This February 22, lawyer Emmanuel Ludot will appear before the Council of State to plead a reopening of theaters. He denounces devastating psychological effects.
On February 22, 2021, lawyer Emmanuel Ludot, who represents the interests of numerous personalities from the world of culture and entertainment, such as Jean-Marie Bigard, Gérard Lanvin, Francis Lalanne or Jean-Luc Moreau, referred the matter to the interim judge of the highest administrative jurisdiction in order to reopen performance venues in France. The lawyer particularly wants the government to complete the articles of three decrees taken in the context of the health emergency in order to spare theaters.
The argument that will be developed on February 22 with members of the Council of State will focus in particular on the “terrible side effects” of health restriction measures for young people. As reported The Parisian, the deterioration of the mental health of the French will be one of the decisive arguments in this legal standoff. “Psychologists and psychiatrists have noted that there is an exponential increase in the number of consultations, cases of depression, of ill-being,” said Me Ludot. To try to convince his audience, the lawyer intends to rely on the opinion of an expert, Boris Cyrulnik, whose conclusion of the letter poured into the debate is unambiguous: “The reduction of confinement for culture is an emergency sanitary. ”
A previous appeal rejected on December 24
This is not the first time that lawyers have tried to convince the Council of State of the need to reopen theaters. As recalled by France Musique, supported by a dozen personalities from the world of culture and entertainment, lawyers William Bourdon and Vincent Brengarth had filed an appeal before the Council of State on December 15.
On December 24, the judge of the Council of State had rejected the request by estimating that “the closure of these cultural places is justified only by the recent deterioration of the health context and the uncertainties which weigh on its evolution in the short term “, Specifying that” in a more favorable context, their closure could not be maintained on the sole ground that there is a risk of transmission of the virus to spectators “.
In other words, the Council of State considered that this closure measure was only legal as long as a particularly high level of dissemination of the virus within the population remained.