“Sweeping the case under the carpet”: associations denounce an agreement between Nestlé and the courts
An agreement that does not pass. Several associations denounced on Monday the conclusion of a Judicial Convention of Public Interest (CJIP) between the Epinal public prosecutor’s office and Nestle Watersa transactional device which would put an end to two criminal proceedings opened against the agri-food giant.
According to the Eau88 collective and the Vosges Nature Environnement (VNE) association, the CIJP is investigating two preliminary investigations targeting the multinational, one concerning potential illegal drilling in the water table, the other on prohibited treatments that Nestlé has acknowledged having implemented for its mineral waters.
A CIJP, proposed by the public prosecutor to an incriminated legal entity, allows the payment of a fine and/or the implementation of a compliance program, as well as compensation for the damage, to be imposed. But it has “neither the nature nor the effects of a judgment of conviction”, and “does not entail a declaration of guilt”, specifies the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Asked about the content of this agreement, the Epinal public prosecutor’s office did not immediately respond. The CIJP must be validated by the president of the court at the end of a hearing scheduled for Tuesday.
“A justice system that functions poorly”
The associations VNE, Foodwatch and Eau88, authors of complaints against Nestlé, were invited to quantify their losses but denounce the solution chosen. This agreement “would be equivalent to sweeping the case under the carpet and allowing Nestlé Waters managers to get away with it without any explanation or consequence other than the payment of a sum of money”, indicates Foodwatch in a statement, calling for the approval to be rejected.
“The provision is a bit wicked, it allows people who have money to escape a judgment and a criminal record,” laments Bernard Schmitt, from the Eau88 collective, who had filed a complaint in 2020 about potential illegal feeding. But in the absence of an agreement, “since Nestlé has lawyers and a lot of resources, and the justice system has few resources, we will find ourselves five to ten years later with crimes that everyone will have forgotten and a ridiculous sanction… So what do we do?” he wonders.
“This is indicative of a justice system that is not functioning properly. If justice had the means to function, we should have a proper trial,” believes Jean-François Fleck of VNE. The association nevertheless responded to the request for an estimate of its damages. “We could refuse to register in this procedure, but then it would be done without us, there would be even fewer consequences for Nestlé,” he explained.
