Grands colloques - Les technologies de l'information et de la communication au service de la justice du XXIe siècle -1 - 265

LAURENCE DUMOULIN AND CHRISTIAN LICOPPE

255

of debate and discussion, at least until recently.13 A little background
history will help to explain not only the lack of litigant involvement but
also, more generally, the absence of public debate on videoconferencing.

A. A three-part narrative: from exceptional, and then
experimental, to generalised
The idea of using videoconferencing to conduct judicial acts emerged
in the late 1990s to deal with the specific problem raised by Saint Pierre
and Miquelon. In this French archipelago located off the coast of Canada,
it had become customary, in order to cope with the insufficient number
of judges in office, to allow the plurality of functions (investigation and
trial, trial and appeal). The need to comply with the rules of fair trial
meant, however, that this system had to be rethought, and it was in this
specific set of circumstances that a remote system was proposed, allowing
judges to sit in Paris, without having to travel halfway around the world.
It was therefore as an exceptional and limited solution, tailored to meet
specific constraints on the Judiciary of the archipelago, that videoconferencing was rendered possible. It was permitted as an exception, to be used
in the very specific conditions set out in legal texts14, which were hotly
contested, especially during their validation by the Council of State.
Yet, through changes in use and through successive reforms, videoconferencing spread beyond the limited scope of Saint Pierre and Miquelon.
From 2003-2004 onwards, the context began to change when a legal text
allowed wider use of videoconferencing in criminal matters (Article 70671 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). It then became the subject of
experiments conducted by some local jurisdictions on a voluntary basis,
with support from the Ministry of Justice. The logic was thus no longer
that of an exception to the rule but rather that of an experiment or test,
seen as a prerequisite before generalisation.
Finally, from 2006 onwards, videoconferencing truly changed status and
became the subject of a proactive public policy, as a top-down process
from the Ministry of Justice, as part of a vaster, inter-ministerial, intergovernmental strategy to economise resources, using incentives but also
potential sanctions for those who resisted videoconferencing.

13. Except specifically for litigation regarding illegal aliens, it is only recently that the
SAF (Syndicat des Avocats de France, or French Lawyers’ Union) and the Union of Magistrates (SM) have taken a stand against videoconferencing and its routine use in other types
of litigation. That is to say from 2009 onwards, when the development of videoconferencing
became part of the RGPP, the General Review of Public Policy.
14. Namely, Ordinance No. 98-729 of 20 August 1998 on the judicial organisation in the
overseas territories and local authorities of Mayotte and of Saint Pierre and Miquelon, and
Decree No. 2001-431 of 18 May 2001.

Grands colloques - Les technologies de l'information et de la communication au service de la justice du XXIe siècle -1

Table des matières de la publication Grands colloques - Les technologies de l'information et de la communication au service de la justice du XXIe siècle -1