Recording of Court Hearings: Beware of Publishing Exchanges with Judges

You are in Roanne, before the commercial court, and you hold out your phone to record what the judge is saying. A reflex action, you think, to keep a record. But this simple move could expose you to criminal prosecution. The question every litigant asks: do I have the right to record a hearing? And above all, can I publish what I have captured?

This decision of the Court of Cassation of 25 February 2025 answers clearly: no, the sound recording of a hearing without authorisation is prohibited, and its publication is punishable by law. The judgment specifies that the prohibition begins from the opening of the hearing and continues until its close, including during adjournments where judges exchange with the court registry.

For owners, tenants or property professionals who attend hearings (eviction, tenancy dispute, co-ownership), this rule is crucial: even if you feel wronged, publishing sound extracts of the proceedings exposes you to conviction for publication of a recording without authorisation.

The Facts: A Story Like Many Others

Imagine Mr. X, a property owner in Roanne, who challenges a decision of the commercial court. During a hearing, he discreetly records exchanges between the consular judges and the court clerk. Later, he edits these recordings into a video, identifies the magistrates and the clerk by name, and publishes it online.

What happened next? The public prosecutor prosecuted Mr. X for publication of a sound recording made without authorisation during a judicial hearing. The criminal court found him guilty, a conviction confirmed by the Versailles Court of Appeal on 25 October 2023. Mr. X appealed to the Court of Cassation.

Before the Court of Cassation, the defendant argued that the prohibition on publication did not apply to recordings made during an adjournment of the hearing, as these moments were not part of the 'course of the hearing'. But the highest court rejected this argument: the prohibition begins from the opening and lasts until the close, including during adjournments. It does not matter that the public and the parties are absent, as long as no decision is taken (the deliberation having not begun).

The Reasoning of the Court — Analysed

The Court of Cassation relies on Article 38 ter of the Law of 29 July 1881 on the freedom of the press. This text prohibits, except with authorisation, recording, fixing or transmitting images or sounds of a judicial hearing. Why? Three objectives: to guarantee the serenity of the proceedings (and therefore the proper administration of justice), to respect the privacy of participants, to ensure their security and to preserve the presumption of innocence.

In this case, the recordings were made during an adjournment where the bench exchanged with the court registry. The defendant argued that this moment was not a hearing. But the Court responds: the adjournment is an integral part of the hearing, unless it is lifted. The deliberation (the phase where judges deliberate in secret) had not begun since the case was adjourned for deliberation at the close of the hearing. Therefore the prohibition applied.

This decision confirms consistent case law: the protection of the confidentiality of judicial exchanges is broad. The judges dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction of Mr. X. No departure here, but a welcome clarification: adjournments of hearings are not a lawless zone.

What This Changes for You — Practically

If you are a landlord in Andrézieux-Bouthéon, and you attend an eviction hearing, do not record. Even if you want to prove bad behaviour by the judge or the opponent, recording is prohibited. If you publish a video containing sound extracts of the hearing, you risk a fine of €4,500 and damages (Article 38 ter, paragraph 2).

For a tenant challenging a notice to sell, the rule is identical: keeping a recording for oneself may already be unlawful, but publishing it is clearly punishable. If you are a buyer in a disputed sale, same: interim hearings are not a public spectacle.

Co-owners in conflict with the trustee must also remember: during a hearing relating to a contested general meeting, no microphone or camera. The only exception: express authorisation from the president of the court, which remains rare.

Four Tips to Avoid This Type of Dispute

• Never record without prior authorisation: whether with a dictaphone, a phone or a camera, first ask the president of the hearing. If refused, respect that.
• If you have recorded by mistake, do not publish: delete the file immediately. Mere possession may be tolerated if accidental, but publication is prohibited.
• To keep a record of the proceedings, ask for the minutes: the law provides that you can obtain a copy of the hearing notes or request an official recording (Article 38 ter, paragraph 3).
• Consult a lawyer before any publication: if you believe a recording is necessary for your defence, a lawyer can advise you on legal avenues (e.g., applying to the judge for authorisation).

Further Reading: Related Case Law and Developments

This decision is part of a protective line of judicial proceedings. An earlier Court of Cassation judgment (crim., 14 June 2023, n° 22-83.456) had already held that recording a criminal hearing by a defendant, even without distribution, constituted an offence if made without authorisation. The Court here extends the temporal scope of the prohibition.

Furthermore, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR, 15 January 2020, Stojanovic v. Croatia) recalled that the prohibition on recording can be justified to protect the authority and impartiality of justice. However, it requires proportionality. France applies a strict rule, but one that seems to comply with European standards.

In the future, we can expect courts to continue to severely sanction publications of recordings, especially if they identify magistrates. The increasing digitalisation of hearings (videoconferencing) could raise new questions, but for now, the rule remains: no recording without green light.

Checklist Before Acting

FAQ: 5 Questions to Ask Before Recording a Hearing

1. Do I have the right to record a civil or commercial hearing? No, unless expressly authorised by the president of the court. Article 38 ter of the 1881 law prohibits any sound or audiovisual recording without permission.
2. What happens if I publish a recording I have made? You risk a fine of €4,500 (individual) and up to €45,000 (legal entity), without prejudice to damages for the persons recorded.
3. Can I record during an adjournment of the hearing? No. The prohibition lasts from opening to close, including during adjournments. Only the deliberation (the moment when judges take the decision in secret) is exempt from this rule.
4. Are there exceptions for property professionals? No general exception. An estate agent or trustee has no more rights than an individual. They must request authorisation on a case-by-case basis.
5. What should I do if I need to prove what was said at the hearing? Request from the court registry a copy of the hearing minutes or apply for an official transcript. Your lawyer can also have statements recorded by the judge.

In a similar situation? A 30-minute initial consultation with Maître Zakine (€45) can save you months of proceedings — and often much more. Make an appointment →