Background
[B] [E] was placed under formal investigation for attempted murder and remanded in custody on June 1, 2023. On July 31, 2025, the Toulouse Court of Appeal’s investigating chamber affirmed an investigating judge’s April 28, 2025 order committing her for trial before the juvenile assize court.
Because she had not been tried within the statutory one-year period, the prosecutor general requested an exceptional extension of her detention. On June 9, 2026, the investigating chamber extended the detention for six months beginning August 11, 2026, finding that congestion in the Toulouse court system had prevented a timely trial despite the measures taken and that continued detention was indispensable to prevent repetition of the alleged conduct.
[B] [E] appealed, arguing that the extension lacked a legal basis because it would begin after July 1, 2026, the date on which Constitutional Council Decision No. 2025-1143 QPC repealed Article L. 434-9 of the Juvenile Criminal Justice Code as unconstitutional.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Cassation rejected the appeal. It held that the investigating chamber had correctly applied the Constitutional Council’s decision and the governing statutory provisions because the extension order was made on June 9, 2026—before Article L. 434-9’s repeal took effect on July 1, 2026.
The Court further relied on paragraph 15 of the Constitutional Council’s decision, which insulated measures taken before the effective date of repeal from challenges based on the declared unconstitutionality. The exceptional extension authorized by Article 181, ninth paragraph, of the Code of Criminal Procedure therefore remained valid even though the six-month extension period began on August 11, 2026.
Key Takeaways
- The relevant date was when the detention-extension order was issued, not when the extended detention period began.
- A measure ordered before the effective date of a statutory repeal remained protected where the Constitutional Council expressly barred constitutional challenges to earlier measures.
- The Court upheld the six-month extension based on court congestion, the inability to conduct the trial within one year, and the need to prevent repetition of the alleged conduct.
Why It Matters
The ruling clarifies the transitional effect of a deferred declaration of unconstitutionality on detention orders in juvenile criminal proceedings. Courts could continue to make legally effective orders under Article L. 434-9 until its July 1, 2026 repeal, and those timely orders did not become invalid merely because they governed detention after that date.