Date/Time
Date(s) - 01/07/2025
13:00 - 15:00
Location
Press Club Brussels Europe
Categories
PRESS CONFERENCE
In the presence of José Sócrates and his counsel
Lawfare and corruption charges in Europe: instrumentalised criminal
justice in violation of the rule of law.
The case of Socrates v. Portugal
For more than a decade, we have been witnessing in Europe – as elsewhere in the world – the emergence of a worrying phenomenon: the growing use of criminal law, and in particular corruption charges, as a political weapon, designed to discredit, marginalise or neutralise politicians or former politicians, often from progressive or left-wing backgrounds. This instrumentalisation of legal proceedings, which is part of a wider logic of lawfare, constitutes a direct threat to the rule of law and the separation of powers.
This press conference marks a significant step in denouncing this phenomenon, as it announces the filing of an application with the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in response to the judicial persecution of José Socrates, the former Prime Minister of Portugal from 2005 to 2011. The purpose of these steps is to document and challenge a national procedure that, under the guise of fighting corruption, has evolved into a political operation, thereby violating the fundamental guarantees of a fair trial.
The case in question concerns a former head of government, associated with a programme of social reform and redistribution. Accused of alleged corruption at the end of his term of office, while his political opponents were coming to power, he has been the subject of a criminal investigation for more than ten years, the contours of which have been constantly redefined, making it difficult for him to mount an effective defence. The exceptionally lengthy investigation has been marked by abusive preventive detentions, orchestrated leaks, and prejudicial statements by magistrates in the press and on social networks, the arbitrary assignment of the case to certain magistrates, and successive re-characterisations of the alleged offences, notably to circumvent the statute of
limitations. This procedure, far from aiming to establish judicial truth, is more driven by a rationale of political stigmatisation and lasting exclusion from public life.
In this case, the accusation of corruption plays a central role. It acts as a powerful social stigma, making it possible both to delegitimise a political figure and to create a climate of public hostility. However, in a context whereproceedings are lengthy and covered by the media, the aim seems to be less to secure an actual conviction than to maintain suspicion, occupy media space and ruin any possibility of political rehabilitation. In this way, criminal law becomes an asymmetrical weapon: even in the absence of a final judgement, the proceedings are used in a media and political momentum to discredit and destroy the individual.
This type of lawfare, which involves accusations of corruption, is all the more worrying because it often relies on institutional complicity. The independenceof the investigating magistrates, the composition of the trial courts, the equalityof arms in the proceedings, but also the political use of the media and thepressure of certain economic interests, all contribute to turning these cases intoi nstruments of political engineering. These abuses are all the more dangerousbecause they are disguised by a veneer of legality, impartiality and morality.
Several international mechanisms, including the European Convention onHuman Rights and the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct, impose clearobligations on States: to guarantee the independence of judges, to protect the rights of the defence, and to ensure that proceedings are reasonable, fair, and free from political bias. When these guarantees are blatantly ignored, as is the case here, it is imperative to take the matter to the international stage.
This application to the European Court of Human Rights seeks recognition of the violations of Article 6 (right to a fair trial) of the Convention.
By drawing the attention of the European courts to this case, the aim is to initiate a broader debate: that of the conditions under which accusations of corruption can be diverted from their legitimate purpose to become instruments of political persecution. This is not to deny the need to fight corruption, but to reject its use as a pretext for targeting and undermining political figures and weakening democratic institutions.
The urgent need to address the emergence of the lawfare issue is closely tied to the question of undermining the rule of law and eroding democratic ideals. The phenomenon presents the paradox of being used by some to criminalise their political opponents and by some political movements to undermine the legitimacy of judicial institutions. This dual threat can only be countered by rigorously anchoring the guarantees of a fair trial – the only bulwark against the transformation of the law into a weapon of political war. This is what the José Socrates v Portugal case is intended to embody
Speakers
M. Christophe Marchand – Lawyer
M. Martin Corten – Lawyer
Dr. Marie-Laurence Hébert-Dolbec – Expert
Light lunch will be served at 12h30
Contact: mlhd@juscogens.be