Case:
Civ. 1e Bull. Civ., 1995 I no 479 p. 331 Case Caisse autonome nationale de compensation de l’assurance viellesseartisanale v. X Subsequent Developments
Date:
19 December 1995
Note:
Translated French Cases and Materials under the direction of Professor B. Markesinis and M. le Conseiller Dominique Hascher
Translated by:
Tony Weir
Copyright:
Professor B. S. Markesinis

On the sole ground of CANCAVA’s application for review, all three limbs:

Given that, according to the trial judges, when M. X., a motor mechanic, refused to pay CANCAVA his obligatory retirement pension premiums, pursuant to the instructions of his union, the Confédération de défense de commerçants et artisans (CDCA), CANCAVA sent a questionnaire to the mayor of the locality where M. X. lived, asking whether he was married, where he lived, and how much he and his wife owned and earned, whereupon M. X. and CDCA applied to the judge in chambers under article 9 Code civil for an order prohibiting any such inquiry ;

Given that CANCAVA objects to the judgment forbidding it to send such a questionnaire to the mayor (Riom, 1 June 1993) in that it failed to specify that the affair was urgent, to state how the private life of M. X. had been invaded and to inquire whether CANCAVA’s action was not justified by M. X.’s illicit purpose in seeking to avoid performing his obligations, seeing that it cannot be an invasion of privacy to provide information needed in order to enforce a judgment;

But given that the judges below were right to hold that as the information sought related to his private life, M. X. was entitled to refuse to give it, as it was not shown that CANCAVA needed that information in order to protect its statutory rights, and that such intrusion was not justified by the inquirer’s status as a creditor entitled to claim the sums due by way of retirement pension; and that furthermore the judge in chambers indicated the urgency of the situation by noting that the invasion was manifestly illegal;

The decision is accordingly justified in law;

On the sole ground of CDCA’s application for review, both limbs:

Given that CDCA criticises as contrary to articles L. 411-1 and L. 411-11 Labour Code the Court of Appeal’s holding that a trade union such as CDCA has no title to sue in respect of the invasion of privacy of its members whereas the very purpose of trade unions is to defend the rights and interests, both material and moral, of their members whenever the collective interests they represent are adversely affected directly or indirectly , and they furthermore have an interest entitling them to join in a lawsuit which raises a question of principle whose solution may affect its whole membership and prove harmful, directly or indirectly , to the interests of the trade;

But given that the judges below were quite right to hold that a union whose function is to defend the interests of the profession cannot bring an action based on invasion of privacy;

On this point also, the judgment below is correct in law;

For these reasons,
DISMISSES both applications for review.

Civ. 1, 19/12/1995 :
1) It is lawful for a person to refuse to communicate personal information because it is not necessary for the task of the person who asks for it. Although the court has not expressly repeated this principle since, it has mentioned in a judgment of the 5 December 2000 (Bull crim no 362), using the European Convention of Human Rights this time as a basis, the requirement that every investigative measure which can violate the intimacy of private life should be necessary, proportionate and lawful. Legal writers likewise consider this principle to be maintained.

2) A trade union which has the function of defending the interests of a profession cannot act to protect the private life of one of its members: this case law seems to be maintained - legal writers at any rate accept it as such - even though there has been no later judgment to confirm or contradict this principle. The Cour de cassation has moreover had occasion to mention that the task of trade unions is the defence of the collective interests of the profession (Soc 18 December 2000, Bull V, no 434; 12 June 2001, Bull, V, no 221; 9 April 2002, Bull, V, no 124...) making imminent reversal of its case law unlikely. It is accepted today by case law as well as legal writers that the act or fact in dispute must have infringed the general interests of the profession in order to authorise a court action by a trade union, which was not the case here.

Translation by Raymond Youngs

 

Back to top

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