As we previously announced, two people went on trial in Limoges on March 19 and 20, charged with destruction of property by dangerous means. They allegedly burned Enedis vehicles in February 2020 to protest the forced installation of the Linky smart meter and, in January 2021, a set of antennas to protest the deployment of 5G. ---- Support tour ---- Since their arrest nearly five years ago, their support committee has evolved from defending comrades to criticizing imposed technologies. After organizing several support meetings and debates in Limousin, the support committee has been very active in recent months with around fifteen solidarity actions in various towns and villages: Le Mas d'Azil (09), Royère de Vassivière (23), Vaour (81), Amiens, Limoges, Saint-Junien (87), Bordeaux, Poitiers, Grenoble, Béziers, Fillols (66), Saint-Etienne, Toulouse, Lyon, Eymoutiers (87).
These events took various forms depending on the capabilities of the local organizing groups. Two main networks facilitated the organization: groups critical of imposed technologies (Ecran Total, Stop Micro, Stop 5G, etc.) and the network of revolutionary choirs. Depending on the location, a wide variety of groups were able to participate in these events: OCL, FA, CNT, Student Union, Amnesty International, anti-repression committees, anti-militarist groups (CRAAM), and grassroots environmentalists.
The format of these events ranged from simple meetings and discussions with a dozen people and light refreshments to afternoons and evenings bringing together more than 200 people. The larger events were sometimes preceded by days of rehearsals. Several community kitchens mobilized to support these gatherings. There were film screenings: Woman at War, If a Tree Falls... The musical entertainment was diverse: revolutionary choirs, a militant brass band, sing-alongs with a variety of tunes, Occitan polyphony, Palestinian songs and music, rebetiko, punk bands...
This entire support tour raised awareness of the case, collected funds to help finance the defendants' legal representation, and provided information and facilitated discussions about the imposed technologies and methods used for repression. Finally, it demonstrated to the accused that they enjoy widespread support. It also contributed to the mobilization from March 18th to 21st.
The mobilization during the trial
Approximately 200 people participated in these sessions. As the courtroom was limited to seating 60 people, not everyone was able to attend at any point during the trial. Standing room was reserved for the police, whose numbers increased on the second day.
The local organization facilitated accommodation for people who had traveled from afar, organized a rally with banners in front of the courthouse, and provided three venues for meetings and discussions. The combined efforts of three community kitchens from Limousin and Occitanie ensured that everyone received meals.
Several key events took place alongside the trial: meetings with members of the support committee and some witnesses on Wednesday evening 18; a conference and debate by Jean-Michel Hupé on the "Greenbacklash" on Thursday evening 19; information sessions for supporters at each stage of the trial; discussions on Friday evening about expectations at the end of the trial; and a meeting on Saturday morning about the prospects for the fight against digitalization.
Opening of the trial
The presiding judge began by summarizing the facts based on the police and judicial investigation. She did so quite properly, recalling the evidence leading to the defendants, but also highlighting the dead ends of certain leads: DNA was found on the Enedis site matching DNA found at the scene of crimes committed in Grenoble and Rive-de-Gier (unidentified person); an unknown shoe print...
The presiding judge also read the entire statement claiming responsibility for the antenna arson. Regarding the recordings of telephone conversations, the lawyers emphasized that they had not been granted access to all of them. The judge clarified that investigators had noted a few snippets of conversation that might seem suspicious, but that this was not very conclusive and constituted only a very small portion of the recordings. Anne's lawyer pointed out that one of the cited conversations, between Anne and someone who had been cleared of any wrongdoing, concerned a citizens' forestry group and had nothing to do with the case. The judge agreed.
The lawyers will make a few other similar remarks; the judge will agree. Likewise, the judge will point out that the handwriting analysis requested for the graffiti yielded no results; the graffiti did not match the defendants' handwriting but could perhaps be attributed to a third, unknown person. Anne is implicated in an older case involving the arson of construction and quarry vehicles in 2015-2016. The case was dismissed in December 2019 due to the inability to identify those responsible. Anne remains silent.
At the end of this review of the facts, the judge questioned the two defendants about whether they maintained or changed their statements. Fernando maintained that he had not committed the acts but supported those who take this type of action and act as whistleblowers. Anne could only stand by her confession.
The witnesses
Defense attorneys Chloé Chalot and Henri Braun presented seven witnesses, all highly qualified and there to discuss the circumstances and context of the case.
Victor Cachard, who has published a book on Emile Pouget and a two-volume history of sabotage, explained how sabotage historically emerged as a remedy to violent action against individuals. Naturally, the lawyers for the civil parties (particularly Enedis's lawyer) objected to this presentation, as they equate property damage with violence.
Célia Izoard, philosopher and journalist (Revue Z, Mediapart, Reporterre, Terrestres), is the author of several books on digital technology and the mining boom. She is also the translator of the latest version of George Orwell's 1984. In her presentation, she denounced the harmful effects on the planet of 5G deployment, mining with the crimes and wars it entails, the waste of replacing perfectly functional meters with Linky smart meters, and the lies surrounding the obligation to change meters. She also explained that she participates in working groups on digital de-escalation.
Jean-Michel Hupé, who worked for 25 years as a neuroscience researcher, chose to abandon this specialty to focus on the political sociology of environmental movements. He is a member of AtEcoPol (Workshop for Political Ecology) in Toulouse. He reiterated all the harmful effects of AI, 5G, and electromagnetic waves. He supports the necessity of civil disobedience, even sabotage. The presiding judge and the prosecutor questioned the possibility of invoking "necessity" to justify acts of sabotage. His intervention was, of course, one of the most heavily criticized by the lawyers for Enedis and Bouygues.
Nicolas Bérard, a journalist for the monthly magazine L'Age de faire, is the author of books on Linky smart meters, 5G, and digital technology. He explains the detrimental effects of these digital devices on sleep, sedentary lifestyles, isolation, and mental health-particularly for young people. The president confirms this, mentioning that she closely watched a program on the mental health of young women. Nicolas Bérard will also discuss the lack of impact of citizen mobilizations.
Karima Mersad is a lecturer and researcher in neurobiology at Paris 1 University and also holds a doctorate in cognitive psychology. She specializes in neural development and the emergence of language in babies. She shared how she became aware of the onset of certain disturbing symptoms (headaches, sleep disturbances, etc.). She explained how, scientifically, she studied her environment and gradually understood that she was a victim of electromagnetic waves. She spoke about the difficulties faced by people with electromagnetic hypersensitivity in a world increasingly saturated with electromagnetic fields.
Sandrine Larizza, an employee of France Travail, comes from the unemployment benefits office (formerly Assedic). She spoke of the dehumanization of interactions with users due to the digitization of services and the development of AI. She noted that, according to the French Ombudsman, one in two people struggles to access digital services. She emphasized that these changes are being imposed without any public debate.
Romain Couillet is a university professor and an internationally recognized specialist in applied mathematics, particularly in the digital processing of telecommunications. For the past ten years, he has been aware of the harmful effects of digital development on humans, nature, and the planet. He chose to stop his research to dedicate himself to reflecting on the different levels of digital rejection (from individual renunciation to its desirable dismantling). He is also an activist with Stop Micro in Grenoble, which fights against companies manufacturing electronic chips (some of which are for military use) while consuming enormous quantities of water. For him, given the gravity of the situation, acts of sabotage have a negligible effect. Romain Couillet likens the industrialists and researchers who justify the development of AI to those who denied the dangers of tobacco or asbestos. He sees himself as following in the footsteps of Alexander Grothendieck, who ceased his research because of its military applications.
The interrogation of the defendants
Fernando and his lawyer argued the possibility of DNA transfer; moreover, DNA belonging to someone unknown to Fernando was found on his own vehicle. When questioned (by Bouygues' lawyer) about endangering people, Fernando replied that the companies these three lawyers represent are the most dangerous. Enedis' lawyer mentioned that the social worker noted that Fernando "takes responsibility for his actions." The presiding judge clarified that since the "expedited social inquiry" was conducted without a lawyer present, she could not consider it. Among the documents seized by the police to incriminate Fernando was a brochure in Spanish with the term "Las bombas" in the title. Fernando explained that it was a plumbing manual, a claim confirmed by the interpreter. At his lawyer's request, Fernando recounted his arrest by the GIGN and his subsequent detention.
Anne made a preliminary statement explaining that she did not recognize herself in the portrait the investigators had painted of her. She was not a terrorist, just someone very close to nature, devastated by the current state of planetary destruction, and who wanted to raise the alarm. When questioned by the presiding judge regarding endangering others, she clarified that the homemade devices used were not explosive and that no one was on the sites. Enedis's lawyer explained that there was an employee on the site, that he could have been a victim, and that he was traumatized. Anne's lawyer pointed out that he had not been interviewed and that there was no evidence in the file concerning this potential trauma. She would later specify in her closing argument that this person was in a bunker at the other end of this rather large site and that he hadn't even seen the fire.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs
There were three plaintiffs: Enedis, Orange, and Bouygues. No need to go into detail, just to highlight the key points. Enedis's lawyer was the most aggressive in her closing argument, as she had already demonstrated in her questioning. She emphasized the defendants' violence, their "anti-everything" ideology, their far-left leanings, and so on. She even went so far as to implicate the person who had been cleared of all charges and one of those released without charge during police custody. She revisited the story of the supposedly traumatized employee. She referred to the experts as "pseudo-scientific, political, and know-it-alls." At this point, Henri Braun intervened to emphasize that the court clerk must record the exact wording for a potential public defamation lawsuit. Naturally, she demanded that the defendants be found guilty. For repairs, she mentions a total sum of approximately EUR400,000, but specifies that the exact calculation is not yet finalized nor have the documents been submitted. The president expresses surprise that Enedis has not had the time to provide this information in six years.
Orange's lawyer did not speak during the proceedings, only in her relatively brief closing argument. She argued that the defense of necessity could not be invoked, and that violence could indeed be applied to these events. She requested that the defendants be found guilty and ordered to pay EUR1,000 for damages to their image and reputation, over EUR76,000 for material damages (with a detailed breakdown), and EUR2,000 in legal fees. She clarified that the fact that Orange had been reimbursed by its insurer did not preclude the defendants from also being liable for reimbursement.
Bouygues' lawyer reiterated almost the same arguments as Enedis's counterpart, though slightly less aggressively. Acknowledging the impossibility of quantifying material damages, Bouygues is requesting a symbolic EUR1. However, it is claiming EUR5,000 for moral and reputational damages and EUR5,000 for legal representation costs (its fees).
Prosecutor's closing argument
Overall, the prosecutor fulfilled her role without displaying excessive aggression or severity. She chose to stick to the facts and proposed finding both defendants guilty of conspiracy. She made no comment on the societal debate, expressing only surprise that Fernando chose such a defense while maintaining his innocence. She requested acquittal on the graffiti charge. She justified the requested sentences by citing the social cost of the offenses and her uncertainty that the defendants had fundamentally changed, mitigating them due to their prior convictions and seemingly untroubled personalities.
The prosecutor is requesting a four-year prison sentence, with two years to be served, for Fernando, and a five-year sentence, with two years to be served, for Anne. She is leaving the possibility of alternative sentencing (such as electronic monitoring) to the judges. Furthermore, she is requesting that each defendant fulfill their obligation to reimburse the victims, be prohibited from participating in demonstrations and possessing weapons, and be barred from entering the towns of Les Cars and Limoges. Given that the potential prison sentences could have been as high as ten years, this request is relatively lenient. This is also due to the fact that the defendants have already served nearly five years of judicial supervision.
Closing argument by Chloé Chalot
As a preamble, she explained that she would not address her client by her last name but by her first name, Anne, because over the years she had come to know and appreciate her. She then emphasized the length and severity of the judicial supervision that had deprived Anne of contact with her partner for a year and a half. She expressed her hope that the supervision would not be too long or too strict. She pointed out the inconsistency of requiring Anne to use only legal means to express her opinions while simultaneously depriving her of the right to demonstrate.
The lawyer emphasizes that Anne is not violent and that what she admits to doing constitutes property damage, not violence against persons. She points out that the offense of criminal conspiracy was introduced into French law during the "villainous laws" of 1893-94 against anarchists, was reinstated some forty years ago, and that a member of parliament (from the Republicans party!) has proposed its abolition. Due to various reasons of insufficient evidence, she requests that the Eurovia case not be pursued.
Given Anne's social and family circumstances, Chloé Chalot requests that the sentence be entirely suspended, that there be no ban on her participating in demonstrations, nor on her coming to Limoges where her mother and brother reside. She requests that the entire civil procedure be adjourned.
Henri Braun's plea
Fernando's lawyer was far longer and more eloquent than his colleague, alternating purely legal points with historical allusions, political themes, and emotional appeals, and above all, dismantling certain arguments of the civil parties. In particular, he pointed out that one of the civil parties' lawyers had used the Petit Larousse dictionary definition to show that the term "violence" could apply to the destruction of property, whereas the Penal Code only uses it in relation to persons. He asserted that industrialists also endanger people, and that digital surveillance methods can lead to techno-fascism.
He spoke at length about the issue of DNA, recounting several court cases where DNA had led to the identification of an innocent person. He cited Dr. Olivier Pascal and produced a statement from him, which was added to the case file. Dr. Pascal is the forensic expert who introduced genetic profiling and DNA identification in France. Based on the case file, Dr. Pascal explained that the traces found were too minimal to be conclusive. Furthermore, the initial sample was taken without authorization from the public prosecutor's office and must be invalidated.
Braun explains that Anne was able to mention Fernando during police custody interrogations because she was under intense pressure from her partner, her son, and others. He then provides a historical overview of the concept of "necessity" to demonstrate its applicability to the case. Ultimately, he requests Fernando's acquittal.
Visibility and hopes
The national press paid little attention to the trial, but the regional press (Le Populaire du Centre, France 3 Nouvelle Aquitaine, Ici Limousin) mobilized extensively, providing preliminary summaries of the case followed by quite accurate daily reports that also gave space to the Committee's perspective. Several activist media outlets were also present: Reporterre , L'Age de faire , Radio Zinzine , etc.
Maintaining a highly visible demonstration for two days in front of the courthouse, on the corner of one of Limoges' largest parking lots, with numerous banners, brought significant attention to the trial and the political issues it addressed.
While it's always difficult to be certain of the outcome in a legal case, the support committee has reason to hope for a fairly positive result. The presiding judge listened attentively to the arguments presented by witnesses and defense attorneys. The prosecutor's closing arguments were not excessive. However, the lawyers for both sides discredited themselves with their overreactions (except for Orange's).
The verdict will be delivered on April 3rd. It seems entirely possible that the sentences will be less than those requested and that some secondary penalties will be waived.
AD, Limoges,
March 2026
On Friday, April 3, 2026, the Limoges court delivered its verdict.
The two defendants were convicted: one received a three-year suspended sentence, and the other a two-year suspended sentence. They are also prohibited from associating with each other for three years. The ruling on civil damages was postponed until September 2nd.
The committee supporting the accused believes that these convictions reflect the justice system's consideration of two essential elements:
First, consideration was given to the harshness of the almost five years of pre-trial judicial supervision, which constituted a veritable "sentence before the sentence" for the defendants, and which it seemed fair not to aggravate heavily.
next, the signal of the much-needed and urgent breakthrough in the public debate on the main question raised by this trial: that of questioning the imposed digital onslaught, at work in our societies for several decades, a source of colossal damage to the environment and human societies.
The parties have 10 days to appeal this decision.
http://oclibertaire.lautre.net/spip.php?article4684
_________________________________________
Source: A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten