The French Court of Appeal has formalised a new sentencing doctrine under which any criminal conviction may be adjusted, in severity, duration, or practical application, if the defendant can demonstrate that they had plans.
The doctrine, titled culpabilité avec agenda, was quietly added to the Court's procedural framework this week and is described in the accompanying guidance as “a proportionate mechanism to balance the demands of justice with the realities of civic scheduling.”
It is, in principle, available to all French citizens. In practice, the eligibility criteria are as follows:
The applicant must demonstrate “significant future civic engagement,” defined as holding or actively seeking elected office at the national level or above. Municipal candidates, trade union representatives, and community organisers do not qualify, as their engagement is classified as “locally significant but procedurally insufficient.”
The applicant must post a compliance bond of €100,000, non-refundable, described in the guidance as “a modest expression of continued commitment to public life.” Legal aid does not cover the bond. The guidance notes this is “not a barrier but a filter.”
The applicant must provide proof of a “stable residential situation,” defined as ownership of property valued at or above €1.2 million. Rental accommodation, social housing, and “any arrangement involving a bail,” do not meet the threshold. A footnote clarifies that the property must be located in mainland France and “preferably in a département with a median income above the national average.”
The applicant must demonstrate “sustained public visibility,” evidenced by a minimum of forty national media appearances in the preceding twelve months. Local press, podcasts, and social media do not count. An appendix lists acceptable outlets. There are nine. Seven are television.
The application must be filed in person at Room 4.12 of the Palais de Justice, Paris, between 10:00 and 11:30 on the second Tuesday of each month. There is no online form. The room is on the fourth floor. The lift has been broken since 2019.
Early data suggests the doctrine is performing as designed. In its first 72 hours, the Court received fourteen applications. Thirteen were rejected.
A 34-year-old man in Lyon convicted of benefit fraud attempted to invoke the doctrine, citing a job interview scheduled for the following week. Denied. The guidance clarifies that employment does not constitute “civic engagement at the national level” and that a job interview is “a plan, but not a Plan.”
A woman in Marseille convicted of tax evasion submitted a parliamentary campaign filing as evidence of political ambition. Denied. Her declared campaign budget of €12,400 fell below the compliance bond threshold, creating what the Court described as “a recursive ineligibility.”
A 22-year-old in Seine-Saint-Denis convicted of possession, sentenced to eighteen months, applied citing his involvement in a local youth civic programme. Denied. The programme was classified as “community-level engagement.” His lawyer asked what level of engagement would qualify. The Court replied: “The kind that appears on TF1.”
The sole successful applicant has not been named. The Court confirmed only that the individual met all criteria, had posted the bond, owned qualifying property, and had “plans of considerable national significance.” The adjusted sentence includes a reduced period of ineligibility and a monitoring arrangement that will be suspended pending further appeal, which the applicant intends to file immediately, rendering the sentence technically active and practically theoretical.
Legal scholars have described the doctrine as “innovative.” Civil liberties organisations have described it as “a velvet rope.” A constitutional law professor at Sciences Po, asked whether the criteria were designed to exclude the majority of the French population, replied: “They are designed to include the people they are designed to include. I would say that is the same thing, but I have tenure, so I will say it more carefully: the doctrine exhibits a structural specificity that correlates with socioeconomic indicators in a manner that may warrant further study.”
The Ministry of Justice has confirmed that the doctrine will be reviewed after twelve months. The review will be conducted by a panel whose members must meet the same eligibility criteria.