The victim of a scurrilous report may obtain compensation for his moral damage only if the bad faith of the author of the report is demonstrated. A discharge judgment is not sufficient to demonstrate the complainant's bad faith.
Following a complaint of breach of professional secrecy, the accused person is released by the correctional court. The latter considers itself the victim of a scurrilous denunciation and decides to bring the person responsible for the complaint to justice. It seeks compensation for non-material damage.
The Court of Cassation refused to recognize the existence of civil fault giving rise to the right to compensation. The mere judgment of release, from which it is possible to deduce the falsehood of the fact complained of, is not sufficient to characterize the slander. The bad faith of the accused must also be demonstrated.
For the Court of Cassation, it is not enough to point out the blameworthy lightness of the complainant to characterize his bad faith.
