meet in a relationship of complementarity

At the time where the Senate considers the Bill on copyright on the Internet, the annual report of the Court of cassation is dedicated to technological innovation. What is the role of the jurisprudence in this area

Intellectual property is one of the most characteristic examples of the ability of the authorities to evolve the technological environment. The jurisprudential method, which allows to interpret the law according to its technical, economic, social or ethical context, gives the opportunity for the courts to adapt texts to situations that could not imagine the legislature. The legal history of the last two centuries offers multiple examples of the flexibility of the case law: accidents of work, traffic, commerce, the development of new techniques financial and banking, computing, have first been governed by rules tailored by the courts... Thus, when it decides to intervene, the legislature is in the presence of jurisprudential solutions could resume, correct, or develop. It is, seems to me a field where the right created by the Act and interpreted by j. meet in a relationship of complementarity.

How, therefore, interpret the judgment of the Court on February 28, 2006 says "muholland Drive" on private copying exception

The judgment of February 28, 2006 judge that the exception of such private copying as provided for by the Code of intellectual property and interpreted under the Community directive of 2001 does not prevent the insertion in electronic media devices preventing their reproduction, where, in the State of new technical and economic data, the copy would prevent the normal exploitation of the work. This judgment in the present state of the law, does of course not Parliament to devote a right enforceable against private copying in any circumstance.

Is the use of new technologies compatible with the solemnity of the Court

New technologies are essential to any court. You must have a modern conception of jurisdictional activity. As well as do large foreign jurisdictions, we took the party to integrate technological innovation in our methods of judgment. They allow us to work better and faster, to make a better service to individuals. Justice is not out of the modernization of the State and the efficiency is not contrary to the solemnity.

Before the Board of Outreau, you have defended the separation of headquarters and the Prosecutor's Office. Why is today inevitable

Separation of the seat and the Prosecutor's Office is inevitable for reasons of internal credibility to ensure international confidence in our justice. It is clear that try and Sue are totally different trades, which implement specific techniques. This therefore requires differentiated, formations involving one and the other a particular State of mind: in one case a strong ethical independence, impartiality and neutrality, the balance between defence and prosecution; in the other, a requirement of effective and coordinated action, implementation of a single policy, therefore subordinate to an organization centralized.

These two judicial functions must be in the public to own representations and distinguish between identified actors. For a long time, considered the authority of the public prosecutor was based on their integration into the Court, on their proximity to their privileged links, even on their confusion with the judge. Today, it must be conceded that it is more the result of their professionalism and their ability to coordinate with repressive policies, directing and controlling investigations.

At the international level, from the point of view of impartiality as independence, confusion of trades and the alternation of functions, such as they are practiced in France, are incomprehensible in the anglo-saxon world, which affects the credibility of our justice system.

This functional differentiation would in no way impair the unity of the judicial body: judges and prosecutors may be governed by partially uniform rules in the public service and follow separate careers.