Video filmed without permission: France's Court of Cassation requires a full balancing exercise before any removal.

Videos filmed on farms without the operator's consent have become one of the main tools of animal welfare associations. They confront the judge with two rights protected by the European Convention on Human Rights: the association's freedom of expression and the operator's right to the peaceful enjoyment of its possessions.

In a judgment of 14 October 2026 delivered by a section bench and published in the Bulletin, the First Civil Chamber of the French Court of Cassation clarifies the method. Publishing a video filmed without permission amounts to a manifestly unlawful disturbance only if its removal meets a pressing social need. Yet the Court quashed the judgment that had refused removal, because the appeal judges had not examined the impact of the publication.

On 20 April 2022, an animal welfare association posted online a video filmed without permission in the research centre of a company that manufactures animal feed and sells veal calves. The video denounced the conditions in which the calves were raised. A month later, the company brought interim proceedings seeking removal of the video, a ban on its use, publication of the decision and an interim payment.

On 22 April 2025, the Angers Court of Appeal dismissed those claims. It held that the video concerned a matter of general interest, the welfare of slaughter animals and consumer information, and that the interference with property rights was moderate. No trespass had been established and the images merely showed the inside of a farm building.

No. The company argued that publishing images filmed on its premises without consent was in itself the disturbance, whether or not there had been a trespass and whether or not the author was identified. The Court rejected that automatic reading.

It set out both sides of the conflict. On one side, everyone, including an association, enjoys the freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and restrictions must meet a pressing social need, especially on a matter of general interest. On the other side, every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of its possessions under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 544 of the French Civil Code.

The owner may therefore oppose publication, including through interim relief under Article 835 of the French Code of Civil Procedure. But removal and a ban on use, which restrict freedom of expression, are justified only if balancing the interests at stake demonstrates a pressing social need.

Lack of permission remains the condition for bringing the claim. It is no longer its core: the balancing exercise decides whether the disturbance is manifestly unlawful.

In the Realap rabbit farm case, the Court held in 2025 that publishing a video filmed without permission may amount to such a disturbance. Read in isolation, that wording suggested the disturbance arose from the filming alone, with balancing only used afterwards to choose the remedy.

The 2026 judgment does not contradict the 2025 one, which already required balancing and approved removal only in light of a health risk caused by uncontrolled access to the premises and the ease of identifying the farm. The difference lies in the structure of the reasoning: where Realap set the disturbance and the balancing side by side, the 2026 judgment merges them into a single proposition.

It is therefore a clarification of method, strengthened by publication in the Bulletin. Its effects are practical: the owner can no longer simply prove lack of permission. It must give the judge evidence that the restriction meets a pressing social need.

The solution extends the case law on images of property. Since a plenary assembly judgment of 7 May 2004, the owner of a thing has no exclusive right over its image but may oppose its use where it causes abnormal harm. In both situations, ownership confers no automatic control over images.

The Court adopts the European Court of Human Rights framework set out in particular in Couderc and Hachette Filipacchi Associés v. France of 10 November 2015. The judge considers the contribution of the publication to a debate of general interest, how well known the person concerned is, the subject of the report, prior conduct, the content, form and impact of the publication, how the information was obtained and its accuracy, and the severity of the measure sought.

The Court of Appeal had carried out a balancing exercise. It noted the general interest of the subject, the moderate interference, the absence of proof of trespass and the limited content of the images. It had, however, ignored the impact relied on by the company: particularly violent reactions on social media against the company and its employees, and anonymous leaflets left in local letterboxes.

The judgment was quashed for lack of legal basis on that point alone. The Court sanctioned an incomplete balancing, not a wrong one. It did not say that the impact justified removal. It required the judge to examine it, and the Rennes Court of Appeal, to which the case was referred, will have to weigh it.

It can weigh in the balance. For a company, the effects of a publication are now felt mostly on social media, where a video can be shared within hours and trigger hostile reactions aimed at its teams. This criterion connects with the online reputation and cyberbullying issues faced by exposed businesses.

The criterion raises a question of attribution. Violent comments come from internet users and the leaflets are anonymous. Holding the author of a public interest publication responsible for the excesses of those who share it could chill public debate. A distinction seems useful: impact flowing from the video itself, from how it identifies the company or its staff or from the tone of its presentation, should weigh. Impact resulting from independent acts of third parties calls rather for measures against those third parties, unless the publication provoked them or made them foreseeable.

A second difficulty concerns the boundary with press law. Criteria such as notoriety or impact relate more to the operator's reputation than to the enjoyment of its property. Where the claim rests on harm to honour or reputation, the question of recharacterisation under the French Press Act of 29 July 1881 and defamation rules, with their own procedural and limitation requirements, may arise again.

The interim application should be built on the factors that genuinely weigh in the balance: health or safety risks created by uncontrolled access, how easily the site and its employees can be identified, the form of the publication and its actual impact.

That impact must be proven from the first days. A bailiff's report can record shares, reposts and comments, as was done in this case. Employee statements and evidence of the harm suffered by staff complete the file.

The general interest of the subject remains strong protection, since any restriction must meet a pressing social need. That protection is not unconditional. How the images were obtained, compliance with site access rules and the way the publication identifies the company and its employees all enter the balance.

The judgment also clarifies the role of the interim relief judge, who must carry out a full balancing exercise addressing each factor relied on. Where that balance is genuinely disputed, the manifest nature of the unlawfulness may be lacking, which is one of the strongest arguments for the author of the video.

INFLUXIO acts for companies targeted by a video filmed without permission: recording the publication and its impact, analysing claims based on image rights and property rights, removal requests to platforms and interim proceedings.

The firm also defends associations, journalists and content creators whose publication is challenged, by demonstrating the general interest of the subject and the disproportion of the measure sought. Contact the firm for an analysis of your situation.