14 December 2014 | There was never any Fendant in St-Saphorin (encore)

Dominique Giroud's reaction to the article in Le Matin Dimanche on 14 December 2014:

1. On 3 December 2014, Dominique Giroud announced that, following an in-depth investigation, the courts had established that he had not tampered with his wine and that "the content of the bottles of St-Saphorin complied with the applicable legislation". In the interview given on 14 December 2014 to Morning SundayThe Vaud public prosecutor confirms these statements. From now on, there can be no doubt: Dominique Giroud has been cleared, there was never any Fendant in St-Saphorin and those who were reluctant to take Dominique Giroud's word for it can now rely on the confirmation of the Attorney General of Vaud.
2. The title chosen by Le Matin Dimanche is false: Dominique Giroud was NOT "sanctioned" for alleged "illegal behaviour". Dominique Giroud has contacted the newspaper's editorial team to have this false statement corrected. Should this be refused, he reserves his rights. Dominique Giroud took the opportunity to point out that he had never been condemned by any judge or prosecutor for his oenological practices. He notes once again that, for certain media, acknowledging his innocence is an impossible task, and that they prefer to water down the facts rather than acknowledge their errors.
3. The editors of Morning Sunday did not contact Dominique Giroud before publication so that he could give his point of view and set the record straight, in breach of journalistic ethics.
4. In 2009, a Vaud winegrower lodged a complaint against Dominique Giroud for misuse of his company name. In 2011, the winegrower withdrew his complaint, acknowledging in a letter to the courts that Dominique Giroud had never intended to make unauthorised use of his company name. The case was therefore closed by the courts, since misuse of a company name can only be prosecuted on the basis of a complaint. Consequently, the courts did not have to establish that Dominique Giroud had not misused his company name. Dominique Giroud therefore takes this opportunity to reiterate that
   • that the very idea of 'stealing' a company name in the hope that no-one would notice is completely ludicrous, given that this company name would then appear on 100,000 wine labels for all the world to see,
   • and that the very idea of using someone else's limited liability company without their consent is completely absurd, given that it only costs CHF 2,000 or 3,000 to create a new one.
5. Dominique Giroud contested with the Public Prosecutor's Office that legal costs could be charged to him, but in the end he did not appeal because the fact that he had been found innocent was the most important thing for him and because the amount in question (CHF 6,322.70) did not justify incurring additional expenses and prolonging a procedure that had lasted too long. This position was all the more obvious given that any legal action would immediately attract negative media coverage.

Press release dated 14 December 2014