National Association of Apples Pears v. Greenpeace France

Reference :

15/57113 // 15/22928

Complaint date :

July 9, 2015

Status :

Final judgment

Place of jurisdiction :

France, Paris

Plaintiffs types :

Economic stakeholders

Plaintiffs names :

Association Nationale Pommes Poires (ANPP)

Defendants :

Greenpeace France

Lawyers for Health and Environmental Justice :

Alexandre Faro

Case nature :

Civil court

Type(s), Product(s), Active substance(s) :

Not specified

Requests :

Order the Greenpeace association to change the title of its report on the use of pesticides in apple orchards by deleting the words "poisoned apples", under a fine of 1,000 euros per day of delay from the date of delivery of the decision to intervene and in payment of the sum of 50,000 euros in damages as compensation for the moral prejudice suffered.

Name of the Court :

Appeal Court of Paris, France

Jurisdiction level :

Decision date :

February 23, 2017

Decision nature :

Positive

Decision content :

Confirms the order made except to say that there is no need for summary proceedings; Orders the national association Pommes Poires to pay Greenpeace the sum of 5,000 euros under Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure; Dismisses the national association Pommes Poires from its claims for damages and procedural compensation; Orders the national association Pommes Poires to pay the costs.

Legal basis :

Court Ruling :

Link to the ruling

Summary :

The national association Pommes Poires (ANPP) is suing Greenpeace France to request the modification of the title of its report on the use of pesticides in apple orchards, published on June 16, 2015, entitled: "Poisoned Apples: Ending Pesticide Contamination in Orchards through Ecological Agriculture". ANPP believes that the title of the report is denigrating and should be sanctioned on the basis of Article 1240 of the Civil Code. The Paris Court of Appeal rejected the claim on Feb. 23, 2017, thus confirming the decision of the Paris District Court of Nov. 10, 2015. It considered that the disputed terms were intended to attract the reader's attention through a provocative style, illustrating the controversy surrounding the use of pesticides by agriculture. Since Greenpeace acted in accordance with its corporate purpose and in the general interest and the style used is proportionate to the aim sought, the alleged denigration is not manifest and ANPP cannot claim abuse by Greenpeace of the exercise of freedom of expression.

Scientific references :

No scientifice reference for this case.