Ten Years On: How the "V13" Trial Redefined Justice in Europe

UCL Law for All Society
5 hours ago
4 min read

By Sarah Wagner

Ten years have passed since 13 November 2015, when coordinated attacks in Paris left 130 dead and hundreds injured. As Europe marks this sombre anniversary, the legal community reflects not only on the tragedy but on the unprecedented judicial response that followed. The so-called “V13” trial, shorthand for Vendredi 13 Novembre, which concluded in 2022, has become a landmark in contemporary criminal justice. More than a procedural exercise, it was a profound experiment in how democratic systems address mass violence without abandoning their foundational principles.

The specially designed courtroom, built to accommodate the unprecedented scale of the V13 trial and the large number of defendants.

I. A Life Sentence beyond comparison: the legal puzzle of Abdeslam's punishment

The most consequential outcome of the V13 proceedings was the sentencing of Salah Abdeslam, the only surviving member of the attack commandos, to a réclusion criminelle à perpétuité incompressible, France’s harshest possible sentence, often compared to a “whole-life order.” Ordinarily, a life sentence in France allows a parole review after 22 years. The incompressible version, however, requires a minimum of 30 years before a specialised panel of the Court of Cassation can even consider release, a possibility that remains largely theoretical.

The court faced a legal dilemma: this specific whole-life sentence for terrorist crimes was introduced in 2016, after the attacks. Applying it directly would violate the principle of legality under French constitutional law and Article 7 ECHR. To avoid retroactivity, judges relied on a narrow legal basis: the attempted murder of police officers from the BRI unit who intervened at the Bataclan. Even though Abdeslam was not on site, the court held that the attacks constituted a single crime scene, making him a co-perpetrator.

This legal pathway was controversial but innovatively framed, illustrating how courts may navigate strict legality principles whilst addressing unprecedented crimes.

II. A courtroom as a space for collective healing

Despite the severity of the verdict, the trial adopted an unusually restorative dimension. For nearly nine months, the court heard hundreds of civil parties describe their trauma, grief, and survival. In contrast to traditional criminal procedures, victims were not confined to factual testimony. The courtroom became a place of collective catharsis, resembling a hybrid between a criminal trial and a truth-seeking forum.

Lawyers successfully argued for the recognition of harms unique to terrorist violence, including prejudice of anguish (the imminent fear of death) and prejudice of waiting and

worry for relatives left without news.

Some survivors described the trial as a turning point in their healing; others stressed its limits: “We have the judgment, but we still have our injuries.” The proceedings showed that even the most rigorous criminal process cannot close every psychological wound.

III. Building a European Judicial Space: V13 as a turning point

The attacks forced France and Belgium to cooperate at unprecedented speed and depth. The case is now viewed as a blueprint for European judicial integration. Eurojust played a central role, setting up a Joint Investigation Team (JIT) within days and streamlining mutual legal assistance. The European Arrest Warrant (EAW) enabled Belgium to surrender Abdeslam to France in just two months, a striking contrast with pre-EAW cases such as Rachid Ramda, whose extradition from the UK took nearly ten years.

The V13 investigation demonstrated that terrorism has become a transnational phenomenon requiring equally transnational judicial tools. It also accelerated the emergence of a more coherent European criminal justice area.

IV. The shadow side: Security Laws and the Rule of Law under strain

The legal response to the attacks has also raised serious concerns. Human Rights Watch criticised the rapid expansion of French counterterrorism legislation, particularly administrative bans on leaving the country, based on vague “serious reasons to believe,” and the broadened offence of glorifying terrorism, which allows severe penalties based on speech alone, even without a nexus to violence.

Prominent scholars such as Didier Bigo and Sergio Carrera warn that Europe is shifting toward a model of preventive justice, prioritising data collection and anticipatory surveillance through tools like the Passenger Name Record (PNR) system and Smart Borders. They argue this trajectory risks undermining fundamental rights, such as privacy, proportionality, and presumption of innocence.

The V13 trial was an extraordinary balancing act. It utilized the most severe tool in the French penal arsenal, the "incompressible" life sentence, by navigating complex principles of non-retroactivity. Yet, simultaneously, it attempted to offer a restorative space for victims to recount their trauma. Ten years after the tragedy, V13 stands as a testament to the flexibility, and the rigidity, of the rule of law when faced with mass violence.

Sources: