During a semi-final match of the French Football Cup in Bastia on 5 May 1992, the collapse of a temporary stand at the Furiani Stadium left 18 people dead and 2,735 injured. Several thousand seats had been added to metal structures – conventional scaffolding erected using the so-called ‘SEMIA’ method – which were inherently incapable of supporting the weight of all the spectators.
The Prefect of Bastia and his chief of staff were prosecuted, as were the stand’s builder and the local director of the certification body, both of whom were remanded in custody. SLA, acting as defence counsel for the certification company, argued that the company had been commissioned solely to assess the stability of the ground in light of the addition of the new structures, but never to assess the grandstand itself. From a legal perspective, the issue centred on whether or not a contract existed between the certification company and the Bastia football club (SCCB). At no point, either before the Magistrates’ Court or the Court of Appeal, was it disputed that there was no indisputable written or even verbal evidence. Furthermore, the certification company’s branch in Bastia did not have the authority to inspect the entire structure. Conducting the inquiry at a brisk pace, the judge put questions to the company’s representatives that highlighted the fragility of the case: ‘When you gave your business card to the club representative, was it “with a view” to inspecting the entire stand or simply the floor?’ Answer: ‘The floor.’ After six months, with the agreement of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, represented by Jean-Louis Nadal, and his Deputy Public Prosecutor François Molins, the defence secured the release of the company’s representative.
As in the ARC case a little later, the Courthouse was too small to accommodate the large number of victims. The municipal theatre in Bastia was requisitioned and, for the first time, a trial was broadcast live via video link to a second room.
Eight days earlier, one of the defendants, the chairman of the SCCB, organiser of the semi-final, had been murdered with a sniper rifle on his doorstep. The trial went ahead nonetheless, but the atmosphere was such that, when the defendants arrived at court, they had to be fitted with bulletproof vests and snipers were stationed on the rooftops. And during the final hearings, the victims drowned out the defence’s voices by banging on their seats. As a result, the closing arguments were delivered to an empty courtroom. The company representative was given a custodial sentence lighter than that of the builder, which was subsequently commuted to a suspended sentence by the Court of Appeal. The Prefect of Bastia, who had been brought before the court, was acquitted. So was his chief of staff, though he was given a suspended sentence by the Court.
Given the highly emotional nature of the case, the defence’s arguments were rather convoluted. In such a situation, the legal issue is completely swept away by a tide of indignation and assumptions that have absolutely nothing to do with the law, making it very difficult to explain what the work of a regulatory body actually entails. And finally, in this climate, the Court of Cassation ruled that a contract did exist.
This case ultimately provided an opportunity for a victims’ support organisation, promoted by the Chancellery, to demonstrate its usefulness in organising compensation payments.