A magistrate is in the viewfinder of the disciplinary section of the magistracy council in Friborg, reveals the RTS on Thursday. In question: an attempt to settle a judicial dispute by proposing a large sum of money against the withdrawal of a complaint. An instruction has been opened.
The facts date back to December 2024. A criminal conciliation hearing is then held between a brigade chief of the Friborg police and an inspector. A heavy labor conflict has opposed them for three years, against the backdrop of accusations of harassment on one side, and slander on the other [lire encadré]. An administrative procedure takes place in parallel, educated by the Directorate of Security, Justice and Sport (DSJS).
During this criminal hearing, the police judge attempts to find a solution to the dispute – which will prove to be unsuccessful. He then made an offer to the brigade chief. It is the latter who will tell the episode, two months later, as part of the administrative component of the case.
Judge
“The ‘Blues’ Summit’ is the session before the police judge for December 2024, where he tells me that he knows me well, that he knows my passive and that I am an integral and without reproach,” he begins to explain.
“The judge tells me that it is I who hold the knife by the handle, that it would be good that I withdraw my complaint, that if it is a question of money, he can find 10,000 francs to give me and that in addition, for the greatness of the chief (of the Friborg police, editor’s note), it would be good if I made this gesture. “
For having made these remarks, which he does not dispute, the judge will be challenged, at the request of the inspector. Not because of the financial proposal as such, but because his statements are “objectively likely to question his impartiality”, wrote the Cantonal Court in a judgment of March 11, 2025, reported by the daily La Liberté.
Magistrates’ advice informed by RTS
But the story does not stop there. On RTS issues, the judiciary also decided to put his nose in the case. “We inform you that the judicial council had, to date, was not aware of this judgment,” he said. “To date, none of the parties concerned has also addressed to the Council to report to him or bring to his attention the facts mentioned in the decision of the Cantonal Court.”
Following the intervention of the RTS, the Council indicates that it has “transmitted this file to the disciplinary supervisory commission of the magistracy council, which will examine it and decide on the follow -up to be given, if necessary, in accordance with its skills”. An instruction is underway.
Judge
Contacted, the criminal judge does not wish to comment “as soon as a procedure is underway”. The lawyer of the brigadier chief, Me Frédérique Riesen, argues, she, that her professional rules do not authorize him to answer the questions asked.
Finally, only Me Adrien de Steiger, the inspector’s advice, agrees to express themselves. “I was shocked by the judge’s words. For me, it was obvious that it was necessary to ask for his challenge because he was too far. In ten years of bar, I have never seen that.”
Raphaël Leroy, RTS investigation center