Freedom of expression, right to private life, general interest, Court of Cassation, human rights, fundamental freedoms, private life protection, public debate, jurisprudence
Reader
Abstract
Extract
of 5
Abstract
Court of Cassation judgment on the balance between freedom of expression and right to private life, with a focus on the criterion of general interest.
Extract
[...] The search for a balance between the right to respect for private life and the right to freedom of expression In searching for a balance between, on the one hand, the right to respect for private life and, on the other hand, the right to freedom of expression, the supreme judges opted for the second right To do this, they chose the criterion of the debate of general interest Freedom of expression prevailing over the right to respect for private life The right to freedom of expression, just like the right to respect for private life, are protected both by supranational texts (Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) and a national text (Article 9 of the Civil Code). The judges, in fact, relied on the entire set of these texts to make their decision. They highlighted the complexity of the decision and the search for balance between the rights, given that these rights have the same normative value. [...]
[...] 17-22.381 - Does the sexual orientation of a political figure form an integral part of the right to private life? FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS - The right to a fair trial Commentary on the judgment, Civil Chamber July 11, 2018 It is not uncommon for the Court of Cassation to have to rule on the conflict between two rights, such as the right to respect for private life confronted with the freedom of expression. This conflict has indeed arisen in a judgment rendered by the first civil chamber of the Court of Cassation, on July 11, 2018. [...]
[...] This decision to give priority to freedom of expression rather than the right to respect for private life is justified by the Court of Cassation by virtue of using the criterion of debate of general interest. The criterion retained, that of the debate of general interest To pronounce itself in the search for this balance between the rights, the Court of Cassation justified itself, relying on a criterion, that of the debate of general interest. It therefore highlighted on the one hand the fact that the author's questions about the evolution of the doctrine of a 'homophobic' political party and on the other hand the influence of this sexual orientation of several members, fall within the debate of general interest. [...]
[...] 19-13.716) intervened: the judges had to balance the right to respect for private life and freedom of expression and provide clarifications regarding the criterion of the contribution of the incriminated publication to a debate of general interest. The law is evolving and is constantly being clarified in view of the cases submitted to the judges. It becomes difficult to have knowledge of all the matters both for the litigants (indeed, "no one is supposed to be ignorant of the law") and for professionals. However, these clarifications are useful and necessary since a clear law is more protective. It avoids inequalities and arbitrariness. [...]
[...] From these findings, the Court of Appeal concluded that the revelation was not justified by the public's legitimate right to information. This revelation was also not 'proportionate to the severity of the infringement on the most intimate sphere of private life.' A cassation appeal was then lodged by the author of the disputed book. The question that arises in this case is the following: Does the sexual orientation of a political personality form an integral part of the right to private life? [...]
