Exhibit C: Ruling of the French Judge

THE FRENCH REPUBLIC

In the name of the French People

ABSTRACT

from the Clerk's report

THE PARIS

COURT OF

FIRST INSTANCE

ENFORCEABLE CERTIFIED COPY

Philippe OUAKRAT, Attorney

"S.C.P" (professional firm)

Registration No. E 377

TEMPORARY INJUNCTION

Issued April 29, 2008

by Joël BOYER, Assistant to the Presiding Judge of the Paris Court of First Instance who presided the public injunction hearing by delegation from the Presiding Judge of the Court,

Assisted by Marlène MARQUET, Court Clerk.

PETITIONER

Mr. Max MOSLEY

2 avenue des Citronniers

MC 98000 MONACO

represented by Philippe OUAKRAT, attorney in Paris -E.377

DEFENDANT

NEWS GROUP NEWPAPERS LIMITED, a corporation

1 Virginia Street - London

United Kingdom E98 1XY

represented by Jean Frédéric GAULTIER, attorney in Paris - K0112

ARGUMENTS

At the April 18, 2008 public hearing presided by Joël BOYER, Assistant to the Presiding Judge,

We, Presidents,

After having heard the appearing parties or their counsel,

In light of the summons issued at the time indicated which Max MOSLEY had requested on April 15, 2008 after having obtained authorization to enter a ruling from the Court's Presiding Judge for News Group Newspapers Limited, a British corporation owner of the English language newspaper "News of the World" and of the website "newsoftheworld.co.uk":

- stating that the Sunday newspaper News of the World had published, in its March 30, 2008 edition, photographs taken from a video depicting him in a private location engaging in sadomasochistic acts with prostitutes. The newspaper included in its title and front page, a supposed Nazi connotation of the scene and lead a call to strip him of the functions he holds at the head of the International Automobile Federation,

- adding that parts of the video in question were also included on the newspaper's online website and that visits to the site had increased by 600% since that time,

- indicating that it would subsequently provide the French criminal judge with the facts in accordance with Article 226-1 and 226-2 of the criminal code,

- requesting, based on Article 9 of the Civil Code, that the Defendant, under a 25,000 Euros penalty per observed infraction, (1) to cease distribution in France of any of the News of the World editions which contained an excerpt whether previously published or not, of the video in question, (2) to recall all copies of the newspaper currently being sold in France which contain such elements, (3) to block any attempt from France to access the site, page or server under Defendant's control which contain such elements,

- requesting legal publication containing this judgment in three French newspapers of its choosing within a limit of 20,000 Euros for publishing fees,

- finally, requesting that the Defendant pay the Petitioner damages in the amount of 10,000 Euros pursuant to Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure,

In light of the additional pleadings submitted by Petitioner, it requests that Defendant also be barred from : (4) distributing in France, in any manner, any excerpts whether visual or audio of the video or of any other recording taken during the events which are in its possession, (5) to broadcast or allow the broadcast or access, especially via internet, of any information relating to the events contained in the video and specifically the sexual activities or more generally, the private activities of the Petitioner within the scope of the information contained the April 30 edition of News of the World,

In light of response contained in the pleadings by News Group Newspapers Limited (thereafter NGN):

- indicating that Max MOSLEY, through a procedure similar to this French request for injunction, requested that the British judge enjoin NGN from broadcasting the video or excerpts of it and that by decision dated April 9, 2008, the judge refused to order such injunction, decision which Max Mosley did not appeal,

- adding that through a ruling issued on April 4, 2008, Max MOSELY requested that the High Court of Justice rule on the merits, order damages and enjoin the publication of confidential or private information, especially that contained in the aforementioned article. A decision should be issued during the month of July,

- prior to arguing the merits of the case, the issue of lack of jurisdiction by the French court was raised on the grounds that there is no contact which would warrant French jurisdiction as it concerns the printed newspaper as it was not established that it was distributed in France and that the NGN's website was not specifically destined for the French public,

- the doctrine of lis pendis was invoked in view of Article 27.1 of regulation no.2001/44 of December 22, 2000 to support British jurisdiction where the lawsuit was first initiated although the suit involves the same parties, the same facts and the same basis,

- whereas it was argued that there was abuse of process in seeking from the French judge a ruling on a petition previously presented to the British judge, the ruling of April 9, 2008 should receive full recognition in accordance with Article 33 of the aforementioned European Directive,

- opposing to the last two requests [(4) and (5)] which were not added to the initial requested until April 17^th at 3:28 p.m. as their late introduction did not allow the Defendant sufficient time to adequately prepare its defense,

- requesting that a judgment be deferred until such time as a decision from the High Court of Justice Queens Bench Division render its judgment, in accordance with Article 37.1 of the European Regulations,

- petitioning the court to allow Petitioner's three initial requests until such time, pursuant to Articles 1426 et al of the Code of Civil Procedure; (1) to suspend distribution in France of any of the News of the World editions which contained excerpts of the video in question, (2) to recall all copies of the March 30 and April 6, 2008 newspaper editions which may be sold in France, (3) to block any attempt from France to access any video which may appear on a website managed by Defendant,

- in addition, contesting the urgency and existence of imminent damage or confusion which could be efficiently prevented or rectified, in light of the observations of the British judge according to which many other websites repeated the contested information or placed excerpts from the video online,

- finally, invoking an important right which would prevent the injunction judge from ruling on the matter; the public's right to information about a man with high-level responsibilities which could justify publication of excerpts from the video, which is interesting not for the Petitioner's sexual escapades but for the obvious disdain he displayed for a tragic episode of human history and specifically, that of Jewish victims,

- requesting the sum of 10,000 Euros based on Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure,

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

In its March 30, 2008 edition, the British Sunday newspaper News of the World published photographs taken from a video depicting Max MOSLEY, President of the International Automobile Federation headquartered in Paris, in a private location engaging in sadomasochistic scenes with prostitutes. The newspaper's title and headline read"F1 Boss has sick Nazi orgy with 5 hookers".

Two short excerpts from the video were subsequently posted online on the newspaper's website showing one young woman wearing a military uniform, two others dressed as prisoners and Max MOSLEY taking turns being the "victim" or "torturer" with the women and addressing one of them in German.

The international press repeated the British tabloid's revelations with varying degrees of details, noting that Petitioner's father Sir Oswald MOSLEY had founded the British Union of Fascists, a neo-Nazi group during the 1930's, while many indignant voices spoke out in reaction to Max MOSLEY's behavior throughout the world.

On April 8, 2008, Max MOSLEY petitioned the British Judge of the High Court of Justice in London, in a hearing which the parties agree is similar to that of injunction hearings in French, to request a temporary injunction barring News Group Newspapers Limited (NGN) from broadcasting the video or excerpts of it.

In a decision dated April 9, 2008, the British Judge refused to order the injunction for the main reason that such measure would be ineffective due to the fact that the images in question had been reproduced or commented throughout the world ("The dam has effectively burst [...]. Anyone who wishes to access the footage can easily do so, and there is no point in barring the News of the World from show[w]ing what is already available").

Max MOSLEY did not appeal that decision, noting that since April 4, a petition is pending with the High Court of Justice in London to review the merits of the case and to order damages and an injunction to discontinue publication of the confidential or private information concerning Petitioner. The decision is expected during the month of July.

Max MOSLEY noted that he was planning on filing a petition in French Criminal Court pursuant to Article 226-1 and 226-2 of the Criminal Code based on an invasion of privacy through disclosure or communication to third parties, specifically in France, of images and words captured without his knowledge in a private place, invoking his protection in France under French law.

1. Territorial Jurisdiction

The Defendant claims that Petitioner's requests are barred due to a lack of territorial jurisdiction whether in terms of publication of the printed newspaper in France or on the website which is accessible from France.

Under Article 5 of the Council of the European Union Regulations of December 22, 2000 concerning jurisdiction, the recognition and enforcement of civil and commercial decision state that a "person domiciled on the territory of a Member state may be judged in another Member State [...] 3) in tortious or negligent matters, before the court of the location where the harmful act took place or is at risk of taking place", the expression "location where the harmful act took place or is at risk of taking place" addresses not only the location where the act took place but also that where damages occurred. With regard to the press, these motions have been interpreted to mean firstly, the location where the publisher in question resides, and secondly, where the distribution took place.

1.1 With regard to the newspaper in its printed version, it cannot be reasonably contested that News of the World is regularly distributed in France and specifically in Paris which the Petitioner established by producing a receipt for the purchase of the April 13, 2008 edition, available in kiosks on the Champs-Elysees.

Although no receipt was produced for the March 30, 2008 edition which is mostly at issue and a copy of which is introduced, the Defendant's offer to remove all copies of the March 30 and April 6, 2008 editions of News of the World which may still be in France and to suspend all distribution in France of a future edition of the newspaper which may contain an excerpt with images of the video in question until a decision on the merits by the High Court of Justice is reached, is sufficient to establish that the newspaper is distributed in France and therefore, justifies the territorial jurisdiction of the French Court to proceed with the case.

1.2 With regard to the website newsoftheworld.co.uk, it should be noted that the website in question is published by a British company residing in the U.K. and entirely published in English whereas the Petitioner who is a British national resides in Monaco.

The fact that the website, as any others, is accessible from France is not sufficient to establish territorial jurisdiction of the French Courts which requires the existence of a sufficient and significant connection between the alleged tortious acts and France.

Petitioner argues that the connection is established by the fact that the FIA is headquartered in Paris, adding that NGN offered members of FIA's board, which is to meet in Paris shortly, an opportunity to view the video so that they could gain information as to the Nazi connotations of the scenes in question.

However, as FIA is an international association, the fact that it is present in France is neither significant nor determinant. As a result, the damage to the reputation of its President has no connection to the location of the Association's headquarters and therefore, the damage suffered by Max MOSLEY has no significant connection to France.

Therefore, the motion regarding lack of territorial jurisdiction with regard to NGN's website is granted, which renders without merit or moot any other procedural arguments raised by the Defendant (litis pendance, abuse of process, request to defer judgment), since the dispute can only be judged in accordance with the paper copies of the News of the World in France which may contain or reproduce contents taken from the video in question and, if applicable, the publication or distribution in France of any accompanying materials, except by internet, of the video.

2. With regard to the inadmissibility of the two additional requests

Defendant raises the issue of late introduction of the two additional requests [(4) and (5)] and request that they be deemed inadmissible.

However, it should be noted:

- that the two motions, one (4) regarding the ban on distribution in France of any excerpts and in any manner whether visual or audio of the video or any other recording in its possession and taken during the events, the other (5) banning the broadcast or permission to broadcast or access, especially via internet, of any information related to the events which promoted the video in questions, are directly relevant to the initial motion and are an extension of it,

- Defendant's statements, repeated in its response and according to which NGN offered members of FIA's board an opportunity to view the video could have prompted Petitioner to requested that other images in NGN's possession which have not been published could be included in the present petition with regard to their status in France,

- Defendant added its new demands in its brief without requesting an adjournment as it was entitled to do,

- the arguments Defendant presented did not distinguish between the various motions and are directly related to the two additional motions which Defendant argues should be inadmissible so that the date on which the additional motions were introduced - the day before the hearing and in writing - cannot be considered to have harmed Defendant as this hearing is mostly oral, adversarial, and follows the principle of a fair hearing.

3. On the Merits

Based on the evidence produced and the parties' explanations, NGN purchased a recording (at least a portion of it) from a prostitute who participated in the acts - acts which Max MOSLEY participated in. Excerpts of the video were published in Defendant's March 30, 2008 edition as well as, according to Defendant's statements, in the April 6 edition, both available in France.

We can deduce from the tone of the articles published by News of the World regarding that event, that they included the most significant images, as did the website and the publishing company, by its own initiative for the International Automobile Federation, which supposes that more complete recordings than those presented to the public up to this point are within their possession and could still be distributed.

The published excerpts expose the intimate area of sexual relations between consenting adults, which is not usually revealed to third parties without the concerned party's approval.

Furthermore, the fact that the images in question as well as the statements that accompany them were recorded without Max MOSELY's consent in a private location, is not disputed.

Petitioner thus advances a valid argument that distribution in France through nationwide distribution of the printed newspaper containing the images is not only an invasion of his privacy but the tort is also covered and compensable under Articles 226-1 and 226-2 of the Criminal Code.

It is noted that Article 226-1 of the Criminal Codes punishes "the fact of voluntarily invading one's privacy by any means:

1) by acquiring, recording or transmitting words uttered in a private or confidential manner with their author's consent,

2) by taking, recording or transmitting the picture of a person in a private location without their consent".

Article 226-2 of the Criminal Code punishes when one "keeps, divulges or allows divulgation to the public or a third party or the use in any manner any recording or document obtained through one of the acts covered by the preceding Article".

Finally, Article 113-2 of the Criminal Code deems any infraction resulting from these acts in France to constitute one of the facts which took place in France.

If we consider that the picture and capture of words did not take place in France, nonetheless, it is obvious that the distribution in France of any material (in whole or in part) resulting from the video contains the material element comprising the tort under Article 226-2 of the Criminal Code.

Is the alleged invasion of privacy sufficient to cause illegal harm and in violation of Max MOSLEY's rights in France through French law?

Defendant argues in its defense that the information distributed to the public constitutes only a revelation of the neo-Nazi practices depicted in Petitioner's fantasies, the disregard Max MOSLEY, as President of the International Automobile Federation, displayed for those sent to concentration camps and more specifically for the Jewish victims of the Holocaust.

On that point it should be noted:

- that the honorable Justice EADY noted in his April 9, 2008 brief that the Nazi connotation of the sexual games contained in the newspapers, advanced and emphasized by the newspaper is "strongly arguable".

- that the clothes worn by the young women, one in a military uniform and the other two in stripped prisoners garb may bring to mind a prison scene but do not necessarily bring to mind concentration or extermination camps of the Second World War,

- on the medical inspection of a prisoner's hair (Petitioner was in the role of the prisoner at that time), Justice EADY, whose reasoning on this point is mixed, stated that "it would appear, so far as one can see, to have nothing to do with the SS",

- that the fact that Max MOSLEY's statements in German to a prostitute who only understands that language is not material.

From these observations, it cannot be said that aside from the impact these scenes will have on the Petitioner and the lasting effects they may have on his life, they only depict sadomasochistic sexual fantasies.

There are times when the public's right to information takes precedence over the right to privacy, especially when the information is related to a person in a high-level position and there is a risk that their behavior may influence the manner in which they conduct public affairs. However, there can be no benefit for the public to see or hear scenes depicting sexual relations between consenting adults in a private location and for which the pictures taken, the communication and transmission without the concerned party's consent are criminal acts punishable in France.

Sexual relations between consenting adults constitute the most intimate part of one's private life and contain secrets and mysteries no one should be forced to explain to third parties who cannot judge another person's desires, fantasies or sexual fantasies.

To allow the information on the ground that it constitutes the "public's right to information" would not differentiate it from the human desire to learn of other's vices and would amount to turning our back on one of our most important liberties and the most basic respect for privacy which is a part of it as contained in Article 226-1 and 226-2 of the Criminal Code which specifically aim at protecting this basic right as a sign of our civilization.

The distribution in France of pictures taken from the recordings in question, as well as the high level of probability that Defendant's own statements indicating that other pictures taken from the recordings may be distributed in France, amount to a harmful act which justifies the following:

- removal of all printed editions of the News of the World newspapers published on March 30 and April 6, 2008 which may still be available in France under a 500 Euro penalty for each observed violation,

- disallow distribution in France of any editions of the printed newspaper which may still contain pictures showing Max MOSELY or which would report his comments taken during the recording, under a 1,500 Euro penalty per observed violation,

- disallow broadcast or distribution in France through any means except on the website, of any visual or audio excerpts from the video in question or any other recorded video taken in the same location and at the same time, under a 15,000 Euro penalty per observed violation.

On the other hand, Max MOSLEY's additional motion to disallow broadcast of accessibility to "any information related to the events" which exceed the parameters of what is allowable under freedom of speech concerning a matter now in the public domain and which constitutes a news item over which anyone is free to think what it may or comment on it within the limits imposed by law is not granted. This decision only concerns the pictures and words taken from the recording in question which would be distributed in France by NGN on paper or by video and not on the website.

Given the nature of these injunctions, they will be void if, within 30 days Max MOSLEY fails to petition the French criminal court in its matter against NGN or its editor on the grounds of invasion of privacy within Article 226-1 and 226-2 of the Criminal Code, as he indicated he intended on doing.

Furthermore, the injunctions will become void if Max MOSLEY fails to pay the legal fees so that the criminal prosecution may be pursued on these grounds.

It should be noted that this decision does not bar Max MOSLEY from deciding on his own, to share the recordings with members of the Association he presides or to authorize anyone who has access to them to do the same.

Equity demands that Max MOSLEY's request for payment of his legal fees be granted in the amount of 6,000 Euros.

Given NGN's offer to suspend distribution in France, under any format, of the pictures in question until the ruling by the High Court of Justice is rendered, there is no need to rule on the temporary injunction immediately.

THEREFORE

By joint decision, available to the Court Clerk, in first instance,

Hereby partially grants the motion for territorial jurisdiction and finds that the High Court of Justice in London is competent to decide the matter related to the website newsoftheworld.co.uk,

We find jurisdiction lies with this Court to decide the other elements of this case,

Overrule the request for inadmissibility of the two additional requests made by Max MOSLEY,

Overrule the Lis Pendens doctrine and inadmissibility due to abuse of process and delay of judgment,

Order News Group Newspapers Limited, publisher of the British language newspaper News of the World, distributed in France, to remove of all printed editions of the News of the World newspapers published on March 30 and April 6, 2008 which may still be available in France under a 500 Euro penalty for each observed violation after a 7 day period beginning on the service date of this decision,

Enjoin News Group Newspapers Limited from distributing in France any editions of the printed newspaper which may still contain pictures showing Max MOSELY or which would report his comments taken during the recording of the sexual scenes from which certain pictures were published in the March 30, 2008 edition of News of the World, under a 1,500 Euro penalty per observed violation,

Enjoin News Group Newspapers Limited from broadcasting allowing broadcast, from distributing or allowing distribution in France through any means except on the website, of any visual or audio excerpts from the video in question whether they have previously been published or not and taken from the recording of sexual scenes where certain pictures were published in the March 30, 2008 edition of News of the World, under a under a 15,000 Euro penalty per observed violation,

These orders and injunctions shall become void if, within one month from the date of this order, Max MOSLEY has not started criminal proceedings against NGN or its directors on the basis of the elements contained in his petition pursuant to Articles 226-1 and 226-2 of the Criminal Code,

Furthermore, these orders and injunctions shall become void if Max MOSLEY fails to pay the legal fees within the time limits imposed by the criminal court so that the criminal prosecution may be pursued on these grounds in accordance with Article 226-1 and 226-2 of the Criminal Code,

We reserve the right to order penalty payments,

We reject Max MOSLEY's other demands and the other larger demands,

We order News Group Newspapers Limited to pay Max MOSLEY the sum of 6,000 Euros on the basis of Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure and order it to pay all legal costs.

Issued in Paris on April 29, 2008

The Court Clerk The Presiding Judge

/signature/ /signature/

Marlène MARQUET Joël BOYER

We want to hear from you!

Let us know what you would like to see from us in the future.

Take our survey

- The Autosport.com Team

Read and post comments