Question 16359 — archives and libraries

Summary

Mr. Marc Pena alerts the Minister of Culture to the processing and conditions of access to sensitive archives relating to criminal offenses and their consequences for the people concerned. Judicial documents, whether judicial police investigations or cases brought before the courts, can be communicated at the expiration of a period of 75 years from the date of the document (heritage code, article L. 213-2, I, 4°). This period is extended to 100 years in two cases. On the one hand when the documents relate to a minor, whatever the nature of the case. On the other hand, when their communication infringes on the privacy of people's sexual lives, whether they are minors or adults (article L. 213-2, I, 5°). At the end of their administrative useful life and after a sorting operation, part of these archives is paid to the departmental archives, which report to the departmental council while being subject to the scientific and technical control of the State, exercised by the Ministry of Culture via the interministerial service of archives of France. It is within this framework that requests for early access by derogation are processed, the authorization being issued by the archives administration, after agreement from the authority from which the documents emanate. (article L. 213-3 of the heritage code). This framework, supposed to protect privacy, becomes problematic when it is mechanically applied to requests emanating from the victims themselves or their beneficiaries. The information note DGPA/SIAF/2021/007 entrusted the directors of departmental archives services with a central role in the examination and decision on these requests. This results in an asymmetry that is difficult to understand: access can be refused to a victim for reasons of conservation or delays of up to 100 years, while exemptions can be granted to third parties, researchers or journalists, without the victims being either informed or consulted. In the absence of a contradictory procedure and taking into account the advisory nature of the opinions of the Commission for Access to Administrative Documents, this system may appear little readable for citizens, even unfair. It is urgent to rethink the relationship between the duty to remember, protection of private life and the rights of victims. A written question with the same subject is also addressed to the Keeper of the Seals, competent as the authority producing criminal archives and in respect of the rights of victims, the present question relating to the responsibilities of the Ministry of Culture. Also, he asks her if the Government intends to initiate a reflection on the evolution of the legislative framework relating to the communicability of criminal archives, in particular in order to examine, in conjunction with the Keeper of the Seals, the advisability of changing the heritage code to associate a qualified judicial authority with access decisions relating to archives resulting from criminal proceedings; to ensure that victims are systematically notified and consulted before any decision to open their files to third parties and to clarify the relationship between, on the one hand, the scientific and technical control exercised by the State over communicability and exemptions and, on the other hand, the management of funds ensured by the departmental councils, so that the ethical responsibility for these decisions does not rest solely on the directors of departmental archives.

Machine translation from French. The official text remains authoritative.

Timeline

No timeline events have been ingested for this record yet.

Votes

No vote records are attached yet.

Versions

No version snapshots stored. Document URLs remain at the source.

Documents

No documents linked.

Sponsors

No sponsors or actors listed by the source.

Related records

No cross-record relationships stored yet.