That's an oversimplification of the article. What it says is (pardon Google Translate):
The first three relate to the crew, they cite "lack of structured failure analysis" , "not understanding the situation" and "the division of labor in the cockpit that has not been applied rigorous " . But they also involve the airline, deploring a "lack of clear direction from Air France despite several similar cases after the icing of the pitot probes and thus a return to insufficient experience" .
They point also "inadequate pilot training in the application of the Unreliable IAS procedure" , required when probes have iced over, and the behavior of the aircraft during the loss of speed indications. They also mention the stress and fatigue of the crew, "the questionable attitude of the captain leaving the cockpit despite the questions asked by the first officer" .
So saying the panel "blames the crew" and leaves it at that is inaccurate. The airline comes in for censure, and the aircraft's behaviour is earmarked for review. This is all old news though, as this does not diverge significantly from the findings of the final report.
I note the "relatives" (read : SNPL) lawyer has been quoted as though the report and panel do blame the crew - but that's pretty much par for the course.