The previous thread was overloading WordPress due to the number of comments. This thread has been opened to replace it.
Allowed HTML - you can use:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>
Lightbulb moment !
Velo 101:
Maybe they need to look at the man behind Matthieu Constanzo !
http://motopiste.blogspot.fr/2011/02/ma-nouvelle-ducati-1098s.html
“Tu étais pére de famille né en 1967, sportif amateur accompli, en congé parental et travaillant à Ugitech, tu avais décidé de tester un nouvel itinéraire en vélo passant par Doussart et Chevaline dans la Haute Savoie et tu t’es trouvé au mauvais moment au mauvais endroit. Le ou les tireurs ne voulaient pas de témoins, tu pratiquais ta passion et tu ne demandais rien à personne et cela aurait pu et pourrait arriver à n’importe lequel d’entre nous. Je ne te connais pas Sylvain mais je présente à ta famille et à tes proches mes plus sincéres condoléances. J’espére que là-haut tu as des bosses et des cotes à l’infini. Repose en paix. Et merci aux rigolos de ne pas polluer ce post comme sur l’autre où on ose rigoler d’une tragédie.”
M well that piece claims he worked at Ugitech.
It makes you wonder why it was ever thought necessary to cloud/cloak
what work Sylvain did
and for whom he worked
and the reason he no longer worked?
MN, his sort of sister-in-law wrote on FB he was a welder ! (CS brothers partner)
You are missing the point, Le Dauphine Libere printed he worked at Ugitech, they later changed this to CEZUS.
Le Figaro printed ‘d’apres’ ‘according to’ Le Dauphine Libere, so it was a first stab at information that spread, which is typical of the media.
I cannot see why the family between the evening of the 5th September and the morning of the 7th September would have a death notice with such precise information. The most likely is M. Constanzo made up the paragraph from the information he’d read in the local and national Press. But TP writes it was in the Press, is it another error ?
He claims not to have known Mollier and was just posting a sympathy note to a fellow cyclist who had been murdered.
I doubt there is any cloaking or clouding going on, afterall Ugitech, CEZUS and TIMET are all on the same site. And Roger Mollier worked for Ugitech before he retired.
When Mollier died he was still inside the three month paternity leave, started beginning of July apparently, Louis born last week of June. (I’ve tried to understand his rights, when his entitlement to salary from his employer ran out he would have received state benefit of about 500 Euros a month)
Apparently he negotiated a three year absence, legally that negotiation and the original paternity leave requires two months notice to the employer, so this decision is likely to have been made long before the baby was born.
Who first mentioned the extended paternity leave ? Maybe you could try to search for this, I have a very busy day ahead of me, for a change !
@ M., 28 Jan, 2016 – 9:33 pm
That guy is a part-time journalist, Internet newshound and prolific commentator upon all sorts of things. There is nothing in that “obituary” that he could not have gleaned online at the time, and his fellow posters are equally up-to-date on the facts. Thus, I don’t think that this obituary reveals any inside knowledge.
@ M., 29 Jan, 2016 – 10:11 am
The meeedja are not the only ones who have trouble making up their minds where SM actually worked. Look at the comment by Stangeous here:
http://www.parismatch.com/Actu/Societe/Sylvain-Mollier-la-mort-au-tournant-161047
(…) c’est une aciérie produisant de l’acier inox, j’y travaille également (…)
Inox steel would make it Ugitech. Perhaps that assertion is true, perhaps the commentator is talking through his hat, perhaps he was the first sock puppet trying to cover up a hypothetical “embarrassment” at CEZUS …
“He had just become a father for the third time. Sylvain Mollier, 45, crossed by bike death Wednesday afternoon.
Colleagues Sylvain Mollier our reporter met this morning to Cezus company are in shock. Stunned by the incredible tragedy that struck one of their own. Father of three – the last was in June – the unfortunate cyclist was “a man without history” of 45, as was described in Europe 1 Michel Chevallier, Deputy Mayor of Ugine.
Employed since twenty years in the metalworking sector – Cezus the company is a subsidiary of Areva that manufactures zirconium alloys for nuclear power plants – he was on paternity leave when he decided to take the road to Come to ‘Ire, the town of Chevaline.
At the wrong time
Passionate about cycling, he was dismissed in Ugine bike club and used to tackle the climbs of the region, to keep fit and pedal stroke. Surprised not to see the back of his bike ride, his companion warned the authorities, a photo in hand. The police quickly made the connection, and then taught her the terrible news.
Only French victim of the massacre, it does not appear directly linked to three deaths found in the BMW car. It was maybe just on the scene at the wrong time, even if the prosecutor Annecy Eric Maillaud said work on all “possible scenarios”. On the road to the forest car park where the BMW was found, it exceeded the bike which remains the main witness in the case, a former Royal Air Force, cycling enthusiast too. Before crossing the road to his destiny.”
What can the deputy mayor of Ugine, Michel Chevallier mean by
“A man without history” ?
Does Michel only mean
Sylvain did not have a history in crime,
as in no criminal record?
Peter, your idea from many moons ago:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/09/the-al-hilli-conundrum/comment-page-30/#comment-360012
Which may be nearer the truth ….
After looking at the post of Peters (see above post by M.) I scanned through that thread and found this post by Nuid on the first page. It is probably nothing, just machine translation with a misleading use of the word ‘recovered’.
But on the off-chance that it could lead to some kind of pollution type scandal, here it is:-
Did Sylvain Mollier ever take part in the UGITECH Transmontagne? I wouldn’t doubt it. The competition includes cycling and shooting. How apropos.
http://ugitechunion.canalblog.com/archives/2010/07/07/18522832.html
Profoundly annoying music aside, here’s the 2012 competition:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xqjbxc_ugitech-ugine-trans-montagnes-2012_sport
You can find others years’ footage online.
Q and bows and arrows,
maybe there are pictures of Sylvain taking part?
http://youtu.be/08UZrRj6U14
This is the 2011competition, with closeups.
What about the chap shooting at 15.26
could he be Sylvain?
MN and Q, you wish …..
GIP, I haven’t looked it up, maybe it means ‘have they recovered Zirconium’ from the off some dingb
at or another wanted to make this something to do with the ‘nuclear’ angle.
Can’t see any difference today, MN and his incessant drip, drip, drip of details about the FRENCH and proposed nuclear power plants, maybe he chains himself to fences, doubtful he’d need to get his body and brain off the sofa !
MN, sorry for that, I live here, my family is FRENCH, my neighbours
are FRENCH, my friends are FRENCH, my Doctor is FRENCH, the binmen, pompiers, gendarmes are FRENCH, apart from their funny language, they aren’t so different from the BRITISH, each have their customs.
Please excuse my odd posts, new ‘ordinateur’, very sensitive AZERTY keyboard !
If the idea was to ‘cloud’ Molliers job, it would have been the other way, CEZUS to Ugitech, wouldn’t it ?
I do hope others will take a look at the 2011 Ugitech competition video in particular. Does anyone stand out? Bows and arrows, and air rifles. The fellow at 15:26 has a charming smile. Is he anyone we recognize? Don’t let silvery hair fool you. These guys are fit.
Hey, M. Where I come from, it’s not unusual for people to send their English-speaking children to French Immersion school, where they learn all day in French, taught by French-speaking teachers. We think it’s a good thing!
Q, I have watched the video before and again recently, I too wondered, especially with so many Lycra shorts.
Thing is Mollier was described as being dark haired, at 45 he may well have been indulging in a bit of colouring.
http://www.7sur7.be/7s7/fr/1505/Monde/article/detail/1499711/2012/09/12/Le-cycliste-tue-a-Chevaline-victime-oubliee.dhtml
Q, I too speak French, a necessity but as a second language still make mistakes, I’m told it adds to the charm.
The bows and arrows SM is not ours, he’s still alive.
I’ve not seen this before, are you able to read the names :
http://www.trombi.com/Personnes/Ugine/Sylvain-Mollier-P-K8QW4-P
It just proves he did have an internet presence.
Environmental Letter
In Ugine, our mill is classified as a high threshold plant according to the SEVESO directive.
On 12 June 2014, Ugitech in co-operation with the Prefecture of Savoie undertook a major risk assessment exercise in respect of Ugine Mill and the population of Ugine living within a 650 metre radius from the site.
The purpose of this exercise was to assess whether the guidelines distributed via the Information and Accident Prevention Guide by the Prefecture of Savoie at the end of 2013 were both known and understood.
This exercise enabled us to test the Public Emergency Services as well as our own internal containment plans.
The exercise demonstrated that progress is needed since it showed that neither the local population nor the employees of Ugitech are sufficiently aware of the nature of chemical risk related to steelmaking.
A plan of action has been drawn up to enable this progress to be made.
http://www.ugitech.com/cs/company/sustainable-development/
Hmmm, not even the emploees are sufficiently aware of the dangers of chemical spills/contamination.
I still think the best way of finding out who or what is funding the legal niceties
of upsetting the body of Sylvain Mollier, would be to ask the people who are being threatened in court, next month.
Surely it would not be realistic for parties taken to court for the abuse of a dead persons dignity,
to be refused the knowledge of who or what is funding Maitre Caroline Blainvillian ?
http://www.legalis.net/spip.php?page=jurisprudence-decision&id_article=4830
Go to the bottom and see that CB is cited in this case, the only one attributed to her.
I wonder if she is a junior ?
MN, why shouldn’t the families concerned be paying their own legal bills ? They aren’t poor, besides which they have the support of Maillaud, he wants BFMTV punished.
http://lexpansion.lexpress.fr/actualites/1/actualite-economique/chevaline-amendes-requises-contre-bfmtv-et-le-parisien-pour-avoir-publie-des-photos_1656313.html
Have a read.
Jurisprudence: Privacy
High Court Annecy, Criminal Chamber, Correctional judgment of December 4, 2015
Criminal trial
Between:
Mr. ATTORNEY OF THE REPUBLIC near the court,
CIVIL PARTIES:
TEFAL, Messrs A. D., L. P., T. H., G. D.
and Warned
Mr. C.
Chiefs warned:
Violation of the secrecy of correspondence transmitted electronically acts committed after October 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013 Rumilly (74)
Unauthorized access in an automated processing system data facts committed after October 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013 Rumilly (74)
Fraudulent maintenance in an automated processing system committed acts data from October 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013 Rumilly (74)
Warned
J. P. L. wife
Chiefs warned:
Receiving stolen property from a crime punishable by not more than 5 years imprisonment acts committed after October 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013 in Annecy (74)
Violation of professional secrecy acts committed after October 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013 in Annecy (74)
DISCUSSIONS
At the call of the case, the president noted the presence and identity of Mr. C. and J. P. and L. wife gave aware of the act who seized the court.
The President informed the defendants of their right, during the discussions, to make statements, answer questions put to them or shut up.
The President heard the case, asked the defendants present the facts and received their statements.
Then it was proceeded with the hearing without the presence of each other, witnesses under the provisions of Articles 444-457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
C. R., B. P. and T. JP after taking the oath to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth, were heard in their testimony, according to the provisions of Article 454 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
SAS TEFAL, A. D., L. P., T. H., G. D. constituted themselves civil parties via Master and Master Joseph Aguera Blanvillain Carolina at the hearing by filing conclusions.
Master Joseph Aguera, Board of SAS TEFAL, A. D., G. D., L. P., T. H. was heard oral argument.
The Crown was heard in his submissions.
Luce Master Jerome, Mr C. Board was heard oral argument.
Master Geistel Sophie, J. L. P. board wife was heard in oral argument.
Master Henri Leclerc, J. L. P. board wife was heard oral argument.
The defendants had the last word.
The clerk took note of the progress of discussions.
Then at the end of the debate, the President informed the parties present or regularly represented as I pronounce judgment would be December 4, 2015 at 08:30.
At that time, emptying its deliberation according to law, the court, composed of Mrs. Meissirel Anne, Vice President, Maistre Marjolaine, Judge and Mrs. Desgrandchamps, Judge nearby attended Madame Larnac Sylvie, Clerk, and in the presence of Crown read out the decision, taken under Article 485 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The court deliberated and ruled according to the law in these terms:
Mr. C. was quoted by the prosecutor to the hearing on 5 June 2015 by bailiff act served personally April 20, 2015.
At the hearing on 5 June 2015, the case was referred to the adversarial hearing on October 16, 2015.
Mr. C. has appeared at the hearing assisted by counsel; necessary to rule in opposition to him.
He warned:
– Having to Rumilly (74) and on national territory, between October 1, 2013 and December 31, 2013 and from time covered by the prescription, bad faith, intercepted, diverted, use or disclosure of correspondence sent, transmitted or received electronically and the prejudice of SAS TEFAL in the person of its legal representative Mr. PL and gentlemen PL, DA Director of Human Resources of the TEFAL company, HT Human Resources Director of the SEB Group and Mr. G . Human Resources Director Human Resources Director of Groupe SEB for France, made under ART.226-15 AL.2 C.PENAL. and punishable ART.226-15 AL.2, ART.226-31 C.PENAL.
– Having to RUMILLY (74) cl on national territory, between 1 October 2013 and 31 December 2013 and from time covered by the prescription, fraudulently accessed or part of a data automated processing system , made under ART.32.3-1 AL.1 C.PENAL and punishable ART.323-1 AL.1, ART.323-5 C.PENAL.
-to have to RUMILLY (74) and on national territory, between October 1 and December 31, 2013 and since that is not covered by the prescription time fraudulently maintained in all or part of an automated data processing system , made under ART.323-1 AL.1 C.PENAL ,. and punishable ART.323-1 AL.1. ART.323-5 C.PENAL.
***
J. P. L. wife was cited by the prosecutor to the hearing on 5 June 2015 by bailiff’s writ served to study May 11, 2015, return receipt signed May 15, 2015.
At the hearing on 5 June 2015, the case was referred to the adversarial hearing on October 16, 2015.
J. P. L. wife appeared at the hearing of its board assisted; necessary to rule in opposition to him.
She is prevented:
• having to Annecy (74) and on national territory, between October 1, 2013 and December 31, 2013 and from time covered by the prescription, knowingly harbored electronic correspondence (e-mail) and internal data to SAS TEFAL she knew to come from the interception offense, diversion, use or disclosure committed in bad faith correspondence issued transmitted or received electronically, crime committed against the TEFAL SAS, in the person of its legal representative Mr. PL PL and gentlemen, DA Director of Human Resources of the TEFAL company, HT Group Chief Human Resources SEB And Mr. G.Directeur Human Resources for Groupe SEB France made under ART.321-11 C.PENAL. and punishable ART.321-1 Al.3., ART.321-3, ART.321-9 C.PENAL.
• having to ANNECY (74) and on national territory, between 1 October 2013 and 31 December 2013, and from time covered by the prescription, being by their status or profession, in this case official of the Labour inspection, or due to a function or a temporary mission, repository of information secret, revealed it in this case by contacting various professional unions confidential electronic correspondence (e-mails) and internal data to SAS TEFAL she knew to come from the interception offense, diversion, use or disclosure committed bad faith of correspondence sent, transmitted or received electronically, made under ART.226-13 C. CRIMINAL. and punishable ART.226-13, ART.226-31 C.PENAL.
ON PUBLIC ACTION:
It follows from the documents and debates that December 20, 2013, the Board of TEFAL Company filed a complaint against X with the Prosecutor of the Republic of Annecy Tribunal de Grande Instance:
-délit interference with the privacy of electronic correspondence,
– Access trading and fraudulent retention in all or part of an automated data processing system,
– Concealment of secret correspondence and access crime or fraud remaining in all or part of an automated data processing system.
He explained that the TEFAL Company had an automated data processing system hosted by Easy Company in Nanterre and submitted for maintenance and security of the company’s network administrators acting on TEFAL RUMILLY and Ecully.
An IT charter, called the charter of use of information and communication systems of the SEB Group, defined the rules for use and safety as well as maintenance, monitoring and control. It was annexed to the internal rules of the company’s website TEFAL.
Including the charter mandates “not to use or wipe to use user accounts other than his or hide their true identity and not try to read, copy, copy data which the user has no responsibility . ” Was generally prohibited “any use of technical resources and group information that is contrary to applicable laws and regulations and any breach of confidentiality of a message or correspondence which the addressee is individualized especially by reading his interception or yet its unauthorized diversion ”
The result of the complaint: that confidential documents prepared by Mr. A. Human Resources Director TEFAL society and emails sent or received by it had been the subject of publications: December 12, 2013, on the lnternet website of the National Confederation of Labour, December 3, 2013 via a Facebook account and 12 December 2013 as the newspaper humanity.
Subsequently other newspapers published copies of these documents.
An investigation was entrusted to the research section of the gendarmerie Chambery.
Parallel to the ongoing investigation, it was the process in early January 2014, in the TEFAL company, Seizure in the presence of a bailiff, of all the hard drives of the company’s network administrators.
The company entrusted TEFAL expertise of these hard drives to society LEXSI computer expert with the mission to conduct the audit of those workstations with privileged access rights to the corporate mail system and conduct analysis and research of digital traces the disputed documents.
Mr A human resources manager of the company TEFAL suspected that the acts had been committed by one of the network administrators.
Mr. R. IT security manager of ITS development and SEB Group, explained that the Exchange server was kind of physically based in Nanterre. Administrators, unable to connect directly via hardware interfaces such as USB, had a staging server to connect.
He added that research within the company had proven unsuccessful to accurately identify the perpetrator.
The expertise conducted by the LEXSI society highlighted by Mr M. handling some of the documents that had been published.
Mr A human resources manager of the company TEFAL, was heard again. He stated that Mr. M. was network administrator in charge of different computer accounts allowing access to messaging services, and computer systems for professional use of the company. He was well aware of the company’s approximately 800 passwords.
Mr. D., network security expert, confirmed that Mr. M. had the ability to connect to an administrative control channel that allowed him to access the mailboxes of the company.
Mr. M., heard April 10, 2014 by the Research Section of gendarmerie Chambery, explained to have been hired by the TEFAL company in 1994, having integrated IT group to RUMILL Y in 1995 as a micro technician for evolve in 2001 as a system administrator and network infrastructure administrator.
He explained that his role was to particularly develop WIFI ct that had the administrator rights that he sometimes create user accounts.
He claimed to hold the rights to access all file servers but not for mailboxes.
Mr. M. explained that he was in conflict with his company for the payment of overtime having unsuccessfully tried to obtain payment and an appointment with Mr. A.
He claimed to have found 16 October 2013 in a printer used by HR departments a document in which it appeared that the TEFAL group intended to dismiss it by using unfair means.
He had decided, after a fortnight, check the file servers RUM17NT looking documents that could have been the concern, because these file servers housed all the data shared documents within the TEFAL company.
He had gone to the HR directory and had discovered a document entitled “social sensors” which included the name of the labor inspector and his supervisor as well as elements relating to it.
Mr M said it had decided to make a copy screen manipulations copy and paste on your PC, and then you clear the document after copying it on the SD card of his mobile phone.
He added that the same day, during his research, he also discovered a computer document “msg”qu’il had also copied, saying” I knew I should not have. ”
Mr M. claimed to have kept these documents several weeks, and after having consulted the website of the Labour Inspectorate to find the contact details of the inspector concerned. He had sent her a message on her professional mailbox indicating that he had ” found documents that suggested that management of the company TEFAL putting pressure on it, through his superior. I told him that I had in my possession the screenshots of these documents and I could forward it to it on a mailbox other than his professional box ”. The latter responding by communicating his home address, he sent him the documents on this mailbox after having created itself an inbox for that sole purpose.
Mr M said it had refused to disclose its identity adding that the inspector had told him to possibly protect him.
He had learned in late 2013 that an article by various colleague of humanity was as documents he had provided.
Mr M. stated that he had not imagined that the inspector was broadcast to the press while adding that if it again he would not have copied these documents.
Mrs J. P. wife was heard June 24, 2014 by the Research Section of gendarmerie CHAMBERY. It indicated arriving in ANNECY as a labor inspector in January 2012 on a defined territorial area in which was including TEFAL company.
She claimed to have encountered difficulties with his superiors in the person of its director Mr. D.
She explained that following discussions with the latter in particular that of 18 April 2013, she had been particularly affected. It considered a victim of its share of moral harassment intended to change his relational mode with TEFAL company. Mr. D. accusing her too rigid especially with regard to the company predicted TEFAL him difficulties in his career.
During his work stoppage, she had received a phone call from his secretary indicating the reception on his business inbox, an email >> << weird about her. The latter had transferred him to his personal inbox.
Mrs J. claimed to have destroyed this mail in which the author stated that "he had documentary evidence, like what he could prove to me that TEFAL had an involvement in my personal situation."
She had contacted the author view to his achieving the documents.
It stated that it was an Excel file and to mail a screenshot of and had received other mails including documents exchanged between its director and Mr A and a email exchanged between Mr A and Mrs R.'s head of human resources at TEFAL RUMILLY.
Mrs J. explained have directly appealed to the National Council of Labour Inspection early December 2013 in a letter with acknowledgment of receipt to affect its independence, and have filed all documents received.
She also made a copy and sent copies of these documents to the trade unions of the department: the CNT, the UNS, CGT, FO, CFDT, SUD and INSA.
At his hearing June 24, 2014, she said, regarding the dissemination of such material on websites and in the press, it was a problem that had TEFAL and had just made his work.
On the allegations against Mr M.:
Mr. R. responsible for IT security TEFAL the company made to audit individuals who were recipients of the mails copied and published and it turned out that the only person involved in all the mails was Mr A.
On the introduction and fraudulent retention in the computer system of the company TEFAL:
Mr. D. network security expert and the TEFAL company explained that Mr M., in its capacity as network administrator (admin infrastructure on a perimeter France) had the ability to connect to the admin control box, n 'with more then just pick the box that he wanted to assign rights.
This allowed him to access and to any box as a director, including that of Mr A.
With the infrastructure of the time of the TEFAL company, no logging allowed to obtain information about your rights changes on the boxes. Beyond eight days, it was impossible to know who had given the rights.
Mr. M. admitted having entered into the automated data processing system TEFAL company looking for items.
He has consulted RUM17NT file servers unrelated to its function, it is held in a purpose other than that to run its usual development work WIFI.
The copied documents are therefore not the result of a discovery by chance.
The introduction and fraudulent retention in an automated data processing system characterized appear, and it can not be considered in good faith.
Breach of secrecy of correspondence:
Mr. M. had the opportunity to assign rights to access the mailbox of Mr. A. Some of the documents published are copies of mails sent or received by Mr A. Mr M. to do on any other capacity.
If he claims not to have been introduced into the mailbox of Mr. A., he admits to have made screenshots of emails after it introduced into the human resources directory. He acknowledges having recorded on the SD card from the phone and be transmitted, knowingly, to Ms J. P. wife
This was done in violation of the charter of use of information and communication systems annex to the Rules of TEFAL company. Mr M. contacted Mrs J. P. wife on his professional box, sent him the documents on a personal box, created a special box for this shipment he later removed. He asked to remain anonymous, thus having very conscious of acting in breach of the law and fraud in the IT charter of SEB and TEFAL rules of society.
The interception, use and misuse of electronic correspondence in bad faith appear characterized.
As whistleblower status:
Article L1132-3-3 Labour Code provides that no person may be excluded from recruitment procedure or access to an internship or job training period, no employee may be sanctioned , dismissed or be subject to discrimination, direct or indirect, including in remuneration within the meaning of Article L. 3221-3, incentive measures or distribution, training, reclassification, assignment, qualification, classification, promotion, transfer or contract renewal for having reported or testified in good faith, the facts of a crime or a crime which he would knowledge in the exercise of his functions.
In case of dispute on the application of the first paragraph, provided that the person presents facts from which it may be presumed that it has reported or testified in good faith to the facts of a crime or a crime, it is for the defendant, on the evidence, to prove that its decision is justified by objective elements in the declaration or the person's testimony. The judge forms his conviction after ordering, when necessary, all investigative measures it considers necessary.
This text concerning the labor law was created by the Act of 6 December 2013 or after the facts.
Mr. M. could, after December 2013, shaken from reading the document confirming the intention of the Company to terminate the TEFAL later use this document, he said he found by chance in the photocopier, as part a prudhommale procedure.
As documents obtained by it after its intrusion into the automated processing system of the TEFAL company, he has no knowledge in the exercise of his functions, they do not personally concerned and the were not necessary for the performance of his defense in a prudhommal frame.
The charges against Mr. M. are established.
Whereas Mr. C. has not been convicted during the five years preceding the facts for a criminal offense of common law to the penalties provided by Articles 132-30, 132-31 and 132-33 of the Criminal Code; it can therefore benefit from the ordinary suspension as provided by Articles 132-29 to 132-34 of the Code;
It will therefore be sentenced to a fine of € 3,500 matching suspended,
On the allegations against Mrs J. P. wife:
On receiving electronic correspondence and internal data to the company from the crime Tefal interception diversion use or disclosure of bad faith correspondence transmitted transmitted received electronically;
Mrs J. P. wife was contacted on his professional mailbox by Mr. M. anonymously while she was on sick leave.
His secretary, arrested by the character "bizarre" the email telephonically contacted her and transferred her this mail on his personal box.
She claims that the emails were sent to him on his personal mailbox entitled [email protected]. Mr. M. remembering him in a mailbox ending alice.fr.
In any event none of these mail exchanges appear to have been preserved by the protagonists who preferred to delete them.
Mrs J. P. confirms wife have been receiving copies of emails from the inbox of Mr. A.
She could not be ignored, both by the content of the mails, by the identity of the recipients, they were obtained without the consent of holders of mailboxes; Obviously this knowledge is reinforced by the organization of their anonymous mailing.
Knowing the dubious provenance of the documents and the fact that she had used enough to characterize the mental element of the offense of receiving stolen goods.
The electronic correspondence diversion concealment offense appears accordingly constituted.
On the facts of violation of professional secrecy:
Article 226-13 of the Penal Code provides that the revelation of secret information by a person who is depositary or by status or profession, or because of a function or a temporary mission, is punished one year imprisonment and 15,000 euros fine.
Mrs J. P. bride labor inspector, like any officer, required to respect the provisions of Article 26 of the Law of 13 July 1983 which recalls the obligation to respect professional confidentiality.
It follows the ethical rules applicable to the profession of labor inspector for the labor inspectorate professional confidentiality is to the benefit of the people to guarantee the security of collected confidences and protect secret information which it has access ".
Mrs J. P. wife felt on reading the documents that had been disclosed to him personally, on condition of anonymity, they attested to the pressures of society TEFAL against him, they were elements 'necessary information in the conflict that opposed to his superior and had to be brought to the attention of the CNT it had decided to enter.
She said in her hearing that she had recorded in minutes holding that criminal offenses were characterized. Yet she had not, June 24, 2014 during the hearing, more than six months after receipt of the documents before the prosecutor of the offenses it claims constituted; when she was sent, in December 2013, seven trade unions of all these documents.
It has, in addition, falsely claimed in his hearing before the gendarmerie that this broadcast was made under a section of the labor code.
This diffusion of trade unions has made the publication in the press and on the internet these internal documents to the TEFAL society, dissemination leading to the identification of Mr. M and his dismissal of the TEFAL company.
This broad distribution, which is not limited to the mere distribution has the potential union organization to defend its own interests, can not amount to the exercise of rights of defense already fully implemented by referral to the CNT , which includes representatives of trade unions. It demonstrates a deliberate choice to disclose secrets and internal documents of a company with a willingness to wide distribution that exceeds the individual level.
Mrs J. P. wife can not therefore claim any proof that from the exercise of the rights of defense.
The breach of professional secrecy facts appear characterized.
As to the status of whistleblower:
Article L 1132-3-3 of the Labour Code was created by the Act of December 6, 2013 after the facts.
The documents available to the trade unions by Mrs J. P. wife have not been obtained in the context of the exercise of his functions, they have not been used in the strict exercise of his defense and it is not established that they constitute a crime or misdemeanor.
Consequently, the violation of professional secrecy offense appears constituted.
The accused failed to Mrs. J. P. wife are established.
Whereas J. P. L. wife has not been convicted during the five years preceding the facts to common crime or offense to the penalties provided for in Articles 132-30, 132-31 and 132-33 of the Criminal Code; it can therefore benefit from the ordinary suspension as provided by Articles 132-29 to 132-34 of the Code;
It will therefore be sentenced to a fine of € 3,500 matching suspended.
ON CIVIL ACTION:
The constitutions of the civil party TEFAL Company, Messrs L., A., T. and G. appear admissible and well founded.
They should be granted their request for damages.
SAS TEFAL, gentlemen L., A., T. and G. civil parties, each seeking the sum of one euro (1 euro) for the damage they have suffered;
Mrs J. P. and Mr M. wife must be declared fully responsible for damages arising ct severally condemned to pay the TEFAL Company to Messrs L., A., T. G. and the sum of € 1 in damages and as reparation for their losses.
The TEFAL SAS, Messrs L., A., and T. G., civil parties, seeking the sum of four thousand euros (4000 euros) under article 475-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Mrs J. P. and Mr M. wife will be sentenced to jointly pay the TEFAL Company, Messrs L., A., T. and G. € 2,500 pursuant to section 475-1 of the Criminal Procedure Code .
DECISION
The court, acting publicly and contradictorily at first instance with regard to Mr C., J. L. wife P., TEFAL SAS, A. D., L. P., T. H. and G. D.
ON PUBLIC ACTION:
Says C. are guilty as charged.
For facts BREACH OF THE SECRECY OF CORRESPONDENCE ISSUED BY ELECTRONIC committed from October 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013 to RUMILLY (74)
For the facts of FRAUDULENT SIGN IN AUTOMATIC DATA PROCESSING SYSTEM committed from October 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013 to RUMILLY (74)
In fact HOLD IN A FRAUDULENT AUTOMATTSE DATA PROCESSING SYSTEM committed from October 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013 to RUMILLY (74)
M. C. condemns the payment of a fine of three thousand five hundred euros (3500 euros);
Having regard to Article 132-31 al. I of the Criminal Code:
That’s quite a good read M
http://www.24heures.ch/vaud-regions/benoit-violier-44-ans-serait-donne-mort/story/10458706
https://youtu.be/NKiVe49AgSE
So who or what would have an interest, in clouding, who or what Sylvain Mollier
worked for or where he worked.
Would it be the same people who are funding Caroline Blanvillian?