Phrases such as "should have career implicating consequences," "they should be sacked for that alone" and "what sanctions (if any) the crew were subject to" imply guilt and subsequent punishment. But is that justified? We have a translation of a report but none of the background information. @Barkingmad gives some clues and @Connets asks some very reasonable questions.
Working backwards through @Connets questions:
ATC: Maybe they could have helped. ATC can normally see an aircraft that is hot and high and normally drop obvious hints or, in extreme cases, give height loosing vectors. But they appear not to have done so - or did they? As I said earlier, we don't have all the facts.
Why didn't they go-around? Well, they probably thought they could make it. Why is another question. And we don't know enough about their culture to make an informed opinion. To criticise this crew to the extend that some have done on this thread I find distasteful.
I'll agree AF's record is, shall we say interesting, but the hang'em high and shoot'em brigage are adding nothing to safety. We are fortunate we don't have safety police, but I get the impression from some of the "Saints" who post here that they'd have an "Flying Court" in every airport complete with electric chair.
With any luck AF are working on trying to eliminate incidents like this but even if they succeed someone will suggest that AF are "hiding" safety reports from the regulator (whoever that is this week).
Give me more information and I might change my mind, but I'll not shoot from the hip until I have to.