Prescription in Press Law: When the Order Closing Proceedings Suspends the Time Limit

Imagine: you are the owner of a building in Redon, and a tenant publishes serious accusations about you on his blog. You bring a defamation action (an attack on honour by public statements). The case proceeds, an order closing proceedings (a judge's act that closes the arguments) is made, and then you await judgment. But months pass, and the limitation period (the legal time limit for action, here three months in press matters) could be raised against you. What can you do?

The question that every litigant involved in a press procedure asks: how can you interrupt the limitation period when you can no longer act? The answer from the Court of Cassation in this judgment of 3 April 2007 (No. 06-14.111) is clear: the limitation period is automatically suspended between the order closing proceedings and the pronouncement of the judgment. In other words, the time that passes during this period does not count towards the limitation period.

But what exactly does this change? This decision protects the claimant who, after the closure of arguments, can no longer file submissions (written arguments) or perform a procedural act to manifest his intention to continue. Without this suspension, many defamation or public insult (verbal abuse) actions would be time-barred before the court even rules.

The facts: a story that happens every day

Mrs X, owner of a property in Redon, is attacked in a local newspaper article. Believing the statements harm her reputation, she sues (brings a legal action) the newspaper before the Tribunal de Grande Instance of Lille. But the court declares itself incompetent (not entitled to hear the case) because the facts occurred in Redon, which falls within the jurisdiction of Rennes.

Mrs X appeals (challenges the decision) before the Court of Appeal of Douai. The procedure continues: exchange of submissions, hearing, then the case management judge (the judge responsible for the proceedings) makes an order closing proceedings on 20 October 2005. The case is taken under advisement (the judges deliberate before rendering their decision). The judgment is finally pronounced on 15 March 2006, nearly five months later.

Meanwhile, the three-month limitation period provided for by Article 65 of the Law of 29 July 1881 on the freedom of the press has run. The defendant newspaper (the party being sued) raises the limitation defence: according to it, Mrs X performed no interrupting act (an act that stops the time limit) after the order closing proceedings. The Court of Appeal agrees and dismisses Mrs X's action.

Mrs X appeals to the Court of Cassation. She argues that the order closing proceedings placed her in an impossibility to act, and that the limitation period should have been suspended. The Court of Cassation agrees, quashing the appeal judgment. It remands the case to the Court of Appeal of Versailles.

The court's reasoning — broken down

The Court of Cassation relies on Article 65 of the Law of 29 July 1881, which sets the limitation period in press matters at three months. This period runs from the publication of the disputed statements. It can only be interrupted by an act of pursuit, i.e., an act by which the claimant manifests to his adversary his intention to pursue the action. Examples: writ of summons, submissions, application.

However, once the order closing proceedings is made, the parties can no longer file new submissions or perform procedural acts without the judge's permission (and even then, only to respond to new arguments). The claimant is therefore legally unable to perform an interrupting act. In these circumstances, the limitation period cannot continue to run. It is suspended (paused) until the judgment is pronounced.

Note, however, that this suspension only applies if the order closing proceedings was made before the end of the limitation period. If the period expires before the order, the limitation is acquired. In our case, the order was made on 20 October 2005, and the three-month period had started running from the date of publication (presumably in July 2005). The period had not yet expired at the time of the order.

What few people know is that this solution is specific to press law. In ordinary law, the limitation period is not suspended by the closure of proceedings: it is up to the claimant to act diligently. But here, the Law of 29 July 1881 specially protects freedom of expression by imposing very short time limits, and the Court of Cassation compensates for this strictness by suspension in the event of impossibility to act.

In short, the Court of Cassation held that the Douai Court of Appeal had violated the law by not suspending the limitation period. It quashed the judgment and remanded the case to the Versailles Court of Appeal.

What this means for you — practically

If you are a victim of defamation (false public accusation) or insult (abuse) published in a newspaper, blog, or on social media, you must act quickly: the limitation period is only three months. But if you have already brought an action and the case is on appeal, this decision protects you: the time between the order closing proceedings and the judgment does not count.

Let's take a concrete example. You own a gîte in Fougères, and a dissatisfied customer publishes a defamatory review on a booking site. You sue the customer for defamation. The court rules in your favour, but the customer appeals. The Court of Appeal sets an order closing proceedings on 1 June 2024, and the judgment is pronounced on 1 December 2024. Between these two dates, six months elapse. Without suspension, the three-month limitation period would have long since expired. Thanks to this judgment, these six months are neutralised.

For a tenant who sues his landlord for insulting remarks in a recorded delivery letter, the same mechanism applies. Note, however, that the suspension only applies if you are on appeal. At first instance, before the order closing proceedings, you can always file submissions to interrupt the limitation period.

undefined, I have encountered cases where owners in Redon or Fougères lost their action because they failed to interrupt the limitation period after the closure of proceedings. Since this judgment, the case law is consistent: the suspension is automatic. But you must ensure that the order closing proceedings was indeed made before the expiry of the period.

Four tips to avoid this type of dispute

• Act without delay from the publication of the disputed statements: the three-month limitation period runs from the first publication. Do not let time pass. Keep all evidence (screenshots, copies of the newspaper).
• Interrupt the limitation period regularly: if the case drags on at first instance, file submissions or procedural acts every two months or so to interrupt the period. A simple bailiff's writ (an official document served by a enforcement officer) may suffice.
• Check the date of the order closing proceedings: if you are on appeal, ensure that the order was made before the end of the limitation period. If not, ask the case management judge to postpone the closure to allow you to perform an interrupting act.
• Consult a lawyer specialising in press law: the limitation rules are complex and specific. A procedural error can cause you to lose your action. In Redon as in Fougères, a lawyer at the Rennes Bar can advise you.

Further reading: related case law and developments

The solution of the judgment of 3 April 2007 was confirmed by a subsequent judgment of the Court of Cassation (1st Civil Chamber, 12 July 2012, No. 11-18.457). In that case, the Court specified that the suspension also applies to the limitation period for public defamation actions, even if the period is three months.

However, the Court of Cassation refused to extend this solution to limitation periods under ordinary law (e.g., the five-year limitation period for personal actions, Article 2224 of the Civil Code). In a judgment of 19 March 2014 (No. 12-29.283), it held that the closure of proceedings neither interrupts nor suspends the limitation period in ordinary civil matters. It is therefore for the claimant to ensure that the limitation period is interrupted by other means, such as an interim relief application (urgent procedure) or a declaration with the court registry.

The trend of the courts is therefore clear: the suspension is an exception specific to press law, justified by the shortness of the period and the desire to protect the exercise of remedies. If you are involved in a press procedure, know that the period between the closure and the judgment is neutralised. But do not rely on this protection: act before the closure.

Summary and next steps

FAQ: practical questions

• What is the limitation period in press matters? Three months from the publication of the statements. For an insult or defamation on the internet, the period runs from the first online posting, but may be renewed on each new access (uncertain case law).
• Can I interrupt the limitation period by a simple recorded delivery letter? No, case law requires a procedural act (writ of summons, submissions, application) or a bailiff's writ. A simple letter is not enough.
• What if the order closing proceedings is made just before the expiry of the period? You are protected by the suspension, but it is prudent to ask the judge to postpone the closure if the period has not yet expired. You can also file submissions before the closure to interrupt the period.
• Does this decision apply to proceedings before the Tribunal Judiciaire? Yes, it applies to all proceedings in press matters, whether before the Tribunal Judiciaire (formerly the TGI) or the Court of Appeal.
• How much does a defamation action cost? Legal fees vary depending on complexity. Expect between €1,500 and €5,000 for a full procedure, plus bailiff and court costs. But a successful action can obtain damages (compensation) of €1,000 to €10,000 depending on the harm.

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