to take any measure to combat the health problems mentioned.
The material element of the offense is therefore established.
3 – The moral element: the deliberate nature of abstention
Here again, case law shows little to say about the moral element of this offense.
We can only reason by analogy.
As such, article 223-6 of the Penal Code penalizing the failure to provide assistance, also conditions the constitution of the offense on the voluntary character of the abstention.
On this point, the Court of Cassation was able to estimate that:
“Awareness of the existence of a peril imposing the assistance prescribed by article 223-6, paragraph 2, of the penal code is assessed in practice, taking into account, in particular, the lack of medical knowledge of the accused person, as well as the complexity or ambiguity of the situation she witnessed ”(Cass. Crim., 22
June 2016, n ° 14-86243, Criminal Bulletin 2016, n ° 197).
The perpetrator must therefore be aware of the danger to which he was exposing the victim by failing to to help. Therefore simple negligence does not constitute the moral element of this offense.
It should be considered, by analogy that simple negligence does not constitute the offense failure to take appropriate measures to prevent the occurrence of a claim.
Professor Didier REBUT considers that the moral element of this offense is dual and “cannot be
not reduced to knowledge of the disaster [but] requires a distinct and characterized will not to fight the incident ”(Rep. Dalloz Penal and Criminal Procedure,“ Omission de providing assistance – Obstruction of assistance measures “, D. Rebut, § 173)
In the present case, the members of the government had the information allowing them to awareness of the existence of the incident through letters sent directly to them.
The seriousness of the health problems caused by the Quatre-Seigneurs park was also featured in the press many times over the past seven years.
The perpetrator must then, in addition to being aware of the loss, have chosen voluntarily to abstain, which necessarily implies that he had the powers allowing to fight said claim, but has chosen not to exercise them.
It cannot seriously be argued that the aforementioned ministers did not have the powers to combat the disaster caused by the Quatre-Seigneurs wind farm.
As such, article 21 of the Constitution confers on the Prime Minister the exercise of power regulatory.
Of course, fundamental freedoms fall within the domain of the law. However, it results from a constant case law that it is possible to attack these freedoms to ensure “what is necessary for the safeguard of purposes of general interest having constitutional value ”(C.
constit., 20 Jan. 1981, n ° 80-127 DC, §58).
However, the safeguard of public order falls within the regulatory power (see for example: “the determination of the contraventions and the penalties applicable to them falls within the competence of the regulatory power; that the circumstance that the criminalization of an act has the effect of limiting the exercise of a public freedom guaranteed by provisions constitutional provisions cannot, by themselves, have the consequence of reserving power legislative competence to enact these contraventions, as long as they are not intended to regulate the exercise of this freedom but only to impose the limitations necessary to safeguard public order ”CE, July 19, 2011, n ° 343430).
Therefore, the measures necessary to contain the health problems generated by the wind farm, such as decommissioning, fall within the powers of the Prime Minister.
The power of the Minister of Health and Solidarity cannot be further challenged for fight the incident in question.
Indeed, Article L. 3131-1 of the Public Health Code states:
“In the event of a serious health threat requiring emergency measures, in particular in the event of threat of epidemic, the Minister of Health may, by reasoned decree, prescribe in the interest of public health any measure proportionate to the risks incurred and appropriate to the circumstances of time and place in order to prevent and limit consequences of possible threats to the health of the population.
The Minister may empower the representative of the territorially competent State to take all measures to implement these provisions, including measures for the individual. These latter measures are immediately subject to information from the district Attorney.
The representative of the State in the department and the persons placed under his authority are required to maintain the confidentiality of the data collected with regard to third parties.
The State representative reports to the Minister in charge of health on actions companies and the results obtained in application of this article ”.
It follows from this article that the Minister of Health and Solidarity has the power to prescribe the necessary measures to combat any serious health threat.
As for the Minister of Ecological Transition, he ensures, “in conjunction with the ministers interested parties, the police of classified installations ”, and participates in particular with the Minister of
Health and solidarity to “the determination of health policy, as this the latter is related to the environment ”(Decree n ° 2020-869 of 15 July 2020 relating to responsibilities of the Minister of Ecological Transition).
It should also be noted that the adviser of the Ministry of Ecology did not wish to require a wind turbine decommissioning test to be carried out on the grounds that the owner of the Quatre-Seigneurs wind farm refused to do so (Exhibit 23).
This explicit refusal on the part of the Ministry of Ecology demonstrates once again the character deliberate on the government’s abstention from taking measures to combat health disturbances suffered by people and animals in the area concerned.
It has already been shown that the health problems caused by the installation of wind turbines on the national territory – in particular those of the Quatre-Seigneurs park – come under the claim qualification.
This is necessarily a serious health threat which therefore allowed the Minister of Health and Solidarity to take all measures to fight against disorders/sanitary facilities that have lasted for more than seven years.
This threat is all the more serious in this period of pandemic since the containment expose residents of wind farms to these health risks in a way unimagined. They are therefore unable to relieve their symptoms by moving away from their home.
It follows that the ministers concerned by this complaint were aware of the danger and had the means to act, which they however chose not to exercise.
Classically, the motives presiding over the commission of the offense are indifferent to the constitution of it, so that there is no need to wonder about whether or why the various ministers refrained from taking the measures.
The moral element of the offense being characterized, the offense of failure to fight a sinister (impact) is also characterized.
The two offenses, characterized in all their elements, justify your commission initiate proceedings against the persons named in this complaint.
Thank you for your interest in this complaint, please accept,
Ladies and Gentlemen, members of the Motions Committee, expressing my most high consideration.
Completed in Paris, January 12, 2021
Eddie PUYJALON Fabrice DI VIZIO
LIST OF ATTACHED PARTS
Exhibit 1: Financial expertise of EARL LODY (Mr. POTIRON) and attached certificates
Exhibit 2: November 2014 letter from ABO Wind to the Loire-Atlantique Prefecture
Exhibit 3: Letter of 06/26/2014 from Madame Céline BOUVET to ABO Wind
Exhibit 4: Registered letters dated 08/22/2014 from the breeders BOUVET, POTIRON and
LANDAIS at the Prefecture of Loire-Atlantique
Exhibit 5: GPSE report by Madame Arlette LAVAL
Exhibit 6: Press release from the Prefecture of June 11, 2020
Exhibit 7: Medical certificate of the clinical examination of Mrs. Céline BOUVET of the Doctor
Exhibit 8: Certificates of local residents’ symptoms
Exhibit 9: Study entitled “Exposure to wind turbines and impacts on health” from July 2019 by
the University of Nantes
Exhibit 10: Capital article of 04/10/2019
Exhibit 11: LCI article of 05/30/2019
Exhibit 12: Articles on the pediatric cancer cluster
Exhibit 13: ToxSeek test results
Exhibit 14: Medical report of Doctor TRIPODI
Exhibit 15: LMR letter of 06/02/2020 to the President of the Republic
Exhibit 16: LMR letter of 05/03/2020 to the Prefect of Loire-Atlantique
Exhibit 17: LMR letter of 05/06/2020 to the Minister for the Ecological and Inclusive Transition
Exhibit 18: Letter from Mr. Julien AUBERT dated 07/16/2020 to the Prime Minister
Exhibit 19: LMR letter of 13/11/2020 to the Minister of Health
Exhibit 20: LMR letter of 13/11/2020 to the Minister for the Ecological and Inclusive Transition
Exhibit 21: Study on the wind turbines of the National Academy of Medicine
Exhibit 22: Hospitalization report from 08/07/2014 to 08/25/2014 of Madame Murielle
PUMPKIN following a recurrence of epileptic seizure
Exhibit 23: Email of 12/31/2020 from the Risk, health, environment and transition advisor
agro-ecological in the cabinet of the Minister of Ecological Transition to Madame BOUVET