Following her hearing this morning, Me Diane Protat comes as announced to tell in more detail the details of the summary hearing.
Administrative justice had been seized so far, but this time it is the “judicial judge” who is seized, she explains in the preamble. The intention of the lawyer who defends three clients (a midwife, a doctor and a nurse) is to demonstrate that the contested texts constitute an “assault”, that is to say a very seriously illegal attack on the State’s freedoms. essential people.
She details her pleadings and the four axes she developed, before three judges – an exceptional fact, a single magistrate usually being provided for in this type of summary.
1. The conditional marketing authorization had to be the subject of an application for renewal within six months of the first authorization. She asked the state to produce the required documents. Otherwise, the MAs would be null and void.
See also: Conditional MA: lack of transparency? Associations question the ANSM
To this question, the state lawyer replied that he did not have a mandate to answer this question … before blissfully admitting that he … did not know anything about it. An answer which was therefore officially recorded by the clerk.
Relying on article 12 (providing for the obligation to vaccinate caregivers) and article 14 (which provides for penalties) of the law promulgated three weeks ago, she argued that they violated the right to life, physical and moral integrity, free and informed consent, and the right to property
2. Right to life: relying on the superiority of European law – an argument that her colleague Philippe Prigent had also developed that we had received, she explains that the European Convention on Human Rights protects the right to life, that an attack on life cannot be justified by a question of public health.
All the more so as the decree sets out the contraindications in a restrictive and very strict way, providing almost no exception to the first injection, and allowing to be dispensed from the second only … if a serious reaction to the injection is made. first. As cases of myocarditis and Guilain-Barré syndrome are provided for by law, the government recognizes that these possibilities exist. However, we cannot make healthy people take a potentially fatal risk, to potentially save others.
“We have never seen that the State fixes in a limiting way the contraindications to a vaccine by excluding a whole bunch of medical hypotheses”, she insists, while the four vaccines combined have given rise to 850 000 reports of adverse effects on Eudravigilance – considerable figures, which admittedly do not all signify a certain imputability to the vaccine, but which in view of the declarations concerning the compulsory vaccination of children (2018) for example, which after 38 million doses, listed … 900 declarations, deserve that the precautionary principle applies.
3. Diane Protat also referred to the European regulation on therapeutic trials: the right to free and informed consent is included in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. If the court wondered about the reading of this regulation in the present case, it informed him that it was possible that he seized the Court of Justice of the European Union of a “preliminary question of interpretation”. And if the question were transmitted, that would suspend the process and the obligation, its interpretation being binding on France as well as on all European countries.
4. Last line of defense, the right to property, specifically for the liberal professions: at European level, an asset is protected in that it has heritage value. This is the case of a patient base of a liberal practitioner, who can only be prohibited from practicing by a criminal or ordinal conviction, explains Me Protat. For her, the coercive obligation corresponds to an “expulsion of her patrimonial right”, which again constitutes an “assault”, she defends. And if the sanction were to be lifted, the obligation would automatically lose its scope.
Four legal angles of attack clearly exposed in this debriefing offered in partnership with BonSens.org. The decision will be rendered on September 10.