Cour de cassation 1ère Chambre civile; 2022-09-28; 1re Civ., 28 septembre 2022, pourvoi n° 21-13.519, 21-13.520
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:FR:CCASS:2022:C100674
Date: 2022-09-28
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: France

82022FR0928(52)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
In this case, the Cour de Cassation (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’) had to assess if the cour d’appel de Paris (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) made a correct application of the law when it refused to declare enforceable in France Spanish judgments which ordered damages for defamation that were especially high.
The French newspaper Le Monde published an article according to which the Real Madrid Club de Futbol (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff 1’) used the services of a sport medicine doctor who had been the instigator of a doping network. Plaintiff 1 and a member of its medical staff (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff 2’) sued the company Société Éditrice du Monde (hereinafter ‘the defendant 1’) and the journalist who wrote the article (hereinafter ‘the defendant 2’) for defamation.
A series of judgments were given in Spain. Under the last two, defendant 1 was liable to pay EUR 390,000 to plaintiff 1, and both defendants were liable to pay jointly and severally EUR 33,000 to plaintiff 2.
The Court of Appeal held that those two judgments could not be enforced in France on the grounds that the damages ordered were disproportionate, likely to dissuade the defendants from fulfilling their task of information and control, and at odds with freedom of speech and the French public and international order.
The plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court. They argued, inter alia, that the Court of Appeal reviewed the Spanish judgments, infringing Article 34(1) and Article 36 of the Brussels I Regulation (1), that the proportionality of damages may only be controlled if they are punitive rather than compensatory, and that their proportionality may not be assessed in relation to the economic situation of the persons who were ordered to pay them.
The Supreme Court relied on the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter ‘the ECHR’), which held that freedom of speech may not be substantially limited in matters of public interest (2). The Supreme Court also cited a case in which the ECHR held that an article about sports matters regarded public interest (3), and observed that ‘[with] regard to the freedom of speech of journalists, [the EHCR] ensures that the damages that press companies are ordered to pay are not likely to threaten their economic foundations’.
However, the Supreme Court decided to stay the proceedings and ask the Court of Justice of the European Union if the damages that a news outlet was ordered to pay for reputational damage to a sporting club may be considered at odds for with freedom of speech; if the requested court may take into account the severity of the wrongful act or the extent of the harm; if it is decisive whether damages are punitive or compensatory; if damages that are dissuasive due to the resources of the news outlet are at odds with freedom of speech; if a dissuasive effect may be recognised although the financial equilibrium of the news outlet is not threatened; if the dissuasive effect must be assessed in the same way regarding a press company and a journalist; and if a court may recognise a dissuasive effect on the media as a whole on the basis of the economic situation of the written press.
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.
(2) Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 23 April 2015, Morice v. France, n° 29369/10, paragraph 125.
(3) Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 26 April 2007, Colaco Mestre et SIC. Sociedade Independente de Comunicação, S.A. v. Portugal.