The list of professionals that you can not consult

Do you remember the list of Professionals who can _not_ be consulted at 3617 INAD? Yes of course ! This list which has allowed tens of thousands of clients-consultants of the divinatory arts to avoid donating their savings to professionals with many faces, doubtful skills and uncertain gifts, but whose overrated and flattering reputation makes certain consumers in a weak situation believe that they are capable of solving their problems, from the return of affection to incurable illnesses including imaginary disenchantment.

As we have explained, this list had been withdrawn voluntarily pending the decision of the COURT OF CASSATION which has just rendered its judgment quashing and annulling without referral the judgment rendered by the Paris Court of Appeal which condemned the INAD to damages and which ordered the omission of Vanessor from the disputed list.

h2. Extract from the judgment

Whereas to condemn the INAD, on the basis of article 1382 of the Civil Code, the judgment refers to a bailiff’s report of November 25, 1997 and holds that the INAD selected, on the one hand, professionals who “meet criteria of morality and certain competence in the field of clairvoyance”, on the other hand “professionals who may not be consulted”, among whom it included the company Vanessor that the inclusion of the company Vanessor in the list of “professionals who cannot be consulted” implicitly but necessarily calls into question the morality and skills of this professional; that if INAD has a right of criticism it cannot make abusive use of it by disregarding the obligation of prudence and objectivity, which is required when disseminating qualitative information; consequently, it cannot be accepted that INAD, under the cover of defending the morality of a profession excludes professionals whom it considers unrecommendable without justifying a serious investigation and objective criteria authorizing it to take advantage of the abuses denounced that the request for reimbursement of the sums paid by a dissatisfied client in the absence of result cannot be sufficient to characterize the criminally reprehensible acts that INAD imputes to the defendant that the fact that the company Vanessor reimburses its dissatisfied clients does not cannot be held responsible but is explained by the lack of certainty surrounding the field of clairvoyance; That by deducing from these findings and statements that the denigration exceeded the right to free criticism, while the reputation of the Vanessor company was not itself damaged by the incriminated publication, the court of appeal violated the above-mentioned texts; And given article 627 of the new Code of Civil Procedure. Whereas it is appropriate to end the dispute by applying the appropriate rule of law FOR THESE REASONS… QUASHES AND ANNULS, in all its provisions, the judgment rendered on April 28, 2000, between the parties by the Paris Court of Appeal SAYS there is no reason for referral; The Vanessor company rejects its requests; Charges the Vanessor company with the costs incurred before the trial judges and the costs before the Court of Cassation.

The INAD welcomes this decision, which sets a precedent, and reserves the right to reactivate the list of professionals who cannot be consulted on the Internet in a specific section.