Can a satirical magazine publish a fabricated photomontage of you?

A senior Walloon civil servant saw his head superimposed on a half-naked body in the style of Playboy in the humor section of the magazine Moustique. He sought one euro in symbolic damages. The French-speaking Court of First Instance in Brussels dismissed that claim on December 5, 2024: the press enjoys broad leeway for caricatures and exaggeration, and a fictional montage with no factual basis remains permissible as long as a public figure, implicated in what the press views as a financial scandal, must tolerate that exaggeration.

The facts

The plaintiff, F. Janssens, was, until recently, the clerk of the Walloon Parliament. He was suspected of receiving undue benefits and of violating the rules governing public expenditures; he was suspended and subsequently dismissed ex officio. An appeal against that decision was filed with the Council of State, while an investigating judge and the Labor Inspectorate were conducting investigations. The press repeatedly covered the case, frequently quoting and caricaturing the plaintiff.

In the April 12, 2023, issue of Moustique, on page 15, in a column titled “The News According to Highly Distorted Sources“, a photomontage. In it, the plaintiff’s head had been superimposed onto a half-naked body draped in a cape, with the caption “Allez… ça se tente.” Above the montage was a reference to French Secretary of State Marlène Schiappa, who had posed for *Playboy* shortly before and was suspected of diverting attention from an embezzlement scandal.

The plaintiff sought an order requiring P. Scheurette, who was responsible for the column, to pay one symbolic euro as compensation for the damage caused by the montage.

The decision

The court dismissed the claim as unfounded. Everything revolved around one question: what connection must exist between a caricature and the facts it satirizes? The plaintiff demonstrated with evidence that previous caricatures of him had always been linked to the facts for which he had been censured in Parliament. In this particular cartoon, however, the situation was different: according to the court, the parallel with Schiappa was, at best, vague.

Schiappa had posed for *Playboy* while she herself was under suspicion, and some members of the press saw this as an attempt to divert attention from those allegations. The montage implicitly attributed that same motive to the plaintiff. But there was no evidence that the plaintiff had actually orchestrated such a diversionary tactic. The defendant cited an interview the plaintiff had given to LN24 a few days earlier, but he did not raise that connection until the proceedings began, and the content of the interview had not been recorded or transcribed, so the court could not take it into account.

It is precisely this lack of a factual basis that gives the case its twist. Since there was no indication that the plaintiff actually intended to divert attention, the montage could not constitute a factual assertion. It was, therefore, merely the expression of an idea: the humorist imagined that the plaintiff might come up with the same idea as Schiappa. And an idea that is openly presented as fiction does not need to be based on facts.

The court then assessed the issue of fault in light of freedom of the press. It noted that the press is free, enjoys greater leeway than a private individual, and may engage in caricature and even exaggeration without fear. The defendant relied on the judgment De Haes and Gijsels t. BeBelgium (ECHR, February 24, 1997, Application No. 19983/92), § 47, in which the Court held that an accusation may be an opinion that, by its very nature, cannot be tested for truth, but which becomes excessive in the complete absence of a factual basis.

The latter did not work against the defendant in this case. The fictional parallel with current events was permissible: the journalist was not prohibited from portraying the plaintiff in Schiappa’s place and using that as material for the humorous and exaggerated column in his magazine. The montage remained within the limits that a public figure, implicated in what the press considers a financial scandal, must accept, whether they like it or not.

Legal analysis and interpretation

The distinction between fact and value judgment, including in visual satire

The ruling is an example of the application of the Strasbourg distinction between factual statements and value judgments to visual material. A factual statement can be proven true; a value judgment, by definition, cannot. The ECHR adds that even a value judgment requires a sufficient factual basis; in the absence of such a basis, it may be excessive. That is precisely the standard the plaintiff invoked against the montage.

What is interesting is that the court reverses that standard in favor of the defendant. Whereas the plaintiff argued that the montage lacked a factual basis and was therefore excessive, the court ruled that the montage does not, in fact, contain a factual assertion, but rather an idea, an imagination, a purely humorous projection. A work of fiction that presents itself as such does not make the same claim to truth as a statement that something actually happened. Viewed in this light, an openly fictional montage does not require a factual basis in the strict sense, because the average reader does not interpret it as a factual account.

The broader tolerance for caricature and the public figure test

This reasoning is consistent with the established position of the European Court of Human Rights that freedom of the press also encompasses a certain degree of exaggeration and even provocation, and that the limits of acceptable criticism are broader when a public figure is involved. The plaintiff attempted to qualify that criterion by pointing to his status as a high-ranking civil servant—not an elected official—and concluded that the level of tolerance for the cartoonist would be lower than it would be for a politician. The court does not explicitly endorse that distinction, but it does place the plaintiff in the category of a public figure involved in a case perceived as a scandal.

This raises an open question. The case law of the European Court of Human Rights does indeed recognize a gradation, with the politician at one end of the spectrum and the purely private individual at the other. Exactly where a high-ranking civil servant with a public office and media attention falls remains open to debate. The court takes a pragmatic approach here, concluding that involvement in a public matter is sufficient to trigger the broader standard of tolerance.

Specifically, what does this mean?

For journalists and satirical media. The ruling affirms a broad margin of tolerance for visual satire, provided that the montage is clearly presented as fiction and humor. The column title, the over-the-top tone, and the absence of any pretense of factuality worked in the defendant’s favor in this case. A montage that, on the other hand, gives the impression of depicting a real event leaves the realm of value judgment and is assessed as a factual assertion, with the associated burden of proof. When in doubt, document the factual basis of what could be interpreted as real.

For public figures. Anyone who holds public office and becomes involved in a high-profile case must tolerate a considerable degree of caricature and exaggeration. A claim for damages has a chance of success only if the publication either contains a false factual assertion or crosses the boundaries of what is permissible—for example, by infringing on privacy unrelated to the public matter. The mere assertion that a montage feels distasteful or humiliating is not sufficient.

A lesson in procedural law. The defendant lost part of his defense on a point of evidence: the interview he relied on had not been recorded or transcribed, so the court could not take it into account. Anyone who invokes a factual basis must actually present it during the proceedings. Social media comments were not sufficient.

Frequently asked questions (FAQ)

Can a magazine just publish a photomontage of someone?
This is not always the case, but there is a wide margin of discretion when it involves a public figure who is involved in a matter of public interest. If the montage is clearly presented as humor or caricature—and not as a factual representation—it is generally permitted, even if it feels humiliating.

What is the difference between a factual statement and a value judgment?
A factual statement asserts that something actually happened and can be tested for truth. A value judgment is an opinion or interpretation and cannot be proven. A conviction based on a false factual statement requires less evidence than one based on a value judgment, which is considered impermissible only when there is a complete lack of factual basis.

Can I claim a symbolic euro to make my point?
That is possible, and it often happens when the plaintiff is concerned with the principle rather than the money. Nevertheless, even a symbolic claim must meet the classic requirements of fault, damage, and causation. If there is no fault, even a symbolic euro will be denied.

Conclusion

The Brussels court confirms that an openly fictional, humorous photomontage of a public figure falls within the bounds of freedom of the press, even without a factual basis, as long as it is presented as a caricature and not as a factual account. The line is drawn at montages that give the impression of depicting a real event or that infringe on privacy outside the context of the public record. The ruling has since been appealed, so the final decision has not yet been made.