France's highest court ruled yesterday that Mr Jacques Chirac cannot be questioned by investigators looking into several scandals in which he is implicated, clearing a big obstacle from the path of the Gaullist President in his campaign for re-election next year.
The 19 senior judges of the cour de cassation (Supreme Court), which rules only on procedural matters, brought to an end a long and bitter debate in France by saying that presidential immunity from prosecution and interrogation while in office was "a fundamental pillar" of the constitution.
"For the duration of his mandate, the President of the Republic cannot be questioned as a witness, placed under formal investigation, cited or charged with any infraction by a court of common law," the judges said, in a definitive eight-page ruling.
Mr Chirac is almost certain to seek re-election when his term ends next May.
The landmark decision, which was broadly in line with an opinion pronounced last week by a senior state prosecutor, was the first of its kind to be given by the court in the 43-year history of France's Fifth Republic.
Clarifying a disputed point of law that has divided experts for decades, it stated that the only crime for which a sitting president could be investigated and eventually tried was high treason, and went as far as to say that a head of state cannot be called to testify.
For Mr Chirac (69), fighting a rising tide of allegations that would have ended lesser careers years ago, it was a significant victory. He has denied any wrongdoing, but has also refused to testify before investigating magistrates on the grounds that he is guaranteed immunity as long as he remains in office.
Despite having uncovered what they called "strong and concordant evidence" against him, no fewer than three judges have so far been forced to halt their inquiries into Mr Chirac's alleged offences during his 18 years as mayor of Paris, citing the judicial impossibility of continuing until the question of his immunity was settled.
The President has been implicated in a vote-rigging scandal and a fake job scam in which hundreds of activists from his RPR party were given non-existent but well-paid jobs at the town hall.
Mr Pierre-Francois Divier, a lawyer for the plaintiff, said after the ruling: "The court has sent a clear message to the nation: you must decide whether the president should be pursued or whether to wait another five years, which amounts to an amnesty," he said.