“We don't sort vehicles, we sort people”: lawyer files appeal against ZFE in Montpellier

“On inverse les valeurs : le principe, c’est l’interdiction ; la liberté, c’est l’exception.” Tom Serrano – Midi Libre

Me David Guyon represents the Association of Fundamental Freedoms. They filed an appeal this Thursday against the Low Emission Zone and its implementation through Crit’air stickers. "A gas factory", according to him.

You filed an appeal against the establishment of the ZFE. What about ?

We are attacking the decree of December 22, 2023 by which the Montpellier Metropolis establishes the ZFE.

What are you attacking it on? ?

On several grounds. The first is the question of freedom of movement. This is the inversion of the principle: freedom is the principle, prohibition is the exception. Today, we are reversing the values: the principle is prohibition; freedom is the exception and an exemption must be requested. This is impacting millions of French people today since 40% of the national territory has been covered by a ZFE since January 1, 2025. Because it is not only the large metropolises but also the agglomerations. In Montpellier, the metropolis has 31 municipalities. There are 11 on which the ZFE is established. From 2026, all 31 municipalities will be affected. So it is not just the city center of Montpellier but also all the surrounding villages. Millions of people are concerned and impacted by a ZFE in France. It is not just a local problem. We are attacking the Montpellier ZFE. If we hit the mark, it could affect many other metropolises.

The first foundation is freedom of movement. What are the others?

The second principle is the legality of offences and penalties. You get a €68 fine if you drive…

It has been formally specified that there will be no fine until further notice…

It’s more subtle than that. A tolerance is not a right. It’s very important. The mayor said: we won’t apply the sanctions. The deliberation says: article 7, contravention. And that refers to the provisions of the highway code. What I criticize is that you have to look for information in three different texts. First, article R414-19-11. This same article refers to another code: the environment, in which there are other infractions. And this same article no longer refers to Crit’air but to vehicle categories. For the average citizen, it’s impossible to understand what is prohibited. And it’s impossible to know concretely what they’re exposed to. €68 if you drive a vehicle prohibited in a ZFE. But if you park, it’s more expensive. It’s another text, it’s another penalty. And for heavy goods vehicles, it’s €135. Unless you are a lawyer, you don't understand. It's a real gas factory.

The complainant: a Montpellier association with national scope

The Association for the Defense of Fundamental Freedoms is national in scope, created in 2021, in Montpellier, where its headquarters are located.

The president is Emmanuel Lastenouse. He explains: “We were wondering about the relevance and proportion of the obligations imposed on us during Covid: lockdown, curfew, etc.”

200% Deposit Bonus up to €3,000 180% First Deposit Bonus up to $20,000

With 300 members, the ADLF relies on donations from individuals, “especially retirees, the wealthy, or associations, especially not lobbies”.

Initially health-related, the association's actions now focus on attacks on the traffic, such as the ZFE or the pass during the Olympic Games, or less followed causes.

Does the Metropolis have the choice to set up the ZFE or not? ?

She has no choice. She has to apply it otherwise she is breaking the law. It is a political measure. Except that we are in law and the General Code of Local Authorities provides that the ZFE is mandatory for urban areas with more than 150,000 inhabitants.

However, mayors of the metropolis have requested postponements ? And other metropolises in France have postponed it.

The ZFE was supposed to be implemented on January 1, 2025. For those who postponed it, it is illegal. The ZFE is an obligation. What would be quite funny is for an environmental association to say: I want you to apply the sanction. That would also be a real issue. The community would be condemned. As the State was condemned by the Council of State in 2019 because it did not act for the environment and air quality. €10 million fine. We do not joke about that.

You were talking about other points on which you base your appeal…

Yes, there are even five, six. The third is the breach of equality before the law. This is what often comes up: we don't sort vehicles, we sort people. If we look at socio-professional categories, people who have Crit'air 3 are people who cannot afford to change vehicles. We don't drive a vehicle from before 2010 for fun. There is a breach of equality that arises on the economic level. However, the law must be the same whether you are rich or poor. This is the most publicized point with an exclusion from city centers and even urban areas of the most disadvantaged categories. The law must be the same regardless of our level of wealth. There, clearly, the law is not the same. If you can't afford to change your vehicle, you're out.

And there are other breaches of equality. The second differentiates professionals and individuals. If you are professionals, you have exceptions. This means that the same vehicle, depending on whether the owner is a professional or an individual, is not subject to the same rule. We understand the justification. But the objective is the same: air quality. A polluting vehicle remains a polluting vehicle, for an individual as well as for a professional.

You mentioned a third point of inequality…

The third breach of equality is the breach of equality according to the geographical criterion, between rural and urban areas. When you are in the city centre of Montpellier, no problem, there are trams everywhere and alternatives. If you are outside Montpellier, clearly, you are much more impacted by the ZFE. It is a breach of equality before the law. That is the gist: but there are other points of accessibility, of intelligibility. It is incomprehensible, a gas factory. We are regulating and complicating things in order to have the right to move around. The rule of law is there to simplify our lives. There, it's the opposite, it's ruining our lives.

What recourse do you have ?

An appeal for annulment to the administrative court of Montpellier. And an interim suspension from the moment when, in February, the municipalities will see that they have no other choice, and the emergency will appear.

Who is your client ?

The Association for the Defense of Fundamental Freedoms, a national association, created in 2021, which has its head office in Montpellier. The president is Emmanuel Lastenouse. 20% of the members are in Montpellier, the rest are throughout France. The scope is national.

What can this appeal lead to ?

There are three alternatives, within a period of one to two years. First solution: we win. This does not mean that there are no ZFE but that there are irregularities and that the text will have to be amended. Second solution: we win partially. Third solution: rejection. We lose. We will go to the administrative court of appeal in Toulouse. The idea is to go as high as possible. I want to take this appeal to the European Court of Human Rights. To do this, we must exhaust the internal appeal rights. That is where we will really have an impact.

I subscribe to read the rest