Case:
Civ. 1e Bull. Civ., 1972 I no 134 p. 118 JCP 1972. II. 17209 Subsequent Developments
Date:
18 May 1972
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

Subsequent Developments

On the first ground:

Given that in acceding to the claim by the Rossis, husband and wife, the former of whom was acting both in his own interests and as administrator of his minor son, Christian Rossi, the judge in chambers ordered the seizure from the publishers René Julliard and elsewhere of Michel de Castillo’s book “Les écrous de la haine”, which recounted and commented on the relations between Mme Gabrielle Russier and Christian Rossi, who was her pupil;

Given that the Court of Appeal’s judgment upholding that order is criticised for holding that no story, account or reminiscence of a minor’s private life may be published without the consent of the person having authority over the minor, whereas, as the complainant maintains, the powers of the person with authority cannot extend so far as to deprive the minor of his own history , for that would be effectively to alienate his individuality and strip him of his humanity ;

But given that in holding that facts concerning a minor’s private life may not be published without the permission of the person with authority over him the Court of Appeal was merely applying the rules of law concerning the protection of the minor’s person and property; and that therefore the ground is unfounded;

On the second ground, both limbs: given that it is also argued that since private life can only be said to be invaded if the facts published were secret or were intended to be so, it was inconsistent of the judgment under attack to say on the one hand that to assemble these facts was an invasion of the private life and then that the book in issue merely repeated facts already divulged, seeing that once there has been publication, even of a secret, there cannot be any question of second thoughts, and that in any case on the present facts the supposed invasion of the minor’s private life could not constitute an intolerable interference sufficient as to justify the judge in chambers in ordering the seizure of the book;

But given that after noting that the matters recounted in Michel Castillo’s book had already appeared in many articles in newspapers and magazines, it was perfectly consistent for the Court of Appeal, which did not endorse second thoughts, to hold that by collecting together data theretofore so scattered that the public had no general idea of the story, and by giving the event a degree of publicity greater than it had received from the media, acting independently and with varying emphasis, the author had invaded the private life of the Rossi parents and their son; and that finally it was within the powers of the Court of Appeal to determine that the invasion of privacy here was so intolerable as to justify the powers exercised by the judge in chambers; that accordingly the second ground is no better founded than the first;

For these reasons DISMISSES the application for review of the decision handed down by the Court of Appeal (Paris) on 8 June 1970.

Civ 1, 18 May 1972 : cf Juriclasseur numérique, civil, art 9, instalment 10 no 83 (Jacques Ravanas, March 2002): "If a minor is not yet capable of discernment, it is only his legal representative who has authority to give authorisation (...) and, if need be, to start a court action. When he acquires the natural capacity to adapt his actions to what he knows to be reasonable, his consent becomes necessary and is only valid with the authorisation of the person who has parental authority, the adolescent remaining under the authority of his father and mother until his majority or emancipation. Guardianship of incapable adults (assistance) takes precedence over representation. In spite of the precocious maturity of adolescents case law refuses to substitute the concept of autonomy for that of assistance". See in particular Cass Civ 1, 23 October 1990: "given that after having correctly held that everyone (...) has a right to respect for his private life, the court of appeal found that the articles, without authorisation from the legal representatives of the person concerned, mentioned some facts relating to the behaviour of a minor aged 14 on a private island and disclosed certain strictly private habits of his..." This case law is still current: the minor alone cannot validly authorise the disclosure of facts concerning his private life. He must also have the agreement of his legal representative or of his parents.

Translation by Raymond Youngs

Back to top

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