An advertisement for deja-vu. Gérald Darmanin broke with the prefects this Thursday in a letter in which he asked them for “systematic firmness” in the expulsion of the rioters last June from their social housing. Last October he already asked to “generalize” this practice. But in practice the measure is very difficult to apply.
The head of the Beauvau square does not want to be satisfied with the response of justice, already very firm since more than 90% of the people who appeared before the judge after the urban riots were sentenced to prison.
The example cited by the minister not linked to the riots
Thinking of an example: that of a young man sentenced to 12 months in prison for having participated, at the end of June, in the urban violence in Val-d’Oise who was evicted together with his relatives at the end of August from the social housing they occupied.
It is on this local decision that Gérald Darmanin is based to extend it to the entire French territory.
Problem for the Minister of the Interior: By law, it is not the prefects under the direct orders of the Minister of the Interior who order an expulsion, but the courts, usually after a lengthy procedure.
Possible expulsions in very specific cases
The eviction of a social housing is also very framed in the law: it can only be motivated by the breach of the lease, such as unpaid rent, alterations of the enjoyment or acts of delinquency on the part of the tenants (mechanical savagery, sale of narcotics, noise ) in your apartment or building. It is also based on an eviction judgment issued by a local civil court.
The minister, for his part, cites two articles of law that maintain that the commission of “an act of serious crime near his place of residence” constitutes “an attack against the peaceful use of his home.” Get it: who would be in breach of the lease and therefore could start an eviction proceeding.
The proof, however, that the maneuver is not obvious: the case cited by Gérald Darmanin in the Val-d’Oise has no link to the riots. The prefect also acknowledged to AFP that an eviction sentence had indeed been previously handed down regarding this house.
Facilitate dialogue between the prefect and the social owners.
The same case was repeated in Val d’Oise in 2021 after an urban rodeo in which two children were seriously injured. The occupants of the lodging of the author of this rodeo had been evicted, after “instructions” of Gérald Darmanin.
In reality, this expulsion had occurred after a pre-existing decision, as reported the figarowithout any link therefore again with the rodeo.
To facilitate the evictions, Gérald Darmanin bets on the cooperation between the actors and asks the prefects to link “donors, local authorities and the judicial authority”. Thinking of an example: the city of Nice.
“A gradation” before expulsion
Its main landlord, Côte d’Azur Habitat, has signed an agreement with the prosecutor and the prefect to be informed of repeated criminal acts committed by some of its tenants. Without necessarily entailing a long-term expulsion.
“Each case is different and it is necessary to respect a gradation in the intervention of donors,” warns Anthony Borré, Christian Estrosi’s first assistant and president of Côte d’Azur Habitat, with the Figaro.
The objective is thus to receive the families to exchange, try to find solutions, before possibly initiating a procedure before the courts.
The “philosophical problem” of expulsion
“You have to understand that, at the moment, we rarely have access to court decisions, even when they are related to something that happens directly on the premises for which we are responsible,” explains the manager of a landlord on Île. -from-France.
“Thus, in order to have access to a judicial decision on a criminal act committed during the riots “near the place of residence”, as the text presented by Gérald Darmanin cites, it is necessary to take a big step”, underlines this social housing specialist .
Before raising a “philosophical problem”: “is the idea behind it anyway to expel an entire family onto the street, without necessarily a relocation solution behind it, because one of them has done something stupid? The little brother is responsible for the stupidity of the elder”.
Proof that the issue is far from consensus: Patrice Vergriete, Delegate Minister for Housing, has already expressed his disagreement. Last October, it was Sacha Houlié, president of the Legal Commission, who considered the measure “unconstitutional” and “undesirable.”
Source: BFM TV
