Jean-Pierre Brard's Run-Ins with the Law

Editorial note: a passage in the dossier below is marked by its compiler as taken from Wikipedia. That material derives from the French Wikipedia article Jean-Pierre Brard and is available, as is our English rendering of it, under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International Licence.

Jean-Pierre Brard’s run-ins with the Law

Jean-Pierre Brard is known for his activities against cults. His statements have caused him a number of legal entanglements, including a conviction on appeal for having defamed the Jehovah’s Witnesses by comparing their operation to “international criminality with unsuspected ramifications and an immense power, including lobbying power” (AFP, 20 December 2002). The Versailles Court of Appeal held that “the benefit of good faith cannot validly be granted to Jean-Pierre Brard who, besides the lack of restraint in his expression, at no point sought to keep closely to the conclusions of the inquiry reports, contenting himself with approximations all the more reprehensible in that they came from a reputed expert in the matter”. This conviction was upheld in cassation (Court of Cassation, 30 September 2003 (1)).

In another case brought against him by the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jean-Pierre Brard, having taken up the defence of Mrs Geneviève Preterre, mayor of Darnétal, had declared on 2 October 1997, on the radio station BFM: “I support her, because she is fighting a cult, one of the most dangerous, which has to its record a great number of suicides”. The court dismissed the Witnesses’ complaint for religious defamation and acquitted Mr Brard on 27 May 1998. That judgment was upheld by the ruling of the Versailles Court of Appeal, handed down on 3 November 1998, which accepted the defamatory character of the offending remarks but not a “defamation on the ground of membership of a specific religion”.

On 5 August 2004, in an open letter of a resolutely polemical tone, the deputy accused Doctor Patrick Pelloux, president of the Association of Hospital Emergency Physicians of France (AMUHF), of being close to the Jehovah’s Witnesses, arguing from a supposed proximity between the physician-unionist and a lawyer reputed, according to him, to be close to the cult, and from a supposed participation in a symposium organised by an association close to the Jehovah’s Witnesses. The physician attacked by the deputy retorted the next day with a complaint for defamation, and countered that he performs vaccinations and blood transfusions all year round, which would be incompatible with a supposed ideological proximity to the Jehovah’s Witnesses. He also denied the participation in the symposium asserted by the deputy.

After a meeting on 30 August 2004 between Nicolas Sarkozy, French Minister of the Economy and Finance, and the American actor Tom Cruise, known for his closeness to Scientology, Mr Brard called the minister to account, reproaching him for that meeting. The minister’s entourage denied any support for Scientology, arguing that the meeting had taken place at the request of the actor, who was passing through Paris and curious to meet the minister, whose fame in America is distinctly on the rise. According to those close to the minister, the meeting essentially concerned their respective careers, without touching on controversial subjects. The anti-cult communist deputy nevertheless declared that “By analogy, one might wonder whether the minister would receive a member of an international drug-trafficking or procuring network and say ‘we did not talk about drugs or prostitution’”.

Jean-Pierre Brard and the evangelical Protestant movement

The deputy made headlines again on Sunday 6 March 2005, by successively visiting four Protestant temples located in his town and intervening in the middle of the celebration of services. Mr Brard, in his defence, invoked his capacity as mayor of Montreuil, acting “by virtue of his administrative police power to check the safety of these places of worship”, while the Protestant Federation of France (FPF), presided over by Jean-Arnold de Clermont, announced that three religious associations were considering filing a complaint against the mayor “for abuse of power and violation of Article 32 of the law of 9 December 1905 on the separation of Churches and State” (Article 32 indeed providing for repressive measures against “those who have prevented, delayed or interrupted the exercises of a religion by disturbances or disorder caused in the premises used for those exercises”) and that his federation, together with the Evangelical Federation of France (FEF), expected to join the three local associations as civil parties. The FPF reports in particular that, according to it, Mr Brard publicly exclaimed, during his visit to the temple of the Evangelical Missionary Centre: “Sir, learn that here prayer is done in the heart — there is no need to sing!”. These incidents appear to be the logical continuation of a long-standing dispute between Messrs Brard and de Clermont, the former notably accusing the latter of an “anti-laïcité offensive” forming part of a strategy aimed, according to him, at “calling the 1905 law into question”. Mr de Clermont observed for his part that, in his view, “there is doubtless a continuity between the well-known hostility of the mayor of Montreuil towards cults, and his understanding of the evangelical movement as a cult.”

Mr de Clermont received the support of pastor Marcel Manoël, president of the Reformed Church of France (a member of the FPF), who stresses that “The mayor has nothing to say about the content of what the faithful of a community preach and believe” or again that “as long as there is no disturbance of public order and the law is respected, it is not for the State to intervene in beliefs” (this last remark probably to be understood, given the context, as “the State or local authorities”).

(Source: wikipedia)

Friday 31 March 2006, 3:15 p.m.

The mayor of Montreuil convicted of defaming Elie Chouraqui

PARIS (AFP) - The mayor of Montreuil, Jean-Pierre Brard (PCF-affiliated), was convicted on Friday by the Paris criminal court and given a suspended fine of 500 euros for having defamed the film-maker Elie Chouraqui, whom he had accused of manipulating a report on schools in his town.

On 15 April 2004, France 2 had broadcast, as part of the programme “Envoyé Spécial”, a report by Elie Chouraqui devoted to “ordinary” antisemitism, in the context of the clashes pitting, according to him, the pupils of a public lycée in Montreuil (Seine-Saint-Denis) against the pupils of a neighbouring Jewish school.

The day after its broadcast, the report had stirred strong emotion. During a press conference held in the company of the Minister of National Education François Fillon, the mayor of Montreuil had denounced “a manipulation”.

“Everything was scripted and the children were the volunteer actors of a film whose script they did not know. He (Elie Chouraqui) had them speak a text he had already devised himself; it is a manipulation,” Mr Brard had said.

The 17th chamber of the criminal court, presided over by Philippe Jean-Draeher, found the mayor guilty of defamation against Mr Chouraqui and sentenced him to a suspended fine of 500 euros.

Mr Brard will also have to pay one euro in damages to the director, but the court rejected the civil party’s request for publication of the judgment.

The reasons for the decision were not available for consultation on Friday afternoon.

A good audience for France 2… in court

20 Minutes | edition of 28.02.06

After seven hours of hearing, advantage France 2. On Friday, the director Elie Chouraqui and the two editors-in-chief of “Envoyé spécial” were at the Paris criminal court, following the defamation complaint filed against the mayor of Montreuil, Jean-Pierre Brard (PC-affiliated). At issue: a report by Chouraqui broadcast in the magazine programme of 15 April 2004.

Filmed in two lycées of Montreuil, “Antisemitism: speech set free” painted the portrait of a town in the grip of conflicts between communities. “This report was manipulative, scripted, a fabrication,” repeats Jean-Pierre Brard today, under attack for his remarks of last April. “The current context, around Ilan Halimi, unfortunately proves us right,” says Yves Azéroual, co-author of the report. “The prosecutor, who is the voice of society, understood this well.” The latter took the view that the mayor’s words went beyond “mere criticism” and amounted to “defamation”. Judgment at the end of March.

Jasmeen: for women only

The administrative court of Cergy-Pontoise ruled against the mayor of Montreuil (93), who had banned a “Muslim” fashion show, notably because men were not admitted to it.

by Ludovic BLECHER LIBERATION.FR: Monday 24 October 2005 - 18:50

The case goes back to October 2004. It was to have had as its setting the Espace royal, in Montreuil (93), where the company Jasmeen, specialised in community-oriented fashion and more precisely in the making of Muslim garments, had organised a fashion show.

So far, no problem. Except that the invitation cards had been sent only to women. For good reason: it was a show that was “exclusively female, and therefore no man will be admitted”, the company Jasmeen specified at the time. And it added: “The show is forbidden to men because it involves so-called ‘Islamic’ clothing — more precisely, so-called ‘Western’ clothing for Muslim women, aimed above all at women who wear the hijab (the veil) (…) These women do not wish men to be present in the room out of modesty. We must therefore respect their choice.”

The principle of a show strictly reserved for women had incensed the Union of Secular Families (UFAL). The communist mayor of the town, Jean-Pierre Brard, had also stepped into the breach, issuing an order preventing the holding of a fashion show for Muslim women, which therefore never took place. The order stipulated: “Considering that the fashion show aims to demonstrate the pertinence of garments of the hijab or burka type, by trivialising the wearing of the veil in all circumstances; considering that the planned show is forbidden to men, (…) and that a serious disturbance of public order may result from it, the fashion show is prohibited.”

Just as the law banning the wearing of the veil at school had come into force, the case caused a great stir. It took nearly a year for the courts to examine the case. And to decide, on 1 July 2005, to annul the municipal order issued by the mayor of Montreuil and to order Jean-Pierre Brard to pay 750 euros towards the costs incurred by the company Jasmeen.

The decision, handed down by the administrative court of Cergy-Pontoise, had remained confidential. Until this Monday. The Collective against Islamophobia in France (CCIF) welcomed, in the early afternoon, this “victory of law over arbitrariness”.

Sany Debah, head of the Collective, considers that the private character of the show justified barring men from attending it: “I am entitled to receive only men, or only women, in my home,” he says. “It is a principle and I am glad to know that the law confirms this principle.”

Strengthened by this victory, he encourages “all Muslim citizens to systematically file complaints when their rights are knowingly flouted”.

http://www.liberation.fr/page.php?Article=333307

Cults: polemic between deputy (PCF-affiliated) Brard and emergency physician Pelloux

06/08/2005 19:53 — The deputy-mayor of Montreuil (PCF-affiliated), Jean-Pierre Brard, a member of the Assembly’s commission on cults, on Friday accused Dr Patrick Pelloux of being close to the Jehovah’s Witnesses, which the emergency physician vigorously denied.

In an “open letter” transmitted to AFP, Mr Brard reproached Dr Pelloux, whom he described as “the media’s darling”, with being close to Maître Alain Garay, “the lawyer of the Jehovah’s Witnesses”.

Mr Brard asserts that the emergency physician “co-wrote a book entitled +Urgences, médecine et droit+ with Alain Garay”, who is also, according to him, the lawyer of the Association of Hospital Emergency Physicians of France (Amuhf), presided over by Dr Pelloux.

Mr Brard also reproached Dr Pelloux with having taken part in 2001 in a symposium of the National Association for Patients’ Rights, “whose proximity to the Jehovah’s Witnesses is well known”.

“How can one declare that patients threatened by the heatwave must be saved as a matter of urgency, and take part in initiatives of people who refuse the right to save lives through blood transfusions?”, protested Mr Brard, who asked the emergency physician to “condemn without ambiguity the position of the Jehovah’s Witnesses on the refusal of blood transfusion”.

Dr Pelloux immediately refuted these accusations, specifying that he was “not a member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses or of anyone else”. “I am not in any cult,” he assured.

“To reassure patients (…) I want to say that I have transfused and that I will transfuse, because it is my profession,” added Dr Pelloux, saying he was “wounded” by this “calling into question of (his) integrity as an emergency physician — ethical, moral and deontological”.

“I will not let this pass,” continued Dr Pelloux, who considers that this accusation “directly calls into question (his) professional competence”. The emergency physician said he had asked his lawyer “to bring the matter before the competent court for defamation”.

Dr Pelloux further deplored not having been contacted by the deputy, whom he invited “to come and do (his) shift this evening to see how (he) works”.

http://actu.voila.fr/Depeche/depeche_politique_040806175355.i 8p56wan.html

Court of Cassation - Criminal Chamber - Appeal no. 03-80039 - Published in the bulletin

Public hearing of 30 September 2003

President: Mr COTTE

FRENCH REPUBLIC

IN THE NAME OF THE FRENCH PEOPLE

THE COURT OF CASSATION, CRIMINAL CHAMBER, at its public hearing held at the Palais de Justice in PARIS, on the thirtieth of September two thousand and three, delivered the following judgment:

On the report of referendary counsellor D, the observations of Maître B, of the professional civil partnership M and C, of Maître B, counsel at the Court, and the submissions of advocate-general L.;

Ruling on the appeals lodged by:

• X… Jean-Pierre,
• Y… Hakim,
• COMPANY I, civilly liable,

against the judgment of the VERSAILLES Court of Appeal, 8th chamber, dated 18 December 2002, which, in the proceedings against the first two for public defamation of a private party, ruled on the civil damages;

Joining the appeals on account of their connexity;

Having regard to the briefs produced in support and in defence;

On the single ground of cassation submitted for Jean-Pierre X…, alleging violation of Articles 23, 29, 32, 35 and 41 of the law of 29 July 1881, 591 and 593 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, failure to state reasons, lack of legal basis, violation of the principle of the separation of powers;

“in that the contested reversing judgment held that the constituent elements of public defamation of a private party were established against Jean-Pierre X…, and ordered him to pay the FCTJF one euro in damages, in addition to the publication at his expense of a press release;

“on the grounds that, according to the terms of Article 41 of the law of 29 July 1881, reports printed by order of the National Assembly or the Senate cannot give rise to any action; that this provision is strictly construed and admits of no extensive interpretation; that the interview of Jean-Pierre X… in no way falls within the narrow framework of the publication of the report on “cults and money”, being part of a broader inquiry into the influence of cult movements in France; that the defendant is presented there as a parliamentarian particularly expert in the matter, and not as rapporteur of the commission responsible for presenting its conclusions; that the provisions of Article 41, paragraph 1, of the press law could not apply since the offending remarks do not fall within the framework of the said report, but were made on the occasion of a so-called popularisation interview intended to take stock of the weight of cults in the country;

“and on the grounds that the legitimacy of the aim pursued is not in question, Jean-Pierre X… being entitled to enlighten a readership of young readers on the various aspects of the fight undertaken against the excesses of certain cult movements; that his experience nevertheless forbade him from contenting himself with approximate terms, sweeping judgments and hasty conflations; that, to a legitimate question, Jean-Pierre X… replied with a value judgment without nuance or equivocation; that, coming from one of the most informed specialists in the matter, the words “international criminality” cannot be assimilated to criticisms of cults in the everyday sense of wrongdoers, but must be understood in their criminal-law meaning; that the conflation made between questionable practices and antisocial discourse, on the one hand, and established offences, on the other, demonstrates the lack of restraint in the remarks; that Jean-Pierre X… can no more claim good faith in deliberately associating the Jehovah’s Witnesses with the Church of Scientology, implicated on various occasions in political-financial scandals; that by engaging in the conflation described above, Jean-Pierre X… exceeded the customary liveliness of tone that could be accepted within the framework of the controversy provoked in public opinion by the legitimate fears aroused by cult phenomena; that the parliamentary inquiry report contained no precise and significant implication of the Jehovah’s Witnesses at the level of proceedings or criminal convictions involving that movement; that the first judges could not, therefore, state that the defamatory expression was merely a summary of the parliamentary report; that the benefit of good faith cannot validly be granted to Jean-Pierre X… who, besides the lack of restraint in his expression, at no point sought to keep closely to the conclusions of the inquiry reports, contenting himself with approximations all the more reprehensible in that they came from a reputed expert in the matter;

“whereas, on the one hand, summaries and presentations, even partial ones, of reports printed by order of the National Assembly or the Senate, made in good faith and respecting the spirit of their authors, give entitlement to the immunity provided for by Article 41 of the law of 29 July 1881; that, to exclude Jean-Pierre X…, deputy, from the benefit of that immunity, the court of appeal states that the remarks complained of, intended to take stock of the weight of cults in France, allegedly did not fall within the narrow framework of the publication of the report “Cults and money” drawn up by the National Assembly’s commission of inquiry; whereas the first part of that report was devoted to the growing influence of cult movements in France, from which it follows that Jean-Pierre X…, interviewed on that point, merely commented in good faith on that part of the report, in the drafting of which he had participated as a parliamentarian; that the court of appeal thus did not legally justify its decision with regard to the above-mentioned provisions;

“whereas, on the other hand, to exclude Jean-Pierre X… from the benefit of good faith within the meaning of Articles 35 and 41 of the law of 29 July 1881, the court of appeal asserts, in substance, that the confusion made between questionable cult practices and antisocial discourse, on the one hand, and established offences, on the other, allegedly demonstrates the lack of restraint in the remarks, since the report “Cults and money” allegedly contained no precise and significant implication of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Jean-Pierre X… thus allegedly contented himself with approximations and hasty conflations; whereas, however, as Jean-Pierre X… argued in his appeal pleadings, the parliamentary report to which the court of appeal refers does indeed stigmatise the existence of criminally reprehensible conduct attributable to the civil party, which, classified among the cults liable to cause disturbances to public order, figures, like the Church of Scientology, among the wealthiest cult movements most injurious to individual liberties; that in ruling as it did, without further explanation with regard to the appeal submissions properly before it, the court of appeal did not legally justify its decision with regard to the above-mentioned provisions;

“whereas, in any event, besides reports printed by order of the National Assembly or the Senate, the account of the public sittings of those assemblies made in good faith in the newspapers also gives entitlement to the immunity provided for by Article 41 of the law of 29 July 1881; that, to exclude Jean-Pierre X… from the benefit of the immunity provided for by Article 41, paragraph 1, of the press law, the court of appeal states that the remarks complained of allegedly did not fall within the narrow framework of the publication of the report “Cults and money” drawn up by the National Assembly’s commission of inquiry;

that, however, in so ruling, without examining whether, as Jean-Pierre X… indicated in his appeal pleadings, the delivery of such a document to the president of the National Assembly was not customarily followed by a debate in public sitting for the purpose of presenting the report’s conclusions, and whether, prior to the establishment of the commission of inquiry, a debate in public sitting had not also been organised so that the deputies could express their concerns at the scale of the international criminality attributable to cult movements, among them the Jehovah’s Witnesses — debates of which Jean-Pierre X… could have given a good-faith account, without distortion or malicious imputation, under cover of the immunity provided for by Article 41, paragraph 2, of the law of 29 July 1881 — the court of appeal did not legally justify its decision with regard to the above-mentioned provisions, and violated the principle of the separation of powers”;

On the first ground of cassation submitted for Hakim Y… and company I, alleging violation of Articles 23, 29 and 32 of the law of 29 July 1881, 2, 3, 427, 485, 512, 591 and 593 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, failure to state reasons, lack of legal basis;

“in that the contested reversing judgment held that the constituent elements of public defamation of a private party were established in the present case;

“on the grounds that, contrary to what the defendants maintain, the proceedings brought by the applicant do not have as their object to refute the terminology of cult, as applied to the association of Jehovah’s Witnesses; that the fact of describing a group, whatever it may be, as operating in the mode of international criminality incontestably characterises the imputation of precise facts, capable without difficulty of being the subject of adversarial debate, and which injure the honour and reputation of that group; that indeed, for a group or an association, to operate in the mode of organised international criminality means that its action is based on a whole series of offences and crimes contrary to the law, and with international ramifications at that; that these terms are used to describe mafia-type activities of a supra-national character, that such activities relate to major organised crime, arms trafficking, procuring, the laundering of dirty money — fields in which no established fact has been laid at the door of the Jehovah’s Witnesses in the parliamentary reports; that the judgment under appeal must be upheld on this point; that as regards the benefit of good faith, the legitimacy of the aim pursued is not in question, Jean-Pierre X… being entitled to enlighten a readership of young readers on the various aspects of the fight undertaken against the excesses of certain cult movements; that while Jean-Pierre X…‘s experience in the matter made him quite naturally a privileged interlocutor for addressing a certain number of messages to those young readers, it forbade him from contenting himself with approximate terms, sweeping judgments and hasty conflations; that in the present case, to a legitimate question, Jean-Pierre X… replied with a value judgment without nuance or equivocation;

that, coming from one of the most informed specialists in the matter, the words “international criminality” cannot be assimilated to criticisms of cults in the everyday sense of wrongdoers, but must be understood in their criminal-law meaning; that the conflation made between questionable practices and antisocial discourse, on the one hand, and established offences, on the other, demonstrates the lack of restraint in the remarks; that unlike a spontaneous oral expression, what is at issue here is the publication of an interview in a monthly magazine, meticulously prepared; that these remarks, which form part of the fight Jean-Pierre X… has decided to wage for the defence of individual liberties, both personally and through associations, exceed by their harshness the expression of an opinion tending to denounce the harmful excesses of a cult movement; that Jean-Pierre X… can no more claim good faith in deliberately associating the Jehovah’s Witnesses with the Church of Scientology, implicated on various occasions in political-financial scandals; that by engaging in the conflation described above, Jean-Pierre X… exceeded the customary liveliness of tone that could be accepted within the framework of the controversy provoked in public opinion by the legitimate fears aroused by cult phenomena;

that the parliamentary inquiry report contained no precise and significant implication of the Jehovah’s Witnesses at the level of proceedings or criminal convictions involving that movement; that the first judges could not, therefore, state that the defamatory expression was merely a summary of the parliamentary report; that consequently the benefit of good faith cannot validly be granted to Jean-Pierre X… who, besides the lack of restraint in his expression, at no point sought to keep closely to the conclusions of the inquiry reports, contenting himself with approximations all the more reprehensible in that they came from a reputed expert in the matter; that Hakim Y… and company I can no more claim that benefit, in so far as such an interview, necessarily polemical in character, presented in an apparently neutral manner, was nevertheless bound to reframe the offending expression, and above all to present in adversarial fashion the arguments of the group violently called into question; that the judgment under appeal must consequently be reversed and it must be held that the constituent elements of defamation are established in the present case, with regard to all the proceedings;

“whereas, on the one hand, it follows from the extracts of the parliamentary inquiry report of 10 June 1999, reproduced verbatim in the civil party’s appeal submissions, that the parliamentarians observed there in particular (page 170) that, “as regards the donations paid by the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Commission noted a second phenomenon of tax evasion which shows, once again, the cult’s capacity to adapt its practices to the rules imposed by law”; that in holding, therefore, that Jean-Pierre X…, in declaring that the cult of the Jehovah’s Witnesses operates in the mode of international criminality, could not rely on the conclusions of that commission of inquiry, which allegedly had not directly implicated fraudulent conduct attributable to the civil party, the court of appeal distorted the above-mentioned parliamentary inquiry report;

“and whereas, on the other hand, the legitimacy of the aim pursued, the absence of personal animosity, prudence and restraint in expression, together with the quality of the investigation, are such as to characterise the journalist’s good faith; that in the present case, in relying on the circumstance that Hakim Y… and company I should have reframed the offending expression used by Jean-Pierre X… and presented in adversarial fashion the arguments of the group called into question, to conclude that they could not claim their good faith, without examining, as it was nevertheless invited to do, whether, given the parliamentary inquiry report designating the Jehovah’s Witnesses as a potentially dangerous cult, and having regard to the standing of the person interviewed, a member of the parliamentary commission that drew up the said report, the journalist who collected the offending remarks was not entitled to consider that they were consistent with the facts denounced by the parliamentary commission, and accordingly had shown no imprudent conduct such as to exclude his good faith, the court of appeal deprived its decision of any legal basis”;

The grounds being joined;

Whereas it results from the contested judgment and the documents of the proceedings that, during an interview granted to the magazine “15-25 ans.com” and published in the September 2001 issue, Jean-Pierre X…, deputy and rapporteur of the parliamentary commission of inquiry into the financial, patrimonial and fiscal situation of cults as well as their economic activities and their relations with economic and financial circles, made the following remarks: “But one thing is certain: cults like the Jehovah’s Witnesses or Scientology operate today in the mode of international criminality, with unsuspected ramifications and an immense power, including lobbying power”;

that, following the publication of these remarks, the association Christian Federation of Jehovah’s Witnesses of France summonsed Jean-Pierre X…, Hakim Y…, publication director of the above-mentioned magazine, and company I, publisher of that magazine, on the charge of public defamation of a private party on the basis of Articles 29, paragraph 1, and 32, paragraph 2, of the law of 29 July 1881; that the court acquitted the defendants and dismissed the civil party’s claims; that the latter appealed against the judgment;

Whereas, in order to reject the defences of the respondents, who invoked the immunity provided for by Article 41, paragraph 2, of the law of 29 July 1881 and the benefit of good faith, to reverse the judgment under appeal and to hold the offence established, the court of appeal finds that the offending remarks, which insinuate that the Jehovah’s Witnesses engage in mafia-type activities connected with major organised crime, do not constitute a faithful account of the report of the above-mentioned commission of inquiry, which made no mention of “precise and significant implications” of the Jehovah’s Witnesses before the criminal courts; that the judges add that, while it was legitimate to seek to inform young readers about the various aspects of the fight against cults, it was nevertheless incumbent on Jean-Pierre X…, a reputed expert in the matter, to take care, in a “meticulously prepared” interview, not to use approximate terms and not to engage in hasty conflations; that the judges conclude that the person concerned, who did not rely on serious elements of assessment, lacked restraint in the expression of his thought; that they specify that, in his capacity as publication director, Hakim Y… should have made apparent the polemical character of the offending remarks, presented as objective, and allowed the association violently called into question to present its arguments;

Whereas in so ruling, by reasons free of insufficiency or contradiction and responding to the peremptory heads of the submissions before it, which cited no passage of the commission of inquiry’s report capable of corroborating the criticised remarks, the court of appeal justified its decision;

That Jean-Pierre X… cannot reproach it with not having examined whether the offending remarks were not the account of debates that allegedly took place within the National Assembly in connection with the work of the said commission, since it does not appear from any statement in the contested judgment, nor from any submissions properly filed, that he developed such an argument before the judges of second instance;

From which it follows that the grounds must be rejected;

But on the second ground of cassation submitted for Hakim Y… and company I, alleging violation of Articles 23, 29 and 32 of the law of 29 July 1881, 2, 3, 427, 485, 512, 591 and 593 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, failure to state reasons, lack of legal basis;

“in that the contested judgment ordered, “at the expense of Hakim Y…, of the magazine 15-25 ans.com and of Jean-Pierre X…”, the publication, in a national daily newspaper, up to a cost of 2,500 euros, of a notice mentioning the conviction pronounced, together with an identical publication in the monthly “15-25 ans.com”;

“whereas, in its appeal submissions, the civil party asked the court of appeal to order, “by way of additional damages, the dissemination of the forthcoming judgment” in the magazine “15-25 ans.com” as well as “in a national daily newspaper, by extract, at the defendants’ expense, without the cost of each insertion exceeding 2,000 euros”; that, therefore, in ordering a publication “in a national daily newspaper, up to a cost of 2,500 euros”, the court of appeal, which disregarded the limits of the dispute, exceeded its powers”;

Having regard to Articles 459 and 464 of the Code of Criminal Procedure;

Whereas the trial judges may rule on civil reparations only within the limits of the submissions before them;

Whereas, in its submissions filed before the judges of second instance, the association Christian Federation of Jehovah’s Witnesses of France requested, in particular, that the dissemination of the judgment by extract in a national daily newspaper be ordered at the respondents’ expense “by way of additional damages”, “without the cost exceeding 2,000 euros”;

Whereas, by the contested judgment, the court of appeal ordered the dissemination requested, setting its maximum cost at 2,500 euros;

But whereas in so ruling, the court of appeal disregarded the above-mentioned provisions and the principle stated above;

From which it follows that cassation is incurred on this head;

And on the third ground of cassation submitted for company I, alleging violation of Articles 23, 29 and 32 of the law of 29 July 1881, 2, 3, 427, 475-1, 485, 512, 591 and 593 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, failure to state reasons, lack of legal basis;

“in that the contested judgment ordered “the magazine 15-25 ans.com” to pay the Christian Federation of Jehovah’s Witnesses of France the sum of 4,000 euros on the basis of Article 475-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure;

“whereas only the perpetrator of the offence, to the exclusion of the civilly liable party, may be ordered to pay the civil party an indemnity on the basis of the provisions of Article 475-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure;

that, in its appeal submissions, the Christian Federation of Jehovah’s Witnesses of France, which admittedly asked for it to be held that Jean-Pierre X… and Hakim Y… had committed the offence of public defamation of a private party, confined itself, as regards company I, to impleading it in its capacity as party civilly liable for Hakim Y…; that it could not therefore seek its condemnation on the basis of the provisions of Article 475-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and that in ruling as it did on this head, the court of appeal violated the above-mentioned provision”;

Having regard to Article 475-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure;

Whereas, according to that provision, only the perpetrator of the offence may be ordered to pay the civil party the sum determined by the judge in respect of costs not paid by the State and incurred by the latter;

Whereas, by the contested judgment, the court of appeal ordered company I, in its capacity as civilly liable party, to pay a sum of 4,000 euros on the basis of the above-mentioned article;

But whereas in so ruling, the court of appeal disregarded the above-mentioned provision and the principle stated above;

From which it follows that cassation is likewise incurred on this head;

On these grounds;

QUASHES AND ANNULS the above-mentioned judgment of the Versailles Court of Appeal, dated 18 December 2002, but only in that it ordered company I to pay the civil party a sum of 4,000 euros under Article 475-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and in that it set at 2,500 euros the maximum cost of the publication ordered by way of civil reparation, all other provisions being expressly maintained;

HOLDS that the maximum cost of the publication ordered by way of civil reparation is set at 2,000 euros;

HOLDS that there is no need for remittal;

ORDERS the printing of the present judgment, its transcription in the registers of the registry of the Versailles Court of Appeal, and its notation in the margin of or following the partially annulled judgment;

Thus judged and pronounced by the Court of Cassation, criminal chamber, at its public hearing, on the day, month and year aforesaid;

Present at the hearing and the deliberation were: Mr Cotte, president, Mr Desportes, reporting counsellor, Mr Joly, Mmes Chanet, Anzani, Mazars, MM. Beyer, Pometan, Mme Nocquet, Mr Castagnède, counsellors of the chamber, MM. Ponsot, Valat, Mme Ménotti, referendary counsellors;

Advocate-general: Mr L.;

Chamber registrar: Mme L.;

In witness whereof the present judgment was signed by the president, the reporter and the chamber registrar;

Mr Brard convicted on appeal of defaming the Jehovah’s Witnesses

(AFP, 20.12.2002) VERSAILLES - The Versailles Court of Appeal on Wednesday convicted Jean-Pierre Brard, deputy (PCF) for Seine-Saint-Denis, of defamation, ordering him to pay one euro in damages to the Christian Federation of Jehovah’s Witnesses of France, it was learned on Friday from a judicial source. In its ruling, the court holds that “the benefit of good faith cannot validly be granted to Jean-Pierre Brard who, besides the lack of restraint in his expression, at no point sought to keep closely to the conclusions of the inquiry reports, contenting himself with approximations all the more reprehensible in that they came from a reputed expert in the matter”.

Jean-Pierre Brard was vice-president of a parliamentary commission of inquiry into cults which published a report in January 1996. At first instance, in March, the criminal court of Nanterre (Hauts-de-Seine) had dismissed the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ claim. The court had held that Mr Brard was in “good faith” when he asserted, in the September 2001 issue of the magazine 15-25ans.com, that cults “like the Jehovah’s Witnesses or Scientology” operate “in the mode of international criminality with unsuspected ramifications and an immense power, including lobbying power”. Mr Hakim Benhalima, the publication director of the monthly 15-25ans.com which had published these statements, also targeted by the complaint, was convicted, like Mr Brard, of defamation and ordered to pay one euro in damages. The defendants will further have to pay the Jehovah’s Witnesses 4,000 euros in legal costs. “This decision will give satisfaction to all the faithful,” said Jean-Marie Bockaert, president of the Consistory of Jehovah’s Witnesses, in a statement transmitted to AFP, adding “we were compelled to resort to the courts on account of the repeated and unfounded accusations of which we have been the object on the part of Mr Jean-Pierre Brard for years”.