Shooting in Aubagne: a second juvenile charged for complicity and placed under judicial supervision

A second teenager, 13 years old and from northern France, was charged on Friday 16 October 2026 in the investigation into the shootings on 12 October at Lakanal d'Aubagne College in Bouches-du-Rhône. Placed under judicial supervision, it must respect the conditions for placement in a closed educational centre. Europe 1, TF1-LCI, BFMTV and Ouest-France report this same judicial stage, based on information attributed to judicial sources. [S2] [S3] [S4] [S5]

Two teenagers, responsibilities to distinguish

Arrested on Wednesday, 14 October, the 13-year-old is being prosecuted for "assisting attempted assassinations in connection with a terrorist enterprise" and "association of terrorist criminals in preparation for crimes against persons". The publications do not detail the specific acts that he is accused of. TF1-LCI stresses that judicial information must in particular determine its alleged role in the attack. [S3] [S5]

His situation differs from that of a 14-year-old college student suspected of having opened fire. He was charged and placed in pre-trial detention on Wednesday. According to BFMTV, he acknowledged the facts and stated that he had prepared his project for several months. These statements concern the first adolescent: they are not sufficient to establish the latter's participation. [S2] [S4]

The principal of the college and a teacher were shot, according to the converging accounts of Europe 1, TF1-LCI and West France. BFMTV, however, refers to three people injured by fire, without detailing the situation of the third. The articles consulted do not resolve this gap or clarify the current health status of victims. According to the PNAT, quoted by 20 Minutes and TV5MONDE, the intervention of the Senior Education Advisor, who disarmed the college student, ended the attack. [S2] [S3] [S4] [S5] [S1] [S7]

Judicial review that imposes constraints

The placement of the second adolescent under judicial supervision is in line with the demands of the national anti-terrorist prosecutor ' s office. The obligation to respect a placement in a closed educational centre means that this decision is not limited to freedom without constraint. Neither the centre concerned nor the duration chosen nor any other obligations shall be specified in the information published. [S3] [S5]

Public Service recalls that judicial review is not a penalty, but an interim measure restricting the freedom of a person prosecuted. In the case of a minor, it may include preventing a new offence, preserving the investigation, avoiding pressure, protecting the person concerned or guaranteeing his presence before the judge. These general purposes, however, do not allow us to know the particular reasons given in this dossier, which the media do not reproduce. [S6] [S3]

This restriction of liberty includes guarantees. According to the Public Service, placement under judicial supervision comes after an adversarial debate, including with the minor and his lawyer. The decision may be appealed within ten days of its notification; in the context of an inquiry, the challenge is a matter for the examining chamber. A change in obligations may also be requested. No effective remedy in this case is mentioned in the articles consulted. [S6] [S3] [S5]

Digital exchanges still to be clarified

Ouest-France, quoting Franceinfo, reports to the conditional that the 13-year-old was in contact with the 14-year-old college student on TikTok. The investigators would also seek to determine its possible links with the True Crime Community, a movement that some members glorify mass killings. The content of the exchanges between the two teenagers and their scope in the preparation of the shots are not detailed. [S5]

The numerical elements described by the PNAT mainly concern the first adolescent. The analysis of his accounts suggested, according to the prosecutor's office quoted by Ouest-France, that he was likely to join this movement. An account was devoted to publishing extremely violent content related to school killings. These findings should not be automatically attributed to the second minor, whose role remains to be clarified. [S1] [S5]

On the scale of the phenomenon, the authorities shed different light: Laurent Nuñez evokes a progression and "a few dozen" of young people monitored, while the anti-terrorist prosecutor Olivier Christen describes a marginal threat compared to other terrorist cases. These general assessments do not prejudge responsibilities in the Aubagne case. [S7]

Finally, the 14-year-old student invoked in police custody a desire for revenge related to harassment that he attributed to teachers and comrades, reports Ouest-France. This is his explanation, not harassment established by the published evidence. The investigation must still specify the exchanges, acts and responsibility of each of the two adolescents. [S5] [S3]