In Chessy, Seine-et-Marne, the situation around a civil marriage continues to get bogged down and make people talk about her. For several months, a deep disagreement between the town hall and justice around the celebration of a union involving a man under the obligation to leave French territory (OQTF). Despite a court decision, the mayor persists in his refusal, which now results in a daily financial penalty. A case that illustrates the tension between legal framework and position of a local elected official in a context of refusal of marriage in the town hall.

A court decision that imposes a penalty

The judicial court of Meaux has decided: since January 29, the mayor of Chessy, Olivier Bourjot, is subject to a penalty payment of 500 euros per day as long as he refuses to celebrate the wedding. This measure is intended to compel the aedile to apply the court decision and to organise the civil union concerned.

This financial sanction marks a new stage in an already very tense file. It transforms an institutional disagreement into a direct economic constraint for the municipality and its representative, illustrating a situation of judicial penaltyary mayor that has become particularly sensitive.

A refusal maintained despite judicial pressure

Despite this decision, the mayor does not change his position. For several months, he has refused to celebrate the marriage, which he considers “insincere and fraudulent.” According to him, the administrative situation of the future groom, an Algerian national under the influence of an OQTF pronounced in 2022, poses a problem on the substance.

In his speeches, the elected representative fully assumes his refusal, even in knowledge of the financial and legal consequences. He claims to act in principle, believing that he does not have to celebrate a union in this particular context.

A critique of the state and institutional functioning

In a statement issued on January 30, Olivier Bourjot also expresses his misunderstanding about the situation. He criticizes the state, which he accuses of making decisions without always ensuring their execution, leaving the municipalities on the front line.

Questioned by the media, he goes further, referring to a situation that he considers “aberrant” and denouncing a form of institutional inconsistency. For him, the problem goes beyond the simple framework of marriage and questions more broadly the role of mayors in the application of administrative and judicial decisions.

A sanction that could still increase

The court’s decision does not stop at the penalty payment of 500 euros per day. It also provides for the possibility of increasing this amount to 3 000 euros per day for one month in the event of the persistence of the refusal. A perspective that further increases financial pressure on the municipality and its executive.

For the mayor, this possibility would be tantamount to being forced to pay large sums in a file that he always contests on the substance, which he considers to be profoundly problematic.

An institutional impasse and avenues mentioned

Faced with this blocked situation, an institutional solution exists theoretically: the prefect of Seine-et-Marne could replace the mayor to celebrate the marriage. This option would break the impasse while ensuring the execution of the court decision.

For his part, Olivier Bourjot advocates for a legislative evolution. He called for a clearer framework, which he said would prevent mayors from facing such conflict situations. He also mentioned the need to better support local authorities and elected officials in the exercise of their functions.

A case that goes beyond the local framework alone

Beyond the case of Chessy, this case highlights the possible tensions between judicial decisions, municipal responsibilities and debates related to the application of the law of foreigners. It also highlights the difficulty for some local elected officials to reconcile their personal beliefs with their legal obligations.

In this context, financial penalty payment becomes a tool of coercion but also a symbol: that of a confrontation between two readings of the role of public authority, one based on the strict execution of the law, the other on a political and moral interpretation of the situation.

A case that, now, goes far beyond the walls of the town hall of Chessy.