Article 1609

A person commits a fault where by his words, his writings or by other means he acts in such a way as to make another living person detestable, contemptible or ridiculous or to jeopardize his credit, his reputation or his future.

The intent to injure is not a requisite for defamation. There shall be, nonetheless, no defamation where in his allegedly defamatory utterances or writings, the author did not intend to refer to any particular person. In such a case, the author of the utterances or writings shall be liable only where in the circumstances he should reasonably have foreseen that his words or writings would cause injury to another person.

A person commits no fault where he confines himself to expressing his opinion on matters of public concern, notwithstanding that such opinion causes injury to another person by bringing him under public blame. In this case, defamation is committed only where the defendant has made imputations concerning the plaintiff which he knew for certain to be false

No defamation is committed where the defendant adduces proof of the accuracy of his imputations. In this case, he is not liable unless he has acted solely with intent to injure.

No liability is incurred in respect of utterances made in parliamentary debates or in the course of judicial proceedings. A person who repeats such utterances accurately shall be liable where he has acted solely with intent to injure.

Where defamation is committed by way of the press, the defendant incurs no liability where he has acted without intent to injure or gross negligence, provided that at the plaintiffs request he publishes forthwith a withdrawal and apology. Where the defamation is committed by way of a periodical which appears at intervals of more than one week, the plaintiff may require the withdrawal and apology to be published immediately in a periodical of his choice. In other cases, the withdrawal and apology shall be published in the periodical in which the defamatory matter was published.