The law firm Soulez Larivière Avocats represented a corporation before the Strasbourg Criminal Court in a case where the corporation was charged with employing an individual engaged in undeclared work.

The company, which specializes in the telecommunications sector, was accused of subcontracting part of its operations to a firm that had set up a scheme to fraudulently exploit the “auto-entrepreneur” status.

An investigation was launched, following which the company was brought before the Strasbourg Criminal Court as a defendant.

However, the firm’s attorneys’ analysis of the preliminary investigation file revealed numerous irregularities.

Two versions of the criminal case file had in fact been digitized successively. However, the numbering of the official reports and their total number differed between the two versions of the case file. Furthermore, certain official reports, which appeared identical at first glance, had in fact been altered in the second version of the criminal case file.  

Under these circumstances, and prior to any defense on the merits, the law firm Soulez Larivière Avocats had filed a motion to set aside the proceedings, arguing, on the one hand, that the minutes drawn up during the preliminary investigation were devoid of any probative value, and, second, that the criminal case file to which the defense had been granted access made it impossible to effectively exercise the rights of the defense, in violation of the requirements for a fair trial.

Consequently, the defense sought the annulment of the entire proceeding and the acquittal of the defendant company.

At the hearing, the representative of the public prosecutor’s office opposed the annulment of the proceedings.

Nevertheless, the Strasbourg Criminal Court ruled that the existence of multiple altered police reports within the proceedings deprived the proceedings of any reliability or fairness; and that a judgment based on such proceedings would constitute a serious violation of the right to a fair trial.

Pursuant to Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the Court therefore declared the entire proceeding null and void and acquitted all of the defendants.

The Accident During the Filming of *Dropped*, 2015–2026

On March 9, 2015, near Villa Castelli in the Argentine province of La Rioja, two Écureuil helicopters chartered for the filming of Dropped collided two minutes after takeoff. All ten occupants were killed, including athletes Florence Arthaud, Camille Muffat, and Alexis Vastine.

The safety investigation was conducted by the JIAAC, the Argentine counterpart to the BEA, with the latter’s assistance. It found no technical anomalies in the aircraft nor any issues related to the pilots’ health. Its final report, published in December 2015, identified as the triggering factor a “misjudgment by the pilots”—who were nonetheless highly experienced—regarding the proximity of their aircraft.

A criminal investigation into involuntary manslaughter was opened in Paris following the accident. In July 2022, the former CEO of ALP, represented by Capucine Lanta de Bérard and Pauline Dufourq, was indicted. He was accused of gross negligence based on four elements: approving an aviation budget deemed insufficient; using regional helicopters without a contractual framework; hiring an operations director whose aviation experience had not been sufficiently verified; and failing to exercise adequate oversight over the program’s teams.

In May 2026, the investigating judges issued a partial dismissal order (now final) in favor of our client and referred the company and several other defendants to the Paris Criminal Court. They remain presumed innocent.

As in all aviation accidents in which the firm has been involved for over forty years, the defense was conducted on factual, technical, and legal grounds, as the Fauchon Law prohibits holding anyone criminally liable in the absence of a definite causal link between the alleged misconduct and the accident.

Aurélia Grignon, a partner at the firm, spoke as part of the University Certificate in Criminal Practice, organized by the Criminal Practice Workshop and ISPEC (Aix-Marseille University) for its sixth cohort.

This program is designed for attorneys, law students, and master’s students. It systematically addresses the situations faced by attorneys practicing criminal law through 60 hours of practical instruction spread over ten days, culminating in a certificate issued by the Faculty of Law at Aix-Marseille University. The program is structured around three modules: the fundamentals of criminal practice, the discussion of evidence, and criminal trials.

Aurélia Grignon spoke during the module on court proceedings, specifically on the day dedicated to criminal trials. Alongside Attorney Jean Boudot and Mr. Pascal Gand, president of the criminal division in Marseille, she led the workshop “Learning to Prepare and Ask Questions.” This session focused on the art of questioning each participant in the trial: the investigator, the witness, the opposing party, the expert, or one’s own client. The challenge lies in knowing how to identify one’s interlocutor and the objective of each question.

Aurélia Grignon discussed the benefits of Anglo-Saxon-style cross-examination, with a focus on questioning witnesses. This technique provides the defense with valuable tools for testing the reliability of testimony and ensuring that the hearing serves as the true forum for discussing the evidence.

The firm was represented by two members during the event: Capucine Lanta de Bérard, a partner, also spoke in the morning on criminal trials.

More information is available on the Atelier de Pratique Pénale website: https://www.atelier-pratique-penale.fr/fr/certificat-pratique-penal/le-programme-complet

On February 9, 2026, the Marseille Criminal Court (Public Health Division) acquitted our client, a manufacturer of cochlear implants, of the charges of fraud.
The allegations primarily concerned the company’s failure to comply with its obligations regarding the affixing of the CE marking, claims of compliance with standards, and various irregularities related to the materials used in the composition of the implants marketed by the company.

In the context of the PIP case, an investigation followed by a judicial inquiry was opened by the Marseille Public Prosecutor in 2013 and assigned to an investigating judge from the Public Health Division of the Marseille Judicial Court.

In February 2025—sixteen years after the proceedings began—the company and several of its former executives were referred to the Marseille Criminal Court to stand trial on charges of fraud.

At the hearing, held in November 2026, the law firm Soulez Larivière Avocats—assisted by Capucine Lanta de Bérard, as well as Tom Bruneau and Pauline Boone—filed a motion to dismiss the case on the grounds of excessive delay, arguing that neither the circumstances of the case nor the company’s conduct during the investigations justified such a lengthy delay.

On the merits of the case, the firm argued for the company’s acquittal. During the four-day hearing before the Criminal Court, marked by highly technical arguments, the firm’s attorneys worked to demonstrate, point by point, that the offense of fraud had not been established and that the case put forward by the Public Prosecutor’s Office was unfounded.

After several months of deliberation, the Marseille Criminal Court rendered its judgment.

On October 4, 2025, on the first day of the Lafarge trial—concerning allegations of terrorist financing and violations of the embargo in Syria between 2013 and 2014— the defense team for the former director of the Lafarge Group’s Syrian subsidiary asked the court to rule that the settlement order issued by the investigating judges after nearly seven years of investigation was invalid.

While the former executive had been indicted for acts limited to a specific period, the period of preliminary investigation had been extended by two months at the stage of referral to trial and included new factual elements for which he had not been indicted, which conflicted with the case law of the Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation and constituted a violation of Article 385, paragraph 2, of the Code of Criminal Procedure

The Court had no choice but to find that the order of referral was irregular due to the extension of the period of prevention. By a preliminary ruling dated October 5, 2025, it referred the case back to the National Anti-Terrorism Prosecutor’s Office for correction, leading to the postponement of the hearing until mid-November and to the amendment of the pre-trial detention period by a corrective order dated November 6, 2025.

A useful reminder that any discrepancy between the period of prevention specified at the time of indictment and that referred to in the order of referral renders the referral to the court invalid.

The Court, however, held that the new factual elements included at the referral stage constituted a mere clarification that did not exceed the scope of the case referred to the Court, a finding that the defense intends to challenge on appeal.
 

Capucine Lanta de Bérard and Diane Floreancing acted as defence counsel alongside a former executive of the investment bank Wendel during the trial of the same name, which took place over nearly two months before the Paris Court of Appeal.

After being found guilty at first instance, the firm’s client was acquitted by the Court of Appeal.

Boursorama.com – 5 January 2025 edition

https://www.boursorama.com/bourse/actualites/affaire-wendel-la-cour-d-a…

On 9 December 2024, following a judicial investigation lasting nearly ten years, the so-called “nuclear trial” opened before the Saint-Étienne Criminal Court, at which eight defendants – former and current directors of a company based in the Loire region specialising in the manufacture of forged parts – were charged with fraud.

The defence team for the company’s director comprised Capucine Lanta de Bérard, Pauline Dufourq and Tom Bruneau.

The firm’s lawyers sought to demonstrate to the judges of the Criminal Court that their client had been referred by the investigating judge for offences for which he had not been formally charged; this latter point constituting a procedural irregularity preventing the hearing from proceeding. Granting this request, the Annecy Criminal Court applied the provisions of Article 385(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and referred the case back to the Public Prosecutor’s Office so that the proceedings could be brought into order.

Le Progès – 9 December 2024 edition

https://www.leprogres.fr/faits-divers-justice/2024/12/09/faux-certifica…