La responsabilité civile délictuelle a longtemps servi de fondement pour obtenir une réparation des préjudices causés par un écrit imprudent, une parole désobligeante ou la diffusion d’une information confidentielle. Alors qu’elle continue à être utilisée en Belgique et au Grand-Duché du Luxembourg, les juges français de la Cour de cassation ont tenté de supprimer cette possibilité par des arrêts d’Assemblée Plénière le 12 juillet 2000. Seize années d’insécurité juridique viennent de s’écouler. La présente étude tente de démontrer que la France a fait fausse route et qu’il est souhaitable –et souhaité- que la responsabilité civile délictuelle retrouve sa place en droit français et permette de fonder la sanction des abus de la liberté d’expression. La France est souvent condamnée pour sa gestion de la liberté d’expression. Jusqu’à présent, aucun recours n’a été déposé au sujet de l’éviction de la responsabilité civile mais plusieurs arguments autorisent à croire qu’une condamnation de l’exception française serait probable par la Cour de Strasbourg. / Tortious liability or Torts are useful to obtain compensation for damages of Speech : a careless paper, an unkind word or the disclosure of confidential informations. Tortious liability is currently used by the States of Belgium and Luxembourg. However, in France, on July 12th 2000, Cassation Court judges took several decisions to prevent tort law to be used in Freedom of Speech processes. Since then, France has been on a wrong path. This dissertation attempts to prove necessary the return of tortious liability in the media industry and law. France is often targeted by the ECHR for violation of article 10 (freedom of speech rights). So far, noone dared to form a request to the Strasbourg Court on the French Tort law ban. However, several reasons and arguments are available to the reader in order to expect that eventually France will be found wrong to keep on the ban of civil liability in speech freedom cases.

Human rights are presumed to be universal given the universal declaration on human rights by the United Nations in 1948. Half a century has passed, and private human rights such as group rights are discriminated against worldwide. This thesis studies the presumed tension between universal human rights and private human rights, and how the specific rights are discriminated against. External monitoring is part of duties assigned to civil society organisations, and organisations monitor this issue and uses various methods to create circumstances in which private rights are respected. This thesis studies the European context through the European Court of Justice and the European Convention on Human Rights, and how civil society organisations in Europe use strategic litigation for Roma human rights. The purpose of this thesis is to establish how the European Court of Justice balances the tension between universal human rights and private human rights when civil society invokes discrimination against human rights. A sub-purpose is to identify whether there is a long-term consequence of strategic litigation for Roma human rights in Europe. The thesis has dealt with two ideas of human rights: universalism and discrimination. The chosen method for the study has been descriptive analysis of ideas to show the existence of ideas in texts, and thus be able to ascertain a shift in expression. The material is obtained by the civil society organisation European Roma Rights Centre, which are rulings from the European Court of Justice. The result of the study is that the European Court of Justice has previously considered that human rights should be universal and held that discrimination is difficult to prove. In recent cases however, the European Court of Justice has ruled that discrimination is constitutional for the Roma. Lastly, it is stated that strategic litigation can be viewed as effective in reducing the tension between universal human rights and private human rights in Europe.