Witnesses whose names have been

Reference decision: cc • No. 74-93.025 • 26 July 1976 • Consult the decision →

This decision sheds important light on your property law rights. Here is what it changes for you.

The situation

Witnesses whose names have been notified in the manner and for the purposes specified by Article 55 of the Act of 29 July 1881 and who have been duly summoned are subject to the obligations set forth in Articles 437 et seq. of the Code of Criminal Procedure and no legal provision authorises them to substitute a written statement for their oral deposition. Although under the provisions of the said code such a statement may always be considered as an item of evidence left to the assessment of the judges, the same does not apply when it comes to proving the truth of defamatory facts. Indeed, if that written statement has not been served on the prosecuting party in copy in accordance with the requirements of the aforementioned Article 55, its production cannot be admitted.

What the law says

This decision confirms the fundamental principles of property law.

Key points to remember

Strictly comply with the statutory time limits for appeals
Keep all your supporting documents (title deeds, deeds, correspondence)
Anticipate: preventive advice always costs less than litigation

For an analysis of your situation: 30-minute consultation at €45 with Maître Zakine.

📌 Does this apply to your situation? Maître Cécile Zakine, French real estate lawyer, practises throughout France.
→ Prendre RDV pour une consultation droit du travail | → Browse all our legal articles

Practical use cases

Landlord accused of renting unsafe property

A landlord in Lyon lets a flat to a tenant who, after a minor water leak, posts on a neighbourhood Facebook group that the landlord ‘knowingly rents death traps’ and ‘ignores urgent repairs’. The tenant seeks to defend a subsequent defamation claim by proving the truth of these allegations, relying on a written statement from a previous tenant who also had a leak years earlier, but that statement was never formally served on the landlord.

Practical application:

Under the 1976 ruling, a written witness statement cannot replace oral testimony in a defamation case, and cannot be used to prove the truth of defamatory facts unless it was served on the prosecuting party in accordance with Article 55 of the 1881 Press Law. Here, the tenant’s written evidence is inadmissible. The landlord should insist on strict compliance with this procedural requirement if sued for defamation, potentially striking out the truth defense.

First-time buyer calls estate agent a fraudster

A first-time buyer in Bordeaux discovers damp issues after purchase and tweets that the estate agent ‘deliberately concealed major structural defects’ and is ‘a con artist’. The buyer later attempts to justify these statements in court by producing a handwritten note from a builder who inspected the property after purchase, stating the damp was long-standing. This note was never communicated to the agent’s solicitor.

Practical application:

The 1976 Cour de cassation decision makes clear that a written statement, even if it contains relevant facts, cannot be used as evidence of truth in a defamation claim unless it has been served on the accusing party as required by Article 55. The buyer’s builder’s note is inadmissible. Any person making serious allegations about an agent must either rely on oral testimony or ensure written evidence is properly served in advance.

Co-owner alleges embezzlement by property manager

During a heated AGM in a Nice apartment block, a co-owner accuses the syndic of embezzling €15,000 from the reserve fund. The co-owner later produces a written statement from a retired accountant, who reviewed the accounts, however this document was not sent to the syndic before the hearing. The syndic sues for defamation.

Practical application:

The ruling prohibits the substitution of a written statement for oral deposition and, critically, requires any written evidence intended to prove the truth of defamatory facts to have been served on the prosecuting party as per Article 55 of the 1881 Act. The co-owner’s accountant’s statement will be disregarded. The syndic can rely on this procedural safeguard to have the truth defense dismissed; the co-owner should have ensured formal service or called the accountant as a live witness.

Witnesses whose names have been

The situation

What the law says

Key points to remember

Legal information

Source

Keywords

Practical use cases

Landlord accused of renting unsafe property

First-time buyer calls estate agent a fraudster

Co-owner alleges embezzlement by property manager

About the author

Does this affect you?

📬 Get legal updates

Consult a specialist lawyer near you

Maître Zakine, Doctor of Law