Electronic tag removed from France's Nicolas Sarkozy: prosecutor
Former French President Nicolas Sarkozy (File Photo)
Synopsis Nicolas Sarkozy, the former French president, no longer has to wear an electronic tag. He was convicted of graft and ordered to wear the tag. Sarkozy served just over three months of his one-year sentence. He was granted early parole. However, he must report any travel abroad. He also needs to comply with summonses. French authorities have removed the electronic tag that former president Nicolas Sarkozy was ordered to wear following his conviction for graft, Paris prosecutors said Thursday.
ADVERTISEMENT Sarkozy was fitted with the tag in February instead of going to jail to serve a one-year sentence for corruption, a first for a former French head of state.
But given his age, the 70-year-old could apply for early parole, which was granted Wednesday after serving just over three months, the prosecutor's office told AFP.
France's highest appeals court in December 2024 ordered Sarkozy to wear the tag for a year after finding him guilty of illegal attempts to secure favours from a judge.
Nicolas Sarkozy, who has been beset by legal problems since leaving office in 2012 following a bruising presidential election defeat, has said he is innocent and is taking the case to the European Court of Human Rights. The tag's removal comes with conditions, the prosecutor's office said, including the obligation to report any travel abroad, comply with summonses and receive visits from probation officers.
ADVERTISEMENT "I can confirm that Nicolas Sarkozy was granted conditional release on May 14," his lawyer Jacqueline Laffont-Haik told AFP.
A French court will rule in September in a trial on separate charges that Sarkozy accepted illegal campaign financing from the late Libyan dictator Moamer Kadhafi.
ADVERTISEMENT
(You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel)
(Catch all the US News, UK News, Canada News, International Breaking News Events, and Latest News Updates on The Economic Times.)
Download The Economic Times News App to get Daily International News Updates.
NEXT STORY
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
40 minutes ago
- First Post
France promotes Jewish officer 130 years after he was wrongly convicted of treason
In 1894, Captain Alfred Dreyfus, a Jewish officer in the French army, was wrongly convicted of spying for Germany. The case became a major scandal in 1898 when writer Emile Zola published an article exposing the unfair trial read more Reinstated in the army, Alfred Dreyfus was decorated with the Legion of Honour at the École Militaire on 21 July 1906. Here he is speaking with General Gillain and Commander Targe after the ceremony. Source: Wikimedia CommonsReinstated in the army, Alfred Dreyfus was decorated with the Legion of Honour at the École Militaire on 21 July 1906. Here he is speaking with General Gillain and Commander Targe after the ceremony. Source: Wikimedia Commons The French National Assembly earlier this week voted to promote Jewish Captain Alfred Dreyfus to the rank of general posthumously, who fell victim to an antisemitic conspiracy over 130 years ago. The conspiracy, known as the Dreyfus Affair, flew around as tensions between France and Germany escalated ahead of the First World War. The bill to honour Dreyfus was proposed by former Macronist Prime Minister Gabriel Attal, currently leader of the presidential party's MPs. The lawmakers on June 2 unanimously voted to promote Dreyfus to the rank of brigadier general. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD What was the conspiracy against Alfred Dreyfus? In 1894, Captain Alfred Dreyfus, a Jewish officer in the French army, was wrongly convicted of spying for Germany. The accusations were false, meant to protect the real culprits. At first, the case didn't get much attention, but it became a major scandal in 1898 when writer Emile Zola published an article exposing the unfair trial. France split into two groups: the 'Dreyfusards,' who believed Dreyfus was innocent and fought for justice, and the 'anti-Dreyfusards,' who thought he was guilty and supported the army and national pride. This division caused lasting political tensions in France, still felt today between the political Right and Left. Dreyfus was sent to a harsh prison in Cayenne but was pardoned in 1899. He was cleared of charges in 1906, though he couldn't fully restart his army career. He left the army in 1907 but served again in World War I. In 2006, President Jacques Chirac honoured Dreyfus, admitting that justice wasn't fully served since his career wasn't restored. Today, almost everyone agrees Dreyfus was innocent. A law was passed to recognise this, though some questioned why it was needed so long after the events. Some lawmakers have however expressed concerns that the Dreyfus case was being 'exploited' by some parties for political benefits. The centrist MPs of the MoDem party said the case was being revived so that the Rassemblement National (RN) on the Right and La France Insoumise (LFI) on the Left, can 'buy themselves a licence to be respectable.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Indian Express
2 hours ago
- Indian Express
‘If I get assurance of fair trial, dignified existence…': Vijay Mallya on return to India, being called ‘fugitive'
Fugitive liquor baron Vijay Mallya, who has been living in the United Kingdom since March 2016, said he would 'seriously consider' returning to India if he is assured of a fair trial and a dignified existence in his home country. In a four-hour-long video podcast aired on Thursday, host Raj Shamani told Mallya that he is tagged as a 'fugitive' and 'fraud' because he chose not to come back to India. To this, Mallya said: 'Call me a fugitive for not going to India post-March (2016). I didn't run away, I flew out of India on a prescheduled visit. Fair enough, I did not return for reasons that I consider are valid, so if you want to call me a fugitive, go ahead, but where is the 'chor' coming from… where is the 'chori'?' Mallya, who left India on March 2, 2016, is wanted in India as an accused in a bank loan default case of over Rs 9,000 crore involving his now-defunct Kingfisher Airlines. His companies including United Breweries (Holdings) Ltd are under the scanner of the Enforcement Directorate (ED), Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) and the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) on charges of cheating, criminal conspiracy, money laundering and diversion of loan funds lent by to a consortium of Indian banks led by the State Bank of India (SBI). In April last year, the Indian government is learnt to have asked French authorities to approve his extradition 'without preconditions'. This was in line with New Delhi pursuing Mallya's extradition with countries where he has property and with whom the nation has an extradition treaty. In 2020, Mallya lost his application to appeal against extradition proceedings in the UK Supreme Court. On the crisis, the founder and former owner of the airlines spoke about feeling the impact of how it unfolded as someone who is not used to business failure. 'I faced the crisis of the Kingfisher Airlines, I've felt it more than anyone else. I gave it my all, but kept myself together because I was a leader. If I had crumbled, the airlines would have crumbled sooner than it did,' he said. Calling the airlines a 'wonderful product', he added: 'I was not used to business failure. I built my core business in alcohol into something I could be greatly proud of. I failed with Kingfisher. It was a wonderful product, probably the most awarded airline ever… Circumstances at the time, government policies didn't help, and mounting losses led to its downfall. The final straw was not letting Etihad Airways not invest in Kingfisher.' Mallya is currently defending multiple legal issues in the courts of law, both in the UK and India. On having to face the worse if 'it is destined' for him, the 69-year-old said going to jail 'might be' inevitable. 'It is very clear what the Indian government wants, what the Indian media anchors want. Jail clothes, jail food in Tihar or Arthur Road or God knows where in India,' he added. Further, the businessman also claimed that he made four settlement offers between 2012, following the collapse of the Kingfisher Airlines, and 2015, which the banks 'refused to accept'. Responding to a question losing the case in the UK court to Indian authorities, he said that his stay in England is fully legitimate. On his extradition proceedings, Mallya said: 'But, you should also be aware that there are other people who the government of India is targeting for extradition from the UK back to India in whose case, they have got a judgment from the high court of appeal that Indian detention conditions are violative of article 3 of the ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights) and therefore they can't be sent back.' When asked if it is still important for him to win the case, he justified: 'Yes, because I want to win on merit. What have I done wrong? I have done nothing wrong. I'm not a criminal… They just lock you up and throw away the key, that's not justice.' The liquor baron added that it is unfortunate that a businessman who fails is equated to a fraudster in India. 'The CBI and the ED are well known to concoct, fabricate and present false evidence. That's fine, but they have to prove it. The norm is you are innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around. If they want to convict me for bad intention, I'll fight it. Win or lose, I'll fight it,' he added.
Mint
3 hours ago
- Mint
Harvard-Trump battle takes new turn as court halts US president's ban on foreign students
Harvard vs Trump: US President Donald Trump's latest clampdown to restrict foreign student enrolment at Harvard received a fresh blow after a court imposed a temporary stay on Thursday. The court halted Donald Trump's efforts to bar new international students from attending one of the world's most prestigious universities. This comes a day after the White House issued a proclamation seeking to restrict new international students at Harvard from entering the country. US District Judge Allison Burroughs on June 5 ordered that the government cannot enforce Trump's proclamation, AFP reported. "Harvard's conduct has rendered it an unsuitable destination for foreign students and researchers," the proclamation stated. After the White House's latest move, Harvard University filed an urgent legal challenge against the sweeping proclamation and amended its existing complaint filed in federal court. 'This is not the Administration's first attempt to sever Harvard from its international students,' the University said. Asserting that the proclamation undermines both the university's mission and students' rights, Harvard labelled the move "illegal" and urged a federal judge to promptly block the proclamation. "The Proclamation denies thousands of Harvard's students the right to come to this country to pursue their education and follow their dreams," the Ivy League school said in its court filing. It added, 'And it denies Harvard the right to teach them. Without its international students, Harvard is not Harvard.' It further noted that the University is rightfully exercising its First Amendment rights by refuting the government's intervention in Harvard's functioning. "(It) is part of a concerted and escalating campaign of retaliation by the government in clear retribution for Harvard's exercising its First Amendment rights to reject the government's demands to control Harvard's governance, curriculum, and the 'ideology' of its faculty and students," the statement said.
