Offences against honour

The offence of slanderous denunciation gives rise to relatively limited case law.

The conditions for slanderous denunciation

The Criminal Chamber provided a useful clarification on the conditions of this offence (Crim., 11 July 2017, appeal no. 16-83932). Under Article 226-10 of the Criminal Code, a denunciation is slanderous when it concerns "a fact liable to entail judicial, administrative or disciplinary sanctions and which is known to be totally or partially inaccurate"; the text adds that "the falsity of the denounced fact necessarily results from the final decision of acquittal, discharge or dismissal declaring that the fact was not committed or that it cannot be imputed to the denounced person".

In the case at hand, a woman who had filed a rape complaint against her husband was herself targeted by a complaint from her husband for slanderous denunciation, the rape complaint having resulted in a dismissal order for lack of sufficient material evidence to support the alleged victim's declarations about the reality of the facts denounced.

The non-automatic effect of a dismissal order

The Court of Cassation reiterated that a dismissal order for lack of evidence does not automatically characterise the falsity of the denounced facts. The judge seised of the slanderous denunciation proceedings must independently assess whether the denounced facts are inaccurate and whether the denouncer knew of their inaccuracy.

The autonomous role of the criminal judge

This solution preserves an essential balance: it prevents victims of offences from refraining from filing a complaint for fear of being prosecuted, while still allowing the prosecution of intentional false accusations. The defence in a slanderous-denunciation case must therefore not be content with the prior dismissal; it must demonstrate, with concrete elements, both the inaccuracy of the facts denounced and the conscious bad faith of the denouncer.