Maltese Law Firm Chetcuti Cauchi Wins Landmark Defamation Case in Highest Court in France
The French Court of Cassation upheld the defamation conviction of M6 executives for fabricating evidence and misrepresenting the truth in bad faith in a case brought by Maltese law firm Chetcuti Cauchi. This landmark ruling reinforces media accountability, journalistic ethics, and corporate reputation protection in defamation law.
French Supreme Court Upholds Defamation Ruling Against M6 Media Executives
The French Court of Cassation, the highest judicial authority in France, has upheld the conviction of Nicolas Bellet de Tavernost and Bernard Berger de la Villardière, two senior media executives at M6’s Enquête Exclusive, for criminal defamation. This ruling marks the final rejection of their appeal, reinforcing the earlier decision of the Paris Court of Criminal Appeal, which found that their documentary misrepresented facts and defamed CC Advisors Ltd. in bad faith.
The ruling has been officially published in the Bulletin des arrêts de la Cour de cassation – Chambre criminelle, confirming its precedential value and strengthening legal protections for individuals and businesses against media misrepresentation and setting a crucial legal precedent for journalistic accountability. [Bulletin]
Background of the Case
The defamation case stems from a 2019 episode of Enquête Exclusive, which aired on French television network M6. The documentary negatively portrayed CC Advisors Ltd. within Malta’s investment migration sector. The program featured selectively edited footage, which, according to court findings, distorted reality to imply wrongdoing where none existed.
Following the broadcast, lawyer Dr. Jean-Philippe Chetcuti of Chetcuti Cauchi Advocates, representing the claimant, initiated legal proceedings in France, arguing that the documentary caused severe reputational harm to the claimants.
Paris Court of Criminal Appeal (2023) (1st appeal)
The Paris Court of Criminal Appeal ruled in favour of Chetcuti Cauchi, overturning an earlier lower court decision. The appellate court found that:
- The documentary contained defamatory statements that misrepresented the law firm’s practices.
- M6 executives acted in bad faith, failing to uphold journalistic standards of fairness and accuracy.
- The unedited rushes (raw footage) revealed significant discrepancies between what was filmed and what was aired.
- The Court of Criminal Appeal threw out the decision of the court of first instance that had admitted the defence that the footage should be inadmissible as it would incriminate them. Accordingly, the footage that M6 Media was ordered to hand over to the complainants by order of the judge in summary proceedings on 11 December 2019 should be admissible as evidence. The rushes were requested by the complainants "under Article 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure, due to their necessity for the defence in a defamation case that they were considering initiating to counter the defendant’s claim of good faith. Since evidence is free in criminal matters, these materials, which had been legally obtained by a judicial decision, could not be deemed inadmissible.
French Court of Cassation (2025) – Final Judgment (2nd appeal)
The Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal filed by de Tavernost and de la Villardière, affirming that the lower courts correctly established the defamatory nature of the documentary. The court also upheld the use of raw footage as evidence, confirming that the unedited material directly contradicted the claims made in the broadcast.
Admissibility of Rushes
- The Court upheld the Court of Appeal’s acceptance of unedited footage (rushes) as admissible evidence.
- These rushes were obtained through a lawful summary judgement (référé) order and were not contested on procedural grounds.
- The Court reiterated that evidence is free in criminal matters and can be obtained from judicial sources other than the court seized of the main action.
Defamatory Nature of the Broadcast
- The judgement focused on four specific statements made in the voice-over of the documentary, concluding that:
- The combined effect of these statements created an insinuation of unethical or illegal behaviour.
- The editing and narration suggested that the firm had influence over government officials and could circumvent legal procedures—which the Court deemed attentatoire à l'honneur (harmful to honour and reputation).
Rejection of Good Faith Defence
The Court ruled that the defendants could not invoke good faith, noting:
“La cour d'appel a justement exclu la bonne foi des prévenus, en raison d’un manquement du journaliste à son devoir d’informer loyalement le public sur un point essentiel du reportage incriminé, sans qu’une telle déformation puisse être justifiée par sa liberté d’expression.”
Translation: The Court of Appeal rightly excluded the good faith of the defendants, due to the journalist’s failure to fairly inform the public on an essential point of the report, without such distortion being justified by freedom of expression.
Assessment of Context and Impact
The judges observed that:
- The statements were not isolated but part of a thematic sequence suggesting misconduct.
- There was a clear discrepancy between the rushes and the broadcast narration, which undermined the journalistic integrity of the report.
- The report implied criminally reprehensible conduct, triggering the application of defamation law.
Legal Precedent and Media Accountability
This landmark ruling is expected to shape future defamation cases across Europe. The decision clarifies that media outlets cannot rely on selective editing and misleading narratives without facing legal consequences. The ruling also strengthens the right to reputation for professionals and businesses that have been misrepresented in journalistic investigations.
Legal experts view the judgement as a critical precedent for media law, with implications for how freedom of the press is balanced against responsible reporting. Commenting on the judgement, a legal expert stated:
“This ruling sends a strong message that journalistic integrity must be upheld, and that freedom of expression does not extend to deliberate misrepresentation.”
This ruling stands as a final and binding legal milestone. The decision sets a new benchmark for journalistic responsibility in defamation law. This case will likely serve as a reference in future legal disputes involving media misrepresentation and corporate reputational harm.