Background
The Rennes Court of Appeal requested an advisory opinion in proceedings against M. [P] [N] for publicly defaming a person holding public office. Its questions concerned claims by an acquitted defendant under Articles 472 and 800-2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Article 472 permits an acquitted defendant, where the civil party initiated the prosecution, to seek damages for an abusive civil-party complaint. Article 800-2 allows a court entering an acquittal to award compensation for expenses not paid by the State, chargeable to the civil party when that party initiated the prosecution. The Court of Appeal asked whether such claims in press-law proceedings are governed by the three-month limitation regime in Article 65 of the Law of July 29, 1881, and, if so, whether the defendant can interrupt that period by summoning the civil party before the appellate court.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Cassation advised that claims under Articles 472 and 800-2 made in press-law proceedings are subject to Article 65’s three-month limitation period. Although the two remedies have different bases—Article 472 compensates harm caused by an abusive or dilatory referral to the criminal court, while Article 800-2 rests on equity and reimburses defense expenses—both are directly connected to, and continue, the press-law prosecution initiated by the civil party.
The limitation period is not suspended merely because the public prosecutor takes no action. An acquitted defendant who appeals only the rejection of these compensation claims has the right and responsibility to summon the civil party to an appellate hearing before the three-month period expires, thereby interrupting prescription. A defendant who does not exercise that right cannot rely on prosecutorial inaction as an obstacle suspending the limitation period.
Key Takeaways
- The special three-month prescription regime for French press offenses also governs related claims by an acquitted defendant under Articles 472 and 800-2.
- These claims are treated as direct consequences and extensions of the underlying press-law prosecution because they depend on alleged abuse by the civil party in initiating it.
- An acquitted appellant must timely summon the civil party before the appellate court; prosecutorial inactivity alone does not suspend prescription.
Why It Matters
The advisory opinion imposes a short and demanding procedural timetable on defendants seeking damages or reimbursement after acquittal in French press cases. Counsel cannot wait for the prosecution to advance an appeal concerning those claims and must take affirmative steps to interrupt prescription.
The ruling also confirms that ancillary compensation claims remain subject to the Press Law’s exceptional limitation rules when their resolution is closely tied to the initiation and alleged abuse of the underlying press prosecution.