"I would have liked what I experienced to be recognized": the courts once again reject the requests of Albert and Erpilio, deported and forced to work in Germany
For almost a year, we have been following the struggle of Albert Corrieri . The Marseillais was one of the 650,000 young French people who were deported as part of the Compulsory Work Service (STO) established by the Vichy regime in 1943.
More than 82 years later, Albert remembers every detail. That day, as he started work at the La Daurade restaurant in Marseille, German soldiers stopped him. They took his papers and gave him an appointment to collect them. He was told that if he didn't go, his entire family's ration cards would be withdrawn . Albert, then 20 years old, was the eldest of 5 children. His salary allowed him to support his father as the breadwinner. He couldn't risk having all those resources taken away from his loved ones. And then, as he says today, "once you were caught in the German net, it was over. I'll tell you, they killed easily back then ."
The young man had no choice but to board a train at Saint-Charles station. After a very long journey, part of which was spent in a cattle car, he was disembarked in Ludwigshafen, the city where the main factory of the German chemical company IG Farben was located (they notably produced Zyklon B gas used in gas chambers). For eighteen months, the young man was forced to fill coal cars, six days a week, 10 hours a day .
Without really knowing how, Albert gets through it. He escapes hundreds of bombing raids and survives after a time bomb explodes, which completely goes through his arm . Liberated by the Americans on April 15, 1945, he returns to Marseille. And he takes with him all the documents that prove what he has been through: his labor deportee card, the document specifying the place of his deportation, his forced labor victim card, etc.
From 1957, he began taking steps to seek recognition and compensation from the State . In vain. Until he found support from the historian Michel Ficetola and the lawyer Michel Pautot. The case was then brought before the administrative court of Marseille . If he was not paid the moral damages he had suffered, Albert at least asked for compensation for the work he had done for eighteen months without receiving a cent.
The media coverage of Albert's fight prompted Erpilio's grandson, a former STO from Nice who is also still alive, to tell his story and then to launch proceedings in turn with Mr Pautot.
The two centenarians' claims for compensation were rejected at first instance. The court relied on the law of May 14, 1951. This law established a special compensation scheme for victims of the STO, who had until 1955 to assert their rights.
But Albert and Erpilio, along with their supporters, are not giving up. On Tuesday, June 24, the hearing takes place at the Administrative Court of Appeal in Marseille. And for the first time , France's responsibility for the fate of the STOs is being raised.
A step has also been taken by the head of state himself. Responding by letter to a request for an audience made by Michel Ficetola for Albert Corrieri , Emmanuel Macron declared that he had not forgotten " the hardships endured by the French men and women requisitioned in Germany during the Second World War ."
"Why not change the law?"On July 8, the second instance court once again rejected the claims for compensation , relying once again on the law of May 14, 1951. For Mr. Pautot, "the particular situation of Messrs. Trovati and Corrieri was not retained" because they did not receive the card of person forced to work in an enemy country until after the statute of limitations expired: in 1957 for Albert and in 2021 for Erpilio.
"They also did not retain the document that had been added to the file and which proved that another STO had been compensated in 2003, well after the limitation period," adds historian Michel Ficetola.
Concerning the question of crimes against humanity, which was barely addressed in the decision, the administrative court of appeal considers that "the imprescriptible nature only applies to criminal proceedings" , that is to say another jurisdiction.
For Erpilio and his grandson Vivien, this decision is "not surprising" , even if they recognize that there has been "a small evolution in the recognition of the State's responsibility" .
And on Albert's side, it is above all disappointment that predominates, once again. "I would have liked what I experienced to be recognized, and not to have worked for nothing for eighteen months. If it is the law that is stuck, why not change it? That would be wonderful ."
Michel Pautot will try to grant his wish: "We are calling for the creation of a compensation fund , knowing that there are only four or five left, and for a change in the law to recognize the crimes against humanity of which the STO deportees were victims. This would be a strong gesture."
Several avenues of appeal are still open: appealing to the Council of State, the European Court of Human Rights, or the United Nations Human Rights Committee. "We will consider this matter because the fight must continue."
Nice Matin
