Translation:Karsenty v. Enderlin-France2

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Karsenty v. Enderlin-France2
Cour d’Appel de Paris, translated from French by Wikisource
Appeal of a famous court case, ruling of 21 May 2008.

FILE N# 06/08678 JUDGEMENT OF 21 MAY 2008

Consignment P. C. : 500 €

Paris Appeal Court[edit]

11st room, section A (No., 13 pages) Delivered publicly WEDNESDAY 21 MAY 2008 by the 11th Appeal Correctional Division, section A, On appeal a judgment of the Court of Large Instance 17th DIVISION OF PARIS, 19 OCTOBER 2006 (P0433823039).


  • KARSENTY Philippe

Defendant, appearing free and summoning, Assisted by Mr Patrick MAISONNEUVE, esq., and Mrs Delphine MEILLET, esq., attorneys in the Paris Bar, D1568



  • ENDERLIN Charles

Civil party, not summoning, appearing,


Civil party, not summoning, Hosted 7 Esplanade Henri de France 75097 PARIS Cedex 15 Assisted and represented by Mrs Bénédicte AMBLARD, esq., attorney in the Paris Bar, TQB113, and by Mr Francis SZPINER, esq., attorney in the Paris Bar, R049.

COMPOSITION OF THE COURT, in discussions and deliberations,

President : Mrs TREBUCQ
REGISTRAR to the debates and the pronouncement of the judgement : Mrs DU PARQUET
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: represented in the debates and the pronouncement of the judgement by Mr BARTOLI, esq., prosecuting attorney.



Philippe KARSENTY has been referred to the correctional court of the commiting magistrate as a defendant for the following in Paris and on the national territory:

On 22 November 2004, in any case since time not prescribed by a means of audiovisual communication, in this case by broadcasting on the Internet site www.M-R.FR an article titled: FRANCE 2: Arlette CHABOT and Charles ENDERLIN must be removed from their jobs immediately containing passages reproduced in the body of the judgement, brought allegations or charges of facts affecting the honour or reputation of the National Television Company FRANCE 2 and Charles ENDERLIN,

On 26 November 2004, in any case since time not prescribed by a means of audiovisual communication, in this case by broadcasting on the Internet site a press release entitled FRANCE 2: Arlette CHABOT and Charles ENDERLIN must be dismissed immediately containing passages reproduced in the body of the judgement, brought allegations or charges of facts affecting the honour or reputation of the National Television Company FRANCE 2 and Charles ENDERLIN,

Facts planned and punishable under articles 23, 29 paragraph 1, 32 paragraph 1, 42, 43 of the Act of July 29, 1881, 93 / 3 of the Act of 29 July 1982.


The court, by contradictory judgment,

rejected the exceptions of nullity,

and declared Philippe KARSENTY guilty of charges against him referred to the prevention and sentenced to a fine of 1,000 €,

has received the National Society of TELEVISION FRANCE 2 and Charles ENDERLIN them for damages and ordered Philippe KARSENTY to pay them at all, the sum of one euro as damages, and taken together, that of 3000 € under article 475-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.


Appel has been filed by:

Mr Pierre-Louis DAUZIER, esq., on behalf of Philip KARSENTY, October 19, 2006 against the criminal and civil provisions.

By judgments interruptifs prescription dated January 10, March 28 and June 20, 2007, the case was referred to 12 September 2007 to plead.

At the hearing on September 12, 2007, the court remanded the case to 19 September 2007 to plead.

At that hearing, after becoming aware, at the request of civil parties, different extracts from TV news FRANCE 2, regularly communicated by the parties, including the report aired on the television news at 8 p.m. on September 30, 2000, and heard parties on the findings of Philippe KARSENTY aimed at appointing an expert with the task, having watched the 27 minutes of rushes taken on September 30, 2000 at the Netzarim junction by the cameraman Talal Abu RAHMA to say if there is a link between the preceding scenes reportage and images of the report itself, the accused having had the last word, the court has attached the incident at the bottom. The President, after asking the parties, the accused having had the last word, their views on the usefulness for the court to view itself rushes of the cameraman, announced that the Court put the matter under advisement and render stops at the hearing on October 3, 2007.


By contradictory judgment on October 3, 2007, the court:

Received the appeal by Philippe KARSENTY,


ordered additional information so that FRANCE 2 bring before October 31, 2007, rushes taken on September 30, 2000 by its cameraman Talal Abu RAHMA and committed to carry it out, Irene CARBONNIER, counselor,

referred the case to continue the hearings on November 14, 2007, 16 January and 27 February 2008.

At the hearing on November 14, 2007, the court in the presence of the accused and civil parties, all assisted by their lawyers;

watched the rushes taken on September 30, 2000 by FRANCE 2 cameraman, Talal Abu RAHMA regularly submitted by FRANCE 2

has referred the case to the hearing on January 16, 2008 to relay and 27 February 2008 to plead.


A public hearing on 27 February 2008, the president noted the identity of the accused comparing assisted by his lawyers who file the findings referred to the President and the Clerk and attached to the file, to hear Jean-Claude SCHLINGER, expert in weapons and ammunition for the Cour d'appel de Paris, approved by the Court of Cassation, as a witness;

The lawyers for the plaintiffs, Charles ENDERLIN, present and witnessed, and the represented National Television FRANCE 2, filed conclusions referred by the President and the Clerk, attached to the file;

Have been agreed upon hearing

Mr Patrick MAISONNEUVE, esq., in its comments,

Mr Francis SZIPNER, esq., in its comments,

Mr BARTOLI, prosecuting attorney, in his comments,

Philippe KARSENTY which took the floor last.

The court suspended the hearing to deliberate on this issue and the resumption of the public hearing, rejected the request for a hearing witness.

Were heard at the request of the accused to watching a new CD

Mr Patrick MAISONNEUVE, esq., in its comments,

Mr Francis SZIPNER, esq., in its comments,

Mr BARTOLI, prosecuting attorney, in his comments.

The court suspended the hearing to deliberate on this issue and the resumption of the public hearing, has the right to demand viewing.

Mrs CARBONNIER gave an oral report;


Philippe KARSENTY, warned in his explanations;

Charles ENDERLIN, civil party, in its explanations;

Mrs Bénédicte AMBLARD, esq., and Mr Francis SZPINER, esq., their findings and arguments;

Mr Patrick MAISONNEUVE, esq., and Mrs Delphine MEILLET, esq., their findings and arguments;

Philippe KARSENTY, again, who has the last speaker.

Then the court has put the matter under advisement to 21 May 2008.

And so far, the public hearing on May 21, 2008, the President read out the judgement set out below, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 485 and 512 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in the presence of Crown and Registrar, Mrs DU PARQUET.


Considering that, on complaints with civil party constitution of the National Television Company FRANCE 2 and Charles ENDERLIN, the magistrate referred Philippe KARSENTY before the Correctional Tribunal of Paris to meet the offence of public defamation against a person due to several passages in a press release dated 22 November 2004 and an article published online on November 26, 2004 on the site by the company MEDIA RATINGS entitled France 2: Arlette CHABOT and Charles ENDERLIN must be removed from office immediately; Considering that, before the Court, lawyer Philippe KARSENTY, whose appeal was declared admissible, expressed his abandonment of exceptions concerning the invalidity of his summons and his waiver of non-disclosure issue release sent to subscribers MEDIA RATINGS; he seeks reversal of the judgement, relaxed, even for the benefit of his good faith, and dismissed Charles and the ENDERLIN FRANCE 2 society, the civil parties, all their applications;

That Mr the Prosecuting Attorney requires the confirmation of the judgement;

That the civil parties counsel developing its conclusions rejecting the parts numbered 43 to 73 whose Philippe KARSENTY does not justify having knowledge at the time offensive words happened, and the confirmation of the trial and conviction of the appellant to pay them each a sum of 20,000 € on the basis of Article 475-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure;

Considering that it is apparent from the documents and debates;

I. On the facts of the fall of 2000 that

  • On 30 September, during the France 2 news at 8 p.m., Arlette CHABOT announces "clashes and unprecedented violence made 15 fatalities and 500 wounded on the Palestinian side on Saturday" in Israel and the Palestinian territories after a visit to Jerusalem of Ariel SHARON, chairman of the opposition party and that the presenter illustrates this information by a report which lasted 57 seconds, signed by Charles ENDERLIN, permanent correspondent of France 2 in the Middle East, recounting an exchange of fire with live ammunition to a road junction near the Israeli settlement of Netzarim in the Gaza Strip, and showing a scene during which we saw a father trying to protect her twelve years old child, Mohamed AL DURA; Charles ENDERLIN comments on the images in following terms: "3 p.m. Everything just changed radically near the settlement of Netzarim in the Gaza Strip. The Palestinians have fired live ammunition, the Israelis responded. Ambulance, journalists and simple bystanders are caught in the crossfire. Here, Jamal Mohamed and his son are under fire from Israeli positions. Mohammed was twelve years old, his father tries to protect it. He makes signs […] but a new burst. Mohamed died and his father is seriously injured. A Palestinian policeman and an ambulance man have also lost their lives during this battle."
  • October 1, France 2 comes back on these events with the voice of Charles ENDERLIN who speaks of "Mohamed, a twelve years old child, of whom Talal ABU RAHMA, FRANCE 2 correspondent in Gaza, has filmed the tragic death" and announced the publication of a press release of the Israeli army "regreting the loss of life and affirming that it is not possible to determine the origin of fire".
  • On October 2, FRANCE 2 specifies that a scene showing "unacceptable", circulated with the comment by Charles ENDERLIN, was filmed by his cameraman and sound taker, Talal Abu RAHMA, who was present in the studio, and said that he is "sure the fire came from the Israeli side";
  • On 27 November, France 2 relates to the information given by Charles ENDERLIN on the air, that the military investigation led by General SAMIA responsible for security in southern zone concluded that it was "more probable that the child has been killed by Palestinians than by Israelis";
  • On 28 November, FRANCE 2 and Charles ENDERLIN however say that "several elements of the Israeli thesis are inconsistent with the evidence gathered on the spot", and with the testimony of the doctor who examined the body of the child;

II. Upon presentation of the facts from 2002 that

  • In March 2002, the German television channel ARD broadcasts a documentary by Esther SHAPIRA entitled Who Killed Mohammed AL DURA, which focuses on the lack of physical evidence, particularly so to determine the origin of fire and the absence real autopsy of the child;
  • On October 2, 2002, Esther SHAPIRA film is projected on a giant screen in front of a thousand people gathered in front of France TELEVISION and a "prize of disinformation" symbolically awarded to FRANCE 2 and Charles ENDERLIN by the organizers of the event;
  • In November 2002, the Franco-Israeli news agency MENA achieves a 20-minute documentary, DURA AL: the investigation, which, from statements by Nahum SHAHAF, a physicist who participated in the investigation of General SAMIA, met to question the reality of the scenes filmed by cameraman FRANCE 2 and concludes that "a true staging played by actors";
  • In January 2003, the permanent correspondent of MENA in Paris, Gerard Huber, publishes Contre-expertise d'une mise en scene, a work incorporating the thesis of the documentary mentioned above, to which he had participated;
  • On 22 October 2004, France 2 and Arlette CHABOT invite three journalists who criticized France 2, Daniel LECONTE [ARTE], Denis JEAMBAR (L’EXPRESS) and Luc ROSENZWEIG (ex-Le Monde), to watch the 27-minute rushes of 30 September 2000;
  • On 18 November 2004, France 2 organise a press conference during which are presented photographs of Mohamed AL DURA injuries;

Considering that, on November 22, 2004, the company MEDIA RATINGS publishes on its website an article titled France 2: Arlette CHABOT and Charles ENDERLIN must be removed from their posts, including passages pursued by the civil parties, highlighted when they intended that Charles ENDERLIN, are as follows:

"The criteria for Accuracy, Independence, Transparency and Accountability of the PHILTRE method have been violated on numerous occasions by France 2 by spreading the false death of Mohamed AL DURA on September 30, 2000."

"Previous details […]"

"At least two members of the government of Mr Jean-Pierre Raffarin and many journalists know that FRANCE 2 presented a false report on September 30, 2000. It would be even though they manifest themselves in order to put an end to this farce." […]

"We hope that the High Audiovisual Autority require the immediate resignation of those who engaged in this trickery."

"In light of the evidence we have, we affirm that the correspondent of FRANCE 2 in Jerusalem, Charles ENDERLIN, has actually aired a false report that September 30, 2000."

"Here are the inconsistencies of the FRANCE 2 document:

"From the beginning of the story, we realize that we are witnessing a series of scenes played […] This first episode is pure fiction […]

"Charles ENDERLIN, in this case is wrong and, at the same time, deceive us. Why? Does he try to cover his imposture?";

Considering that, on November 26, 2004, MEDIA RATINGS broadcasts to all persons on the list, including France 2, the online press release, whose passages are:

"In light of the evidence we have, we affirm that the correspondent of FRANCE 2 in Jerusalem, Charles ENDERLIN, has actually aired a false report on September 30, 2000."

"We invite you to discover inconsistencies in the FRANCE 2 document on Media-Ratings, and the reactions of some media to this sham."

"Arlette CHABOT threatened to lodge a complaint against anyone who accuses FRANCE 2 to have issued a false report on September 30, 2000." […]

"We hope that the High Audiovisual Autority require the immediate resignation of those who come to this trickery." […]

"Hopefully, the French media will quickly inform their readers, listeners and viewers of the media hoax that was delivered by FRANCE 2 for more than four years." […]

Considering that emerges from all these words that Philippe KARSENTY, director of rating agency MEDIA RATINGS, which he himself created to assess the reliability of the information disseminated in the press, put into question the work of FRANCE 2 and its correspondent in Jerusalem with methodological criteria analysis of media he has learned;

Thus, in its article dated 22 November 2004, Philippe KARSENTY described the report by Charles ENDERLIN of disgraceful farce for Public Television and trickery at the root of violence throughout the world, recalling the words of the controversy it has generated over the past several years between FRANCE 2 and the Israeli news agency MENA ("Metula News Agency"), which accuses the French channel to broadcast a false report;

That on light of the evidence before him, the defendant asserts that the Paris correspondent in Jerusalem has committed a false report, which he dismantles by focusing his criticism on two successive plans: on the one hand, the first fifty minutes reporting consisting of a series of staged scenes are pure fiction, on the other hand, the main stage, lasting a few minutes, contains inconsistencies with regard to the commentary by FRANCE 2;

That he therefore wondered about the reasons for which Charles ENDERLIN, on this point "is wrong and, at the same time, deceive us" to try "to cover his imposture;

That the defendant author concluded, in its press release of 26 November 2004, that Charles ENDERLIN has aired a false report commenting on a document submitted by its incoherent cameraman, and the public broadcaster of having committed a hoax media by disseminating it on September 30, 2000;

Considering the nature of defamatory imputations, that the court rightly held that the act of knowingly mislead the public by broadcasting and / or by disseminating a false report with images that do not reflect reality, representing a "false death", even if the author has taken care to accompany her indictment of a number of explanations, is unquestionably damaging the honor and reputation of information professionals, and all the more so since is defamatory is supported by the use of terms such as "masquerade", "sham", "trickery" to describe the attitude of FRANCE 2 and "staged scenes", "pure fiction" to describe the first episode of the reportage;

Considering, on the evidence served under the truth of defamatory facts, that the appellant has given fourteen parts and requested the hearing of three witnesses which, according to him, prove that FRANCE 2 brought on the air a doubtful editing widely contested the date of the distribution of offending words, which allowed him to conclude on the manipulation of the report on the conditions of shooting and the reality of the scenes filmed by his cameraman, particularly on the death of the young Mohamed AL DURA;

But considering that only recalled the first judges to produce the effect absolutoire provided by Article 35 of the Act of 29 July 1881, proved the truth of defamatory facts must be perfect, complete and the correlative imputations defamatory in their materiality and their scope;

What arguing that its offers of proof would establish "a doubtful editing widely contested the date of the distribution of offending words" the defendant can not claim to demonstrate the fact of having knowingly distributed a "false report", as it is true that the first charge only at best a short for the continued allocation;

That it is therefore necessary to reject the exception of truth raised by the defendant;

Considering that, because of Appeal, Philippe KARSENTY relies mainly its good faith to justify the publication of the offending words;

Considering that, while it is true that the criteria of good faith must, as has been noted as preliminary judges, can be appreciated differently depending on the type of writing, quality of the author, and in particular with greater rigour when one who is pursued professes to inform or, as here, to the rating of media, it is unquestionably legitimate for a media rating agency, to investigate, just because of the impact throughout the world the criticized images made, on the conditions under which the report in question was filmed and broadcast, and bring the results of investigation to the public as well as subjecting them to criticism of professionals;

Although Philippe KARSENTY covers topics of general interest, such as working methods of media and, specifically, the public channel, the power of images and relevance of comments on the spot, hence the public's right to a serious information, what gives any legitimacy to the publication of his research, Charles ENDERLIN may even less evade criticism that it is intended as a professional information, correspondent in Israel and the Palestinian territories for TV news FRANCE 2 broadcasts at a time of a large audience, and as such, he is inevitably and consciously to a more careful control of its facts and gestures on the part of its citizens and its confreres;

Considering that, to justify the seriousness of his investigation, Philippe KARSENTY presents, in addition to testimony from Luc ROSENZWEIG, Gérard HUBER, Francis BALLE and Richard LANDES set the record of proceedings of the tribunal, the evidence submitted at trial, as well as new Parts numbered 43 to 73, most of which, proceeding from the FRANCE 2 reporting, not on facts subsequent to the publication of offending words; whereas, in this context, to assess the validity of the investigation accused of taking office, not his virtue demonstrating the truth of defamatory imputations, but the value and variety of sources used and the relevance of their contents;

Considering that, as pointed out by the court, Philippe KARSENTY's investigation highlighted two major types of criticism against the report, either that Charles ENDERLIN had presented mistakenly deadly shooting from Israeli positions as deliberate, either that images of the death of young Mohamed AL-DURA, fictitious, do not correspond to reality commented by the journalist;

That the prosecuted author based his words mainly on the inexplicable inconsistency of visible images, according to him, even on the main stage, the lack of evidence photographs of injuries to Jamal AL DURA submitted by FRANCE 2, and on the contradictory responses by Charles ENDERLIN on the questions relating to cuttings existing in his editing, as well as those of his cameraman on the sequence of scenes filmed and on the conditions of shooting;

Considering that it is undisputed that Charles ENDERLIN has not witnessed the facts he had commented to off screen voice, according to a process in any way contrary to the ethics of journalists, since it is understood by viewers; that, in this case, FRANCE 2 reported on 1 October 2000 that the death of the child had "been filmed by Talal ABU RAHMA, [its] correspondent in Gaza" and, on October 2 that the cameraman "filming the unacceptable", which did not necessarily assume that the commentator was not on the scene and that this fact has led Philippe KARSENTY, but may then induce commented that the incident was false, to question the correlation between images chosen by the Palestinian cameraman ("I decide what is important", he said in a interview), and the commentary to the images by Charles ENDERLIN;

Whether it is true that the authors of two videos (parts 1 and 2), one edited at the initiative of Esther SHAPIRA for the ARD television channel in March 2002, another, AL-DURA: the inquiry, directed by MENA the following November from statements by Nahum SHAHAF appointed to head a commission of inquiry initiated by the commander of the southern zone, do not derive the same conclusions of the Observing report, since the first confirmed death of the child in a Palestinian bullet, while the second one blames Palestinian staging of this death, it does not matter that these theories are irreconcilable, since the two documents led the accused, in successive stages, to question the reporting FRANCE 2 about the facts reported by information professionals;

That the work of Gerard Huber on the thesis of MENA, released in January 2003 under the title Counter valuation of a staging (Exhibit No. 3), which infers, because we see young Palestinians taking advantage of the presence of cameras to play scenes of war and injuries, the shadow of the death of young Mohamed AL-DURA, taken by Philippe KARSENTY, relied on the persistent reluctance to let FRANCE 2 watch the rushes of his cameraman, on the reckless assertion by Charles ENDERLIN, he would have cut the mounting images from the agony of the child and on the statements of several journalists who viewed the rushes;

That result, indeed, testimony by Luc ROSENZWEIG, former editor of Le Monde, after having met in May 2004, his colleagues have expressed doubts about the story of Charles ENDERLIN and told, thereafter, Denis JEAMBAR and Daniel LECONTE, he watched with them, October 22, 2004, FRANCE 2 rushes and was surprised that, on 27-minute rushes of Talal ABU RAHMA, more than 23 minutes of scenes filmed had nothing to do with the images broadcast by the channel, including the death of the young Mohamed, and consisted in the presentation of false scenes of war by young Palestinians, as witness concluded his remarks at the hearing of First Instance claiming the conviction that "the version of staging [the death of the child] has a greater probability that the version presented by FRANCE 2", while recognizing that as a journalist, "the criteria do not allow [him] to go further";

That this evidence is reinforced by the opinions, not inconsistent for the most part, of Daniel LECONTE and Denis JEAMBAR, from a point of view given to Le Figaro, 25 January 2005 (Exhibit No. 16) and an interview broadcasted on 1 February 2005 on the air by RCJ (Exhibit No. 4);

Both journalists declare unambiguously have entrusted Arlette CHABOT their "serious doubts", but be "ready to dismiss accusations of ROSENZWEIG on the staging of the death of the child if the viewing of all rushes shot by Talal ABU RAHMA confirms what Charles ENDERLIN said at least two occasions, including to Télérama: "I cut the agony of the child. It was unbearable… This would have brought nothing more" and then, given the rushes that "this famous agony that Enderlin claims to have cut off during editing does not exist";

They also note that, "in the minutes before the shooting, Palestinians seem to have organized a staging", […] "play at war" with the Israelis and simulate, in most cases, imaginary injuries. "And that viewing full rushes also demonstrates that when Charles ENDERLIN announces the boy's death […] nothing allows him to say that he is really dead and even less that he was killed by Israeli soldiers", whereas, according to them, FRANCE 2 journalists have provided during the presentation rushes that "their experts have even shown […] that the child was hit by shrapnel (?) Or by stray bullets allegedly ricocheted on the pavement, bullets, which in any event, neither targeted the child nor his father ";

That it is true that, while noting that their colleague should recognize that he had "extrapolated from rushes and the version of events provided by his cameraman," and that the commentary on the Israeli barbarism "has nothing to do" with images that have gone around the world. Denis JEAMBAR and Daniel LECONTE refuse to return to their account the thesis of the staging of the death of the child, that they are doing so, the film Talal ABU RAHMA submitted by FRANCE 2 on November 18 to demonstrate that the wounds of father corresponded exactly to the dressing he had the next day at the hospital in Gaza, without stopping on the possibility of a contradiction between the photos that were presented and their own findings that in the rushes, "the father wears a T-shirt on which one sees no trace of blood";

Considering that Richard LANDES, journalist, professor at the University of Boston, heard as a witness by the Court of First Instance, said that in his opinion after studying the rushes and the Reuters news story by Charles ENDELIN, with whom he talked, the likelihood that the death of the child presented by the latter would be a staging was "more than 95%";

Whereas, if none of the arguments of the accused — or the conclusions of the investigation into the personal initiative of General SAMYA (against bid-proof No. 12) or "reckless assertion" Charles ENDERLIN already raised — did not seem to the first judges in itself sufficiently decisive comparing to the disputed report, it appears that the review in question call, 18 minutes of rushes Talal ABU RAHMA provided by FRANCE 2 can not exclude views of professionals heard during the proceedings or have paid their contributions to the debates, the certificates produced by the cameraman (supply-proof against No. 5 to 10) could not, however, given their presentation as their content, be held fully credible;

That no principle allows to reject without consideration, any credit or explanation to a document which would not be an official label or who do receive little credit from the "authorities", it should be noted that the first statements by the Israeli authorities, including those of General EYLAND, were made in view of the only images of reporting FRANCE 2; he is also well known, as was explained bu Denis JEAMBAR and Daniel LECONTE, that the Israeli army almost never answers, "it is the choice of communication she has done";

Considering that anwsering to Denis JEAMBAR and Daniel LECONTE, in Le Figaro, January 27, 2005, that "the image corresponded to the reality of the situation not only in Gaza but also in the West Bank" while the definition of a report shall be construed as evidence that the journalist saw and heard, Charles ENDERLIN acknowledged that the film has gone around the world, leading to unprecedented violence across the region did perhaps not comment he had given, which is also the advice given by Daniel DAYAN, director of research at CNRS and media specialist, in its certificate (Exhibit No. 5);

Considering, on the prudence of expression, it is worth noting that the limits of acceptable criticism are even bigger than the subject is public interest and charges on a beam supported elements of investigation, and even wider to those who, by their function or activity, exposed to the public;

That is as it should hear about Francis BALLE, professor at the University of Paris II, a specialist in image and information, told the court that he did it seemed that, in exercising his profession, Philippe KARSENTY "has crossed the yellow line" in using the offending words to talk about a topic of public interest;

Whether it is true that the repeated use of "false reporting", accentuated by the terms "staging", "masquerade", "trickery" and "sham" confers prima complained about the one essentially critical, negative and even, with the phrase "dead wrong", causing it follows a more thorough reading of the article online, resumed briefly in the press release, including the entire ensemble is strong, that their author says vehemently, but without any real outrageous how the public channel has earned her critical criteria for its rating agency;

What effect, the accused recalls the facts, recounts the controversy, said that the MENA accuses the French channel of falsehood, before giving his own analysis and conclusions, that in this context, it describes the first episode of pure fiction, which is also supported by several major personalities of the press and information having seen the rushes in October 2004, he then sets out, on the main stage, in which he found inexplicable inconsistencies and contradictions in the explanations on the agony of the child given by Charles ENDERLIN, that it is wrong, which is tantamount to imputing a simple mistake, and "at the same time," deceives the public, which appears as a euphemistic language; concluding with a question about the reasons for "trying to cover this imposture," Philippe KARSENTY addresses the merits of the topic with vividness of expression that the importance of the issue in question must authorize yet;

Considering that personal animosity towards the civil parties is not demonstrated by the production of two certificates, one of René BACKMANN, the other of François RAIGA CLEMENCEAU, after an investigation by Philippe KARSENTY, while the content of the article and release the director of the rating agency media does its part, no personal feeling hostile towards Charles ENDERLIN and FRANCE 2;

Considering that the state of elements of the investigation, which constitute a sufficient factual basis for admitting that the statements at issue, often close to a value judgement, have been kept by the author of the article and incriminated communicated to deal with topics of interest as general as the danger of power, namely that of the press, in the absence of a counterweight, and the public's right to information seriously, it is necessary to decide Philippe KARSENTY a bona fide exercised his right of free critical that in doing so, it has not exceeded the limits of freedom of expression recognized by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which applies not only to information or ideas are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or indifferent, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb;

That the decision of first instance will be invalidated, Philippe KARSENTY referred for prosecution and civil parties rejected their applications;


The Court,

By judgement publicly, contradictorily and after deliberating in accordance with the law,

Given the judgement of the law say before October 3, 2007,

Declares without object to the incident conclusions filed by Philippe KARSENTY,

Infirmes judgement and remitted back Philippe KARSENTY for prosecution,

Nonsuit civil parties with all their requests.


[handwritten signature]


[handwritten signature]