French ex-president Sarkozy stripped of Legion of Honor medal over corruption scandal
The decision was made via a decree released in the Journal Officiel that publishes the government's major legal information. It comes in line with the rules of the Legion of Honor.
The conservative politician, who was president from 2007 to 2012, has been at the heart of a series of legal cases since leaving office.
He was found guilty of corruption and influence peddling by both a Paris court in 2021 and an appeals court in 2023 for trying to bribe a magistrate in exchange for information about a legal case in which he was implicated.
He was sentenced to wear an electronic monitoring bracelet for one year, a verdict upheld by France's highest court, the Court of Cassation, in December.
Earlier this year, Sarkozy stood trial over allegations he received millions of dollars from Libya for his successful presidential campaign in 2007. He denies the claims. Prosecutors requested a seven-year prison sentence. The verdict is expected in September.
Sarkozy becomes the second former head of state to be stripped of the Legion of Honor — France's highest distinction — after Nazi collaborator Philippe Petain, who was convicted in 1945 for treason and conspiring with the enemy for his actions as leader of Vichy France from 1940-1944.
Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein was stripped of his Legion of Honor award in the wake of widespread sexual misconduct allegations against him in 2017. Disgraced cyclist and former Tour de France star Lance Armstrong also had his French Legion of Honor award revoked.
Sarkozy retired from public life in 2017 though still plays an influential role in French conservative politics.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
28 minutes ago
- New York Times
Tariffs Set to Hit Ireland, Where U.S. Drugmakers Play Tax Games
President Trump's planned 15 percent tariff on medicines from Europe has shined a spotlight on Ireland, which sends the United States tens of billions of dollars' worth of cancer medications, weight-loss drug ingredients and other pharmaceutical products each year. No other country sends more. Manufacturing blockbuster medications there offers tax benefits for American drug companies. But the appeal of Ireland for the industry goes deeper: Drugmakers have long shifted their patents and profits there, as well, to avoid billions of dollars in taxes. Such strategies can be legal but have been repeatedly challenged by tax authorities. For decades, the free flow of medicines across borders 'had the side effect of more or less providing manufacturers free rein to play tax games,' said Brad Setser, an economist at the Council on Foreign Relations. The tariffs on medicines from Europe, which could go into effect within weeks, create a new calculus for drugmakers. If they keep production in Ireland, they face billions of dollars in levies. If they move manufacturing to the United States, they will most likely face a range of increased costs. Drug companies could devise creative ways to limit the damage. They will be better positioned to weather the tariffs if they have 'sophisticated tax skills,' Wall Street analysts at the investment bank Leerink wrote to investors in July. Most executives and other employees of multinational drug companies are in the United States. So are a majority of their laboratories, clinical trial sites and, crucially, sales. But many of these companies register only a tiny share of the profits in the United States, helping them lower their overall tax bill. Forest Laboratories, now owned by AbbVie, shifted profits to Ireland for the antidepressant Lexapro, Gilead Sciences with its hepatitis C treatment Sovaldi and Regeneron with the eye drug Eylea. In the past three years, some of the largest drugmakers booked 91 percent of their profits overseas, on average, up from 76 percent in the mid-2010s, according to an analysis by Martin Sullivan, a tax economist who writes for the trade publication Tax Notes. Technically, drugmakers don't have to put their manufacturing in Ireland in order to shift profits out of the United States. Still. the strategy often involves putting it there. In recent months, as Mr. Trump threatened to impose punishing tariffs on medicines, most of the largest drugmakers announced plans to spend billions of dollars building or expanding U.S. factories. This spring, while under the threat of tariffs, the American drugmaker Merck announced a change for its cancer medication Keytruda — the best-selling drug on the planet — which it produces mainly in Ireland. Next year, the company plans to begin shifting Keytruda production for American patients to the United States. In the meantime, Merck and others have scrambled to transport medicines while they could still flow freely. In the first five months of this year, shipments of pharma products from Ireland to the United States were up nearly fourfold compared with the same period in 2024. Merck said it had shuttled enough Keytruda to the United States to supply American patients for the rest of the year. Irish trade data shows that about $35 billion worth of ingredients used in weight-loss drugs were exported out of Ireland in the first three months of this year. The bulk of those shipments were from Eli Lilly, which manufactures active ingredients for its popular obesity drug Zepbound in Ireland. Unlike India and China, where local companies manufacture low-cost generics, Ireland is where the world's biggest drugmakers produce expensive brand-name medicines. In County Cork, an industry hotbed in southwestern Ireland, Johnson & Johnson manufactures active ingredients for Darzalex, a cancer medication, and Stelara, which treats conditions like arthritis. At a facility a few hours north, in County Mayo, AbbVie formulates Botox. Last year, Ireland sent $50 billion worth of pharma products to the United States, most of which were made and shipped by multinational drug companies. This relationship has provoked the ire of the Trump administration. The president complained in March that Ireland's tax policies 'took our pharmaceutical companies away.' He added, 'This beautiful island of five million people has got the entire U.S. pharmaceutical industry in its grasp.' Howard Lutnick, the commerce secretary, said in an interview the same month that Ireland was running a 'tax scam' that American tech and pharma companies were exploiting. Tax experts and pharmaceutical executives have said that tariffs would be at best a blunt instrument for discouraging corporate activity in Ireland. Changing U.S. tax rules could more directly address the incentives that are motivating drugmakers, they said. Lower tax rates overseas 'drove a lot of the innovative companies to make drugs in low-tax islands like Ireland and Singapore and Switzerland,' said David Ricks, chief executive of Eli Lilly. He called for lower tax rates for companies making products in the United States. It remains to be seen whether tariffs and new U.S. factories will spur drugmakers to book more profits — and pay more taxes — in the United States. Where a company holds its intellectual property is more important for its tax bill than the location of its manufacturing, tax experts said. Nearly all of the largest pharma companies have a manufacturing presence in Ireland, in some cases dating back decades. The Irish government attracted drug companies by rewarding them for building factories and hiring local workers. The companies got not only tax advantages but also a skilled, English-speaking work force and easy access to the European market. Ireland, in turn, gained high-paying jobs, new factories and billions of euros in taxes that helped create an enormous budget surplus. Today, a vast majority of Ireland's corporate tax revenue comes from multinational drug companies and tech giants, which have also used Ireland to shift profits. Many large American drugmakers have complex webs of subsidiaries around the world, including in Ireland. In a typical arrangement, the Irish subsidiary and its parent company enter into a licensing deal: The subsidiary gets to exploit a drug's intellectual property, for instance by funding research. The subsidiary pays the parent company royalties but keeps most of the profits — often billions of dollars a year. This arrangement has allowed pharmaceutical companies to move profits out of Ireland and book them in tax havens like Bermuda or the Cayman Islands, which impose no income taxes at all, and where companies have no actual business activity. Over the past decade, global tax authorities have increasingly cracked down on such tactics. It is not clear how much the practices have abated. Irish officials said their country should not be dismissed as a tax shelter, pointing to the tens of thousands of Irish workers employed by multinational pharma companies. 'If it was a tax scam, then those people wouldn't be working,' said Daniel Mulhall, a former Irish ambassador to the United States. There was some sense of relief in Ireland that the 15 percent tariff was not higher, said Neil McGowan, an organizer for an Irish union that represents thousands of pharmaceutical workers. 'It's not a good situation to be in,' he said. 'But it could have been a lot worse.' In the longer term, he said, 'there are still concerns about what it's going to mean for people working in the industry here.' Drugmakers are expected to keep at least some of their manufacturing in Ireland regardless of the tariffs. But European Union officials, worried about the bloc's No. 1 export to the United States, fear that drugmakers will cut jobs or cancel or scale back planned expansions. For Keytruda, which is given as an intravenous infusion, a Merck factory in the Dublin suburb Swords makes the active ingredients. An hour away in Carlow, another Merck plant handles the next step of formulating the drug, according to the supply chain analytics firm QYOBO. Johanna Herrmann, a spokeswoman for the company, said no job cuts were being planned at Merck's Irish plants, which will continue to make Keytruda for countries other than the United States, along with other drugs. Merck recently broke ground on a factory in Delaware that is expected to begin making Keytruda in 2030. Until then, the company says, U.S. contract manufacturers will handle production for American patients. Plans to shift more of Merck's production to the United States were underway long before talk of tariffs, Ms. Herrmann said. Merck has been reaping tax benefits from producing Keytruda in Ireland. But Keytruda somewhat deviates from the typical industry playbook, in which American companies move their intellectual property overseas so they can shift their profits. Ms. Herrmann said that the patents protecting Keytruda have always been held in the Netherlands, where the drug was discovered in the 2000s before Merck acquired it. As a result, while three-fifths of Keytruda sales have been in the United States, Merck has booked much of the profits in the Netherlands. Susan C. Beachy contributed research.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
The epicenter of stalking in sports? Why tennis stands apart
In April of 1993, Monica Seles and Steffi Graf were dueling for supremacy at the top of women's tennis. Graf had won eight out of the nine Grand Slam tournaments played between 1988 and early 1990, before Seles burst onto the women's tour and won eight of the next twelve. Their titles and their rivalry catapulted them into stardom — and danger. At an event in Hamburg, Günter Parche, a fan fixated on Graf, ran onto the court during a changeover as Seles played Magdalena Maleeva of Bulgaria. He stabbed Seles between the shoulder blades before being restrained. The physical and emotional toll kept Seles away from competitive tennis for over two years, and Seles, who looked predestined to win dozens of major titles, would win just one more in her career. Graf would win 22. That infamous moment stands out in tennis history, but it is also part of a pattern. A couple of years earlier, at the French Open, Graf's father punched James Levee, a wealthy man who had lavished gifts on a teenage Graf and then switched his attention to Seles, also a teenager. In 1990, another fan slit his wrists in front of Graf, while another broke into her home shortly after Seles' stabbing. Martina Hingis, Anna Kournikova and the Williams sisters — all high-profile players or rising phenoms — reported encounters with fixated people around the turn of the century; Grand Slam champions Maria Sharapova, Simona Halep and Caroline Wozniacki did so in the early 2000s. Three decades on from Hamburg in 1993, modern stars of the sport are experiencing more of the same. In February, at the Dubai Tennis Championships, Emma Raducanu broke down in tears mid-match after spotting a man who had given her a letter and asked for a photo the previous day. She'd noticed him at a number of her previous events as well. Six-time Grand Slam champion Iga Świątek was harassed in Miami this year when a man who had made threats online showed up and verbally abused her during practice. On the first day of this year's Wimbledon, Yulia Putintseva said she wouldn't continue her first-round match until a spectator she called 'dangerous' and 'crazy,' and who she feared had a knife, had been removed. Putintseva lost the match 6-0, 6-0. Katie Boulter was followed by someone in a car during a tournament; Danielle Collins had to deal with numerous fixated individuals, one of whom called her friends and family at work. Coco Gauff told reporters at the Madrid Open in April that someone tried to follow her and her dad to their home in Florida when she was 15. Athletes in all sports deal with fixated individuals, but women's tennis has been and continues to be the epicenter of the issue. People involved in the sport and stalking experts say that tennis has particular conditions and characteristics that make its players targets, regardless of the era. 'I think it's to do with the individuality of the sport, and then a combination of precociousness, attractiveness and visibility,' said a former Women's Tennis Association (WTA) executive who spoke on the condition of anonymity to maintain relationships in the sport. 'You put all those things together and women's tennis is a perfect storm for fixated individuals.' Tennis has always inspired a level of devotion to its stars, and no other sport has as many female icons. Whether it's on the ATP (men's) or WTA side, many fans define themselves by being for one player and against their rival. The growth of social media and the expectation that players should be accessible to their fans have only intensified this parasocial relationship. Players' match schedules and practice schedules are posted online and at events, making themselves easy to find in less guarded moments, with fewer people around than would be in a stadium for a match. And even at the biggest venues in the sport, courtside seating lets fans get very close to players, and they walk from place to place largely in public view. Pam Shriver, who was president of the WTA player council at the time Seles was stabbed, recalled the impact the incident had on the wider tennis world. 'What happened with Monica was so tragic and devastating that it forced change. We all became more aware to report any kind of behaviour that seemed obsessive, fanatical or threatening,' she said. 'Look, if you don't feel safe, you can't perform to the best of your ability.' Less than a third (29 percent) of stalking victims reported their situations to police in 2019, according to a study published by the U.S. Department of Justice. For myriad reasons, victims often choose to endure without alerting law enforcement or going public with their ordeal. Tennis players became more accustomed to speaking up in the wake of the Seles incident, and that may be the clearest reason women's tennis continues to be at the forefront of the issue. Its athletes are reporting problems and raising awareness at a higher rate than those in other sports. Raducanu has talked openly about her recent incident and one three years ago, when a 35-year-old man, Amrit Magar, was given a five-year restraining order after he walked 23 miles to her family home. She told reporters that 'in England it's pretty difficult for me to go out and about. Sometimes I've had neck pain from looking at the floor so much with a cap on.' In an interview with The Athletic, Collins said that the measures she took after her experiences with fixated individuals affected fans' perception of her. 'I really wanted my privacy for a long time after that,' she said, explaining that her decision to keep a low profile led some people to perceive her as cold or distant. Australian Open champion Madison Keys said in an interview in April that 'a handful of cases' at home had affected her everyday life, while world No. 1 Aryna Sabalenka described asking for additional security at some events. And though it is largely women who are affected, male stars of the sport experience the impact of tennis' ripe conditions for parasocial relationships. Carlos Alcaraz, one of the most-trailed players in the sport, said in a news conference in June that while he feels safe at tournaments, he has felt uneasy on the streets among fans. 'There are some situations that I felt weird, let's say,' he said. As patterns of fixated behavior have changed, so too have the security measures that players and tournaments take. Those measures, while imperfect, have helped the sport identify and deal with problematic individuals. 'When we think about when my generation played, you had maybe a coach and an agent,' Seles told The Athletic. 'I didn't have six people in my box, so they have that extra layer of, I think, security.' In 2023, the WTA organization appointed Lindsay Brandon as its first dedicated director of safeguarding. The WTA, alongside the International Tennis Federation, the All England Club that operates Wimbledon, and the United States Tennis Association launched Threat Matrix. Developed by Signify Group, an AI firm, and supported by fixated threat specialists Theseus Risk Management and risk mitigation company Quest, the program monitors players' public social media accounts for abusive or threatening content. In its first full-year report released in June, it revealed that 15 cases had to be escalated to law enforcement. But how much dedicated security they can provide varies among events. The four Grand Slams — Wimbledon and the Australian, French and U.S. Opens — partner with the tours and outside firms to manage security, while at smaller events, players might walk around sites with only their coaches for company. In the immediate aftermath of Parche's attack on Seles, tennis became more vigilant about security in a physical sense. Players' chairs were moved farther from stands and guards stood on courts during changeovers. But fans can still get incredibly close to players at events of all sizes — especially in the early rounds of Grand Slam tournaments, when the volume of matches puts some of the biggest stars in the sport on courts more akin to those at a small community club. Czech men's player Jiří Lehečka said he felt unsafe at the French Open during a match in May. Fans in the front row for his second-round match against Spain's Alejandro Davidovich Fokina on Court 13 were so close that they were pinching his towels at the end of the match. 'I think it's unacceptable,' he told reporters in June. 'It's not about the towel, it's about that they have access to our personal things. I don't really think that this should happen.' The French Tennis Federation did not respond when asked about the incident. As Świątek found out, online abuse can also move into the physical world, where the diffusion of resources again takes over. A tournament like Wimbledon can work with national police, terrorism, and security authorities, along with the tennis tours' additional protocols. It has behavioral detection experts on hand to identify potential risks from fixated individuals, 24/7 closed-circuit television and foot and dog patrols. Smaller tournaments, further down the tennis ladder, do not have the resources to employ these kinds of failsafes — and even larger events have seen incidents slip through. The Dubai Tennis Championships, at which Raducanu was targeted, is a WTA 1,000 event, one tier below a Grand Slam. Ryan Trudgeon, a freelance close protection officer in the entertainment and sports world, remembers the job spec for the ATP Tour Finals at the O2 in London. He escorted players from their hotel to the venue, taking transport on a private boat and the London public transport system. 'You'd recce all the sites you're going to well in advance so that you know exactly where you're going,' Trudgeon said. 'It's all about situational awareness. Even if you're in a safe place, there's always a chance someone has bad intentions. If something feels off, it probably is.' The real challenge comes during a live match. 'You can't remove the principal mid-match,' Trudgeon said. 'Elsewhere, you could simply move them or investigate a suspicious person. Whatever the situation, it's a case of always being dynamic.' WTA chief executive Portia Archer said in a phone interview in March: 'Keeping our environment safe is an important priority for us. It's something we take very seriously.' But the sport cannot eliminate the characteristics that attract behaviors that tip from fandom into fixation without eradicating the essential nature that makes it one of the most captivating in the world. 'The knowledge out there is so much more. I mean, what happened to me has never happened before and knock on wood never will happen again,' Seles said. 'It hasn't happened in 30 years, so I hope never will.' This article originally appeared in The Athletic. Culture, Tennis, A1: Must-Read Stories, women's sports, Women's Tennis 2025 The Athletic Media Company
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Sturgeon tells of fresh abuse in ‘toxic' trans rights debate
Nicola Sturgeon has spoken out about the abuse she has suffered in recent days as a result of the 'toxic' debate on trans rights. While the former Scottish first minister said she does not 'spend a lot of time looking at the bowels of social media', she is aware some people online have 'laughed' about her miscarriage, and said they want her to be 'raped in a toilet'. She spoke about the miscarriage she had in 2010 as part of events and interviews in recent days to publicise her memoir, Frankly. She says in the book that she 'should have hit the pause button' on controversial legislation to allow trans people to self-identify and gain legal recognition in their preferred gender without a lengthy medical process. Despite fierce opposition from some women's rights campaigners who feared this would give biological males access to female spaces, the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill was passed by Holyrood – though it has never been enacted after being blocked by Westminster. Speaking at the Edinburgh International Book Festival on Thursday, Ms Sturgeon said the debate was 'toxic on both sides'. Highlighting comments made on social media this week, she said: 'There are people who call themselves feminists, standing up for women's rights, saying things about me such as when I described my miscarriage experience the other day 'I haven't laughed as much in years', accusing me of making it up, people saying they hope I am raped in a toilet.' She accepted that 'in all of the tone and tenor of this I am not saying I was blameless at all', saying she 'desperately' wished she had been able to 'find a more collegiate way forward' on the controversial issue. She described transphobia as 'the soft underbelly of other prejudice'. Ms Sturgeon insisted not all opponents of gender reform are either transphobic or homophobic, but the issue of trans rights 'has been hijacked and weaponised by people that are transphobic and homophobic'. She said she was 'worried' that if she paused the gender reforms at Holyrood, this would have seen her 'give in to that'. However she said: 'I might have been wrong, and I probably was wrong about that.' Ms Sturgeon also made clear her support for transgender rights, saying: 'To my dying day… I will just never accept that there is an irreconcilable tension between women's rights and trans rights. 'I don't believe you have to choose between being a feminist and standing up for one of the most stigmatised minorities in our society. 'Who has threatened women for all the years I have been alive – abusive men have threatened women. 'You get bad people in every group in society but you don't tar the whole group with the bad people, and that I really regret appears to be what some are trying to do with trans people, to take some people and say that is representative of the whole trans community. 'My life might be easier if I just gave in on this issue and said 'yeah, I got it wrong' and we should never try to make life better for the trans community. 'But I will never, to make my own life easier, betray a stigmatized minority, because that is not why I came into politics and it is never what I will do in politics.'
