Olivier Jornot's Many Hats - & Court Orders Not Enforced?

A May 2022 letter by Olivier Jornot, Geneva’s Attorney General regarding access to judicial records related to cases against the International School of Geneva (Ecolint) seems to deserve scrutiny. This letter, which denies access to crucial legal documents, raises serious concerns about judicial transparency, procedural fairness, and the lack of enforcement of court orders since at least 2019.

In response to a request for access to legal records concerning past and ongoing proceedings related to Ecolint, Jornot denied access based on multiple legal provisions. His main arguments, if translated correctly, are as follows:

1. Restriction on Access to Archived Court Documents

Jornot cites Article 14 of the RADPJ (Regulations on Judicial Transparency), stating:

“Access to judicial documents from archived cases less than five years old is authorized only under specific legal conditions, as applied by procedural law.”

For older cases, he refers to the Swiss Federal Law on Archives (LArch):

“For archived cases older than five years, the law establishes a general protection period of 25 years before access is granted.” “If the case concerns a deceased person, records can be accessed 10 years after their death.”

While these laws set standard protection periods, they also include provisions allowing early access if a compelling public or private interest exists. Jornot’s letter, however, does not meaningfully engage with the requester’s argument that they have a direct and legitimate legal interest in obtaining these records for their defence.

2. Authority Over Criminal Case P/17792/2021

A key part of the request concerned case file P/17792/2021, which involves criminal allegations linked to Ecolint. Jornot states:

“This complaint is the object of the criminal procedure P/17792/2021, currently pending before the Public Ministry, so that the authorization to consult this procedure does not fall within my competence but that of the prosecutor in charge of the file.”

By shifting responsibility back to to the Ministère Public which he also oversees, he effectively distances himself from ensuring procedural transparency in an ongoing case where the requester has a clear legal stake. This raises concerns about whether due process is being followed and whether the requester is being denied access to material that could impact their legal defense.

3. Selective Enforcement of Data Protection Laws

Jornot also refuses access to cases related to Ecolint and its members, citing privacy laws:

“Personal data of deceased persons, like those of natural persons, are protected by law, and consultation is subject to restrictions.”

However, contradictions arise when considering that Ecolint’s legal team and affiliated individuals have allegedly received access to police reports and case materials. If transparency rules apply equally, why are some parties granted access while others are denied?

What His Letter Does Not Say – The Unanswered Questions

1. Why have confirmed court orders not been enforced since at least 2019?
2. Why does Jornot not address legal precedents allowing access to judicial records?
3. Why is access being restricted when other parties seemingly have access to similar materials?
4. As the Public Prosecutor, should Jornot be making decisions which impact proceedings in the Ministère public which implicate Geneva state officials?

Concerns

? Failure to enforce court orders: If rulings from 2019 remain unimplemented, this would be a serious violation of judicial duty. ? Discriminatory application of data access rules: If some parties have access to case materials while others do not, this suggests procedural unfairness. ? Lack of justification for restricting access: Jornot’s letter does not apparently adequately engage with legal arguments supporting the requester’s right to access.

What Happens Next?

This letter raises fundamental questions about judicial independence, legal oversight, and accountability in Geneva’s legal system. If court orders are not upheld, then the legitimacy of legal proceedings comes under scrutiny.

This case demands further investigation and transparency to ensure that the rule of law applies equally to all parties.

WHO has, apparently, not been respecting court orders for years?

Given that alleged #SLAPP proceedings were launched in 2021 and the whistleblower asserts that she was prosecuted instead of her criminal complaints, one has to start by asking if they might include members of Ecolint and the Ministère public.