Grounds of Justification and Legitimate Defense
Explanation
This explanation aims to simplify legal concepts and does not constitute the literal text of the law. The law states that an act is not considered a crime if committed during the exercise of a right without excess. This principle lays the foundation for what is known as grounds for justification [faits justificatifs].
One of the most important applications of exercising a right is legitimate defense [légitime défense]. The act is considered justified if dictated by a current necessity to repel an unjust and unprovoked attack. This attack can be directed against the defender's person or property, or against the person or property of another. The law has equated natural and legal persons in this protection.
As a general rule, awe or states of emotion and passion do not preclude punishment. However, if the defender exceeds the limits of legitimate defense, they can be exempted from punishment in a specific case. This exemption is realized if the act was committed under the influence of a severe emotional outburst that led to the loss of their power of consciousness or will.
The law also addresses the state of necessity [état de nécessité]. A person is not punished if compelled to commit an act to repel a grave and imminent danger to themselves, to others, to their property, or to the property of others. The condition for exemption here is that the perpetrator did not intentionally cause the danger, and that the defensive act is proportionate to the magnitude of the danger.
Official legal articles
amend · 1983-11-10: Open the official text
Think deeper
How does the law connect exceeding legitimate defense limits with the severe emotion that eliminates awareness or will?
Flashcards
What is the legal effect of an act committed in the exercise of a right without excess?
The committed act is not considered a crime.
What are the characteristics of an attack that permits the exercise of the right to legitimate defense?
The attack must be unjust and unprovoked, and repelled by a current necessity.
Is the protection of legitimate defense limited to natural persons only?
No, natural and legal persons are equal in protection.
Are awe and states of emotion and passion considered preclusive of punishment as a general rule?
No, awe and states of emotion and passion do not preclude punishment.
When is the perpetrator exempted from punishment if they exceed the exercise of the right to legitimate defense?
If they commit the act in a severe emotional outburst that eliminates their power of consciousness or will.
What are the conditions of danger in a state of necessity for the perpetrator not to be punished?
It must be a grave and imminent danger that they did not intentionally cause.
What is the condition regarding the act committed in a state of necessity?
The act must be proportionate to the danger.
Practice questions
When does the law consider that a committed act does not constitute a punishable crime?
An act committed in the exercise of a right without excess is not considered a crime (Article 183).
Which of the following entities is covered by the right to legitimate defense against an unjust attack?
Natural and legal persons are equal in protection against attacks (Article 184).
What is the primary condition for an attack that justifies exercising the right to legitimate defense?
The law requires that the act be dictated by a current necessity to repel an unjust and unprovoked attack (Article 184).
What is the legal effect of awe and states of emotion and passion on punishment generally?
Awe and states of emotion and passion do not preclude punishment as a general rule (Article 228).
When is the perpetrator exempted from punishment if they exceed the limits of legitimate defense?
The perpetrator is not punished if they committed the act in a severe emotional outburst that eliminated their consciousness or will (Article 228).
In a state of necessity to repel an imminent grave danger, how should the act compare to the danger?
The law requires for exemption in a state of necessity that the act be proportionate to the danger (Article 229).
Case problems
Zaid was subjected to a sudden attack in the street by a person carrying a stick, without Zaid doing any act to provoke the attacker. To protect himself from the blows, Zaid picked up a stone and threw it at the attacker, which led to his injury and stopped the attack. Is Zaid criminally liable for the attacker's injury?
Model answer
Zaid is not criminally liable.
Any act dictated by a current necessity to repel an unjust and unprovoked attack on oneself is considered an exercise of a right (Article 184).
The person's attack with a stick is an unjust and unprovoked attack, and Zaid's act was dictated by a current necessity.
Since Zaid adhered to the limits of defense to repel the attack, his act is not considered a crime because it was committed in the exercise of a right without excess (Article 183).
Self-grading rubric
An armed thief broke into Salim's house at night. Salim was struck by a state of terror and very severe emotion that completely made him lose his power of consciousness and will. Salim shot the thief, and continued shooting even after the thief dropped his weapon and surrendered, leading to the thief's death. Is Salim punished?
Model answer
As a general rule, awe and states of emotion do not preclude punishment (Article 228).
However, Salim was in a state of legitimate defense and exceeded the exercise of this right by shooting after the thief surrendered.
Since Salim committed this excess in a severe emotional outburst that eliminated his power of consciousness and will, he benefits from the exception.
Therefore, Salim is exempted from punishment because the excess in defense resulted from severe emotion that eliminated his consciousness (Article 184 and Article 228).
Self-grading rubric
While Rami was driving his car, a child suddenly jumped into the middle of the road. To avoid running over the child, Rami swerved his car and collided with his neighbor's garden fence, destroying it. Is Rami punished for damaging the property of another?
Model answer
Rami is not punished for this act.
The provisions of the state of necessity that preclude punishment apply here (Article 229).
Rami was compelled by necessity to repel a grave and imminent danger to the child's life.
Rami did not intentionally cause this danger.
Also, the committed act is proportionate to the imminent danger to save a human life.