FRESSOZ AND ROIRE v. FRANCE JUDGMENT 8 In relation to the theft charge, the court held: “... In particular, it has not been shown that the person who originally copied the documents had any unlawful intention or had such an intention at the time of taking the documents. Hence, without further rehearsing the numerous questions remaining unanswered concerning how these documents found their way into Mr Roire's hands, we find that the elements of the offence of theft have not been sufficiently proved. Unless it can be precisely established that, in the first place, an act defined as a serious crime (crime) or other major offence (délit) was committed, and its elements can be made out, the prerequisite for an offence of handling is lacking, and the defendant must be acquitted.” 21. On 25 and 26 June 1992 respectively, the public prosecutor and the civil parties claiming damages appealed. 3. In Paris Court of Appeal 22. In a judgment of 10 March 1993, Paris Court of Appeal reversed the judgment and found the applicants guilty of handling photocopies of Mr Calvet's tax returns obtained through a breach of professional confidence by an unidentified tax official. Mr Fressoz and Mr Roire were sentenced to, respectively, fines of 10,000 and 5,000 French francs (FRF) and ordered, jointly and severally, to pay Mr Calvet FRF 1 by way of damages for non-pecuniary damage and FRF 10,000 by way of reimbursement of legal costs under Article 475-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court of Appeal held as follows: “This Court cannot agree with the manner in which the court below analysed the facts. The results of the investigations show that only a tax official familiar with the department could have leaked the documents, since no outside party had requested Jacques Calvet's file and that file was found, on the morning of 27 September 1989, in its normal condition, with the documents filed according to the particular practice of Chaillot Tax Office. It is certain that a third party, someone who was not a civil servant or was from outside the tax department, could not – without attracting attention – have taken documents filed in two separate places in the file, photographed or photocopied them and put them back in exactly the right place, given that the file is kept in a metal cabinet in a locked room to which there is access only for authorised persons.