Almost three years after the events, the decision of three Parisian examining magistrates to put an end to their investigations into the fatal explosion in the rue de Trévise, in Paris, plunges the victims and the parties involved in amazement. On the morning of January 12, 2019, a very strong detonation caused by a gas leak had blown this street in the 9th arrondissement of the capital, killing four people, including two firefighters, 66 injured and some 400 victims.
The magistrates of the “collective accidents” pole of the Paris judicial court on December 13 sent a letter to all the parties to inform them that their investigation was closed, according to a document consulted by AFP. This decision causes “a misunderstanding” for Virginie Mallet, disaster victim and general secretary of the Treviso ensemble association. In principle, the prosecution is now required to deliver its final indictment within three months, before a final decision by the investigating magistrates on whether or not to hold a trial.
During the investigation, the Paris town hall and the building’s co-ownership manager were indicted for “involuntary homicides and injuries” and “destruction, degradation or deterioration by the effect of an explosion or a fire”. The judges based their decision on the conclusions of a panel of four experts, mandated to determine the causes of the incident and any faults committed.
In their final report delivered in May 2020, the experts pointed to a “lack of vigilance” of the City of Paris and also implicated the property manager of the building who would have been slow to repair the leak of a wastewater collector which would have had an impact on the subsidence of the ground. The construction company Fayolle, commissioned in November 2016 to carry out work on the sidewalk, is also singled out by experts. However, she was placed under the intermediary status of assisted witness, less incriminating than that of indictment, while GDRF escaped prosecution.
The City of Paris appealed to the Paris Court of Appeal after the judges refused to order a second opinion. The hearing is scheduled for January 26. “It does not seem appropriate to close the investigation without the Court of Appeal having ruled on the request for a second opinion. It is incomprehensible”, considers Me Sabrina Goldman, lawyer for the municipality. “In a case of this magnitude and complexity, this is the minimum we can have: a different opinion, especially since we have shown that the experts” mandated in criminal proceedings “were wrong”, says Me Goldman.