Europe’s human rights court condemned France on Thursday for a policing operation that resulted in the death of a 21-year-old environmental activist in 2014.
Remi Fraisse, who studied botany, died after being hit by a concussion grenade during clashes between the police and opponents of a planned dam in Sivens, near the southwestern city of Toulouse. His death triggered riots in several French cities.
On Thursday, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) pointed to “a violation of Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights in its substantive aspect”.
Fraisse died as a result of the explosion of a blast-effect dispersal of an OF-F1 concussion grenade, which fell between his neck and the backpack he had been wearing.
The court said that it was “mindful of the difficulties faced by law enforcement when confronted with violent acts”.
However, it pointed out that “the requisite level of protection in the event of the use of potentially lethal force had not been guaranteed”.
The Strasbourg-based court noted that France was the only country to use such ammunition.
After Fraisse’s death the OF-F1 grenade was banned from use in France in 2017.
In 2021, France’s highest court cleared the policeman who launched the crowd-clearing stun grenade of responsibility.
France will have to pay sums ranging from 5,600 euros to 16,000 euros ($5,900 to $16,800) in compensation to Fraisse’s relatives.
“It has taken more than ten years and the support of the European Court of Human Rights for the French state’s responsibility in the death of Remi Fraisse to be finally recognised. What a waste of time,” Patrice Spinosi, a lawyer for Jean-Pierre Fraisse, the victim’s father, told AFP.
“The inappropriate use of force during the demonstrations against the Sivens dam is now established. To avoid further condemnation, France must now draw all the consequences of this decision and thoroughly review its policy on maintaining order,” he added.
The ECHR was also asked to rule whether the criminal investigation had been independent and impartial.
The court ruled that the proceedings “as a whole” had not been marred by “any lack of independence or impartiality”.
