Key legal question
Whether the refusal to proceed with the defamation complaint was justified under Art. 173 CP.
Extracted holding
The refusal was justified because a conviction was clearly excluded; the file did not show that the alleged speaker had acted solely to disparage the complainant and without sufficient motive.
Extracted reasoning
A refusal to proceed is permissible only when conviction can be excluded outright. For defamation, truth or good-faith proof is generally available. Here, the landlord could have had access to the debt-enforcement record and no file element showed a pure spite motive or absence of sufficient reason.