On the single ground of application for review:

In view of article 35 of the Law of 29 July 1881:

Given that if, in a suit for defamation, imputations relating to the private life of the claimant and other observations relating to his public activities are indissociable they are all subject to proof of the truth;

Given that according to the judgment under attack an article entitled “Menton: the city where the prince pretends to be jobless and unlawfully claims unemployment benefit to which he is not entitled” was published in the monthly magazine Z., edited by M. X., and that when M. Y., mayor of Menton, sued M. X. under articles 9 and 1382 Code civil the Court of Appeal refused to admit proof of the truth of the facts in issue on the ground that it was “obviously an invasion of his private life” to discuss whether or not M. Y. was or was not unemployed and claiming unemployment benefit;

Given that in so holding when the imputations against M.Y. related both to his private life and to his functions as mayor the Court of Appeal violated the text cited above;

For these reasons QUASHES and annuls the whole decision between the parties handed down by the Court of Appeal of Aix-en-Provence on 3 February 1993 and remands the case in its prior state to the Court of Appeal of Lyons for justice to be done between the parties.

Civ 2, 24 January 1996: The solution affirmed here is not a new one (cf Crim 17 December 1979, Bull crim no 360) and seems to be maintained to the present time: cf Crim 18 April 2000 (not published, pourvois no 98-83.112 and 98-83.113): "when defamatory imputations aimed at a citizen responsible for the exercise of public authority in respect of his functions and in respect of his private life are indivisible, the qualification prescribed by article 31 of the Law of 29 July 1881 is the only one applicable "- it being prescribed that article 31 relates to defamation against, essentially, officials or agents responsible for exercise of public authority" in respect of their functions or their capacity", as opposed to article 32, which concerns defamation committed against these same persons, but concerning their private life. But article 35 of this same Law, on the basis of which the judgment of the 24 January 1996 is given, excludes, in the absence of indivisibility, any possibility of bringing proof of defamatory facts when "the imputation concerns the person's private life".

Translation by Raymond Youngs

Back to top

This page last updated Thursday, 15-Dec-2005 09:05:51 CST. Copyright 2007. All rights reserved.