the use of a helicopter during a demonstration deemed illegal
Illustrative photo. © Tim Douet
The administrative court of Lyon has annulled, in the name of respect for personal data, the decision of the Rhône prefecture to have used a helicopter to monitor demonstrations, even if a new law can now authorize it.
This is at the request of one of the organizers of the demonstration against the law”global security”, on March 20, 2021 in Lyon, which had been the subject of helicopter surveillance, that the court was seized. In his statement in defense produced before the hearing of March 9, the prefect of the Rhône had recognized the use “for law enforcement purposes” of a National Gendarmerie unit on this occasion, but also during other events in previous years. However, it should be noted that the helicopter was “Equipped with an optronic ball type image capture system, allowing “the identification of persons, the transmission of these images and their recording”what “in fact personal data within the meaning of the provisions of the Directive” European Union of April 27, 2016, reports the court to AFP in a decision dated March 30, .
Read also: Helicopters could continue to monitor protests in Lyon
This”processing” Datas”is possible only in case of absolute necessity”recalled the judges, who designate that no “legislative or regulatory basis” born the “foresaw”.They also pointed the finger at the prefecture on the fact that the “ file documents” proves that”contrary to what the administration claims, this data is also recorded and kept for 30 days”. The prefect’s decision was therefore “cancelled” says AFP.
Read also: Lyon: an activist wants to stop the helicopters of the gendarmerie
However, the law of January 24, 2022, known as criminal liability and internal security, does not imply “obviously” than “the administration puts an end to the use of the disputed monitoring device”, observed the court. Thus Me Yannis Lantheaume, the plaintiff’s lawyer, judges with AFP that this decision is “a bit of a Pyrrhic victory because it is valid for the past”. ““continued the suspect’s lawyer, regretting in passing that the prosecution did not ask the prefect to say more about the famous “absolute necessity” that could justify the use of the helicopter.