Nicolas Sarkozy will be determined on his conviction in the wiretapping affair. The Court of Cassation, which delivers its opinion this Wednesday, December 18, can confirm the prison sentence of the former head of state or cancel it.
Will Nicolas Sarkozy be definitively condemned in the wiretapping affair – also called the “Paul Bismuth affair of the assumed name used by the former head of state – or will he have to go through trial again Judged guilty of “corruption” and “influence peddling” by the Court of Appeal in May 2023, the former President of the Republic appealed to the Court of Cassation and it is this Wednesday, December 18 2024 that the Court of Cassation must deliver its opinion.
The body which judges not the merits of the case, but the correct application of the law and procedures has several possibilities: overturn the conviction, overturn it partially and order the holding of a new trial or confirm the conviction pronounced on appeal, namely three years in prison, one year of which is under an electronic bracelet.
If the conviction were to be confirmed, Nicolas Sarkozy would become the first French head of state to receive a prison sentence, even while under an electronic bracelet. But he would not be placed under surveillance as soon as the verdict was pronounced. It should be received within one month by a sentencing judge responsible for specifying the terms of wearing the bracelet and setting the start date of the sentence.
With this cassation appeal, Nicolas Sarkozy has maintained the same line of defense since the start of the trial: he proclaims his innocence and denounces illegal procedures such as the tapping of the telephone line opened under the name of Paul Bismuth and on which he communicated with his lawyer Thierry Herzog regarding a pact concluded with former magistrate Gilbert Azibert. The defense noted twenty points which, according to it, prove procedural flaws in the wiretapping case. For her part, the attorney general recommended the rejection of all arguments and the confirmation of the conviction. It remains to be seen who will win their case almost four years after the start of the trial and more than ten years after the revelation of the affair.
Nicolas Sarkozy tried for another case in 2025
While an end could be put to the wiretapping affair, with or without a conviction, Nicolas Sarkozy is not done with justice. The former head of state will be tried at the start of 2025 for four months in the case of suspicion of Libyan financing of his 2007 presidential campaign. The national financial prosecutor announced, in August 2023, the referral to the Paris criminal court of Nicolas Sarkozy and twelve people for suspicions of Libyan financing of the 2007 presidential campaign of the first city. The former President of the Republic will be tried for passive corruption, criminal association, illegal financing of an electoral campaign and concealment of embezzlement of Libyan public funds.
The investigation into these suspicions of interference was opened in 2013, after the son of former dictator Muammar Gaddafi spoke of financing by the Libyan regime of Nicolas Sarkozy’s presidential campaign in 2007. The businessman Franco-Lebanese Ziad Takieddine also claimed that the Libyan regime had financed Nicolas Sarkozy’s electoral campaign. The Paris prosecutor’s office had opened a judicial investigation against X on charges of, in particular, “corruption” and “influence peddling”.
The wiretapping affair
What is the “tapping” affair?
The “tapping” affair began at the end of 2013. At the time, the courts were investigating suspicions of Libyan financing of Nicolas Sarkozy’s victorious presidential campaign in 2007. The judges then decided to put the former president wiretapped, but realize that he is talking with his lawyer, Me Thierry Herzog, through another line, via a second telephone, with a chip prepaid, opened on the name of Paul Bismuth. This “occult” line was tapped in January 2014.
By analyzing these wiretaps, the magistrates discovered that the two men seemed to be aware of information which was nevertheless covered by the secrecy of the investigation. In total, 19 conversations between the former head of state and his lawyer were recorded by the judges. During their discussions, they repeatedly mention a contact named “Gilbert” who works at the Court of Cassation. This is Me Gilbert Azibert, who was then first advocate general at the Court of Cassation.
At the time, the Court of Cassation had to render an expected decision regarding the seizure of Nicolas Sarkozy’s presidential diaries as part of the Bettencourt affair. The former head of state was then prosecuted for “abuse of weakness” against Liliane Bettencourt. Nicolas Sarkozy ultimately benefits from a dismissal of this case, but maintains his cassation appeal so that the information contained in his presidential diaries cannot reappear in other legal proceedings.
During a conversation between Me Thierry Herzog and Nicolas Sarkozy, the two men discuss a service that the former head of state could provide to Gilbert Azibert. “He told me about something about Monaco,” the lawyer tells the former President of the Republic. This “thing about Monaco” is in fact a position in the Council of State in the principality. Justice therefore suspects Nicolas Sarkozy and Thierry Herzog of having tried to obtain information, or even of having tried to influence the decision of the Court of Cassation on the presidential agendas, through Gilbert Azibert, in exchange for an honorary position for the ex-magistrate.
How did Nicolas Sarkozy defend himself?
Nicolas Sarkozy has always refuted having sealed any “corruption pact” – such the terms used during his conviction at first instance -, simply referring to a “helping hand”. “I spent my life doing this,” he said at the bar. At the start of the appeal trial, the sixty-year-old had affirmed, in an opening statement: “I have never corrupted anyone. It’s a strange corruption, without money, not a cent for anyone, without advantage and no one was harmed.”
At the bar, Nicolas Sarkozy therefore not only contested the charges against him, but above all the fact of having been wiretapped during his conversations with his lawyer. “The PNF indicated that I behaved like a seasoned delinquent. A seasoned delinquent! A seasoned delinquent, ma’am! All this because I had used a dedicated cell phone. Since then, the Aix Court of Appeal has ruled that it was completely legitimate…”, he proclaimed, citing a ruling rendered by the magistrate who had convicted him at first instance in this case.
In March 2021, Nicolas Sarkozy was sentenced to three years in prison, including one year, in the “wiretapping” case for “corruption and influence peddling” by the Paris Criminal Court. He subsequently appealed the decision. At the time, the court considered that a “corruption pact” had been concluded between Nicolas Sarkozy, Me Thierry Herzog and Gilbert Azibert. Christine Mée, president of the 32nd correctional chamber of Paris, then declared that Nicolas Sarkozy had “used his status as former president to gratify a magistrate who served his personal interest” in statements reported by The World.
The conviction was confirmed by the Paris Court of Appeal in May 2023. Immediately, Nicolas Sarkozy announced that he would appeal to the Supreme Court, a decision which had the effect of suspending the execution of the sentence in this case the wearing of a electronic bracelet. The former President of the Republic and his lawyer justify the appeal to the Court of Cassation by the “total absence of evidence” and the inadmissibility of the wiretapping which is nevertheless included among the documents in the file.
In the wiretapping case, other people were convicted. Thierry Herzog was found guilty of “active corruption” and “violation of professional secrecy”, and was sentenced to three years in prison, two of which were suspended, accompanied by a ban on practicing the legal profession for five years. . Gilbert Azibert, for his part, was found guilty of “passive corruption” and “concealment of violation of professional secrecy”, and was also sentenced to three years in prison, two of which were suspended. Both the lawyer and the senior magistrate appealed the conviction.