The Court of Cassation rejected Wednesday, May 11 the appeals of the former minister Pierre Joxe and the former boss of the chain Equidia Eric Brion, now definitively dismissed from their lawsuits in defamation against the two women who accuse them of sexual violence for one and sexual harassment for the other.
In these two emblematic cases of the #metoo wave of denunciation of sexual violence, the highest court of the judiciary considered that the court of appeal had been right to consider that the words of the two accusers were based “on a sufficient factual basis” to recognize them “the benefit of good faith”.
In its judgments, the Court adds that the offending remarks, which date from October 2017, did contribute to “a debate of general interest on the denunciation of non-consensual behavior with a sexual connotation of certain men vis-à-vis women”.
Convicted at first instance, acquitted on appeal
The case involving Pierre Joxe began on October 18, 2017, three days after the launch of #metoo, when Ariane Fornia (real name Alexandra Besson), daughter of Eric Besson, former minister of Nicolas Sarkozy, posted a post in which she claimed to have been the victim of sexual assault in her youth by a “former Minister of Mitterrand”.
The other case examined by the Court of Cassation broke out on October 13, 2017, when journalist Sandra Muller launched the hashtag #balancetonporc on her Twitter account, calling on women to denounce those who had harassed them in the workplace. In the process, she opened the ball of accusations by writing in a tweet: “You have big boobs. You are my type of woman. I will make you cum all night long. Eric Brion ex-boss of Equidia #balancetonporc”.
At first instance, the court ruled in favor of the two plaintiffs who considered themselves defamed by their accusers, ordering them to pay damages.
But the Paris Court of Appeal then overturned these judgments, on March 31 and April 14, 2021, considering that the denunciations fell under freedom of expression.
This decision of the Court of Cassation takes the opposite view of the position of the general counsel of the court who, during the hearing on April 5, had pronounced in favor of the cassation of the two judgments. While reminding “the importance of fundamental freedom of expression”Blandine Mallet-Bricout called for preserving ” a balance (…) between this freedom and the protection of the individual rights of citizens. and to “insist on the need” to have“evidence to characterize the likelihood of the facts reported” to benefit from the exception of the ” sincerity “.