Ayoub and Others v. France

Information Note on the Court’s case-law 244

October 2020

Ayoub and Others v. France - 77400/14, 34532/15 and 34550/15

Judgment 8.10.2020 [Section V]

Article 17

Dissolution of paramilitary-type far-right associations engaged in racist and antisemitic indoctrination: inadmissible

Article 11

Article 11-1

Freedom of association

Dissolution of a paramilitary-type far-right association following violence and public-order disturbances by its members: no violation

Facts – Three extreme right-wing organisations were dissolved following the death of a young man in a fight with members of one of them (Troisième Voie). The legal grounds for dissolution cited by the authorities included one or more of the following, depending on the case: (i) the existence of a private militia; (ii) glorification of “collaboration with the enemy”; and (iii) incitement to discrimination, hatred or violence. The appeals lodged by the applicants were dismissed by the Conseil d’État.

Law – Article 11 read in the light of Article 10:

(a) The application concerning the association Troisième Voie and its security squad (the Jeunesses nationalistes révolutionnaires – JNR)

Article 17 – The entities in question had been dissolved on the grounds that they constituted groups with the characteristics of a “private militia”. As the Conseil d’État had not found evidence of incitement to “discrimination, hatred or violence”, the legal characterisation of the facts by the domestic courts did not disclose prima facie any conduct aimed at destroying the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention.

Necessity of the measure in a democratic society

Pressing social need – The dissolution in question had been triggered not by expressions of political views but by an act of violence. In addition to the latter the Conseil d’État had also taken into consideration the hierarchical structure of the group in question, the staging of uniformed rallies and military-style parades and the fact that members were recruited on the basis of their ability to use physical force in the event of “clashes”. The ideology disseminated by the two groups had spilled over into numerous acts of violence from which the applicant, as president, did not appear to have distanced himself. Accordingly, there had been relevant and sufficient reasons for ordering the dissolution in question so as to prevent and put an end to public disorder.

Proportionality – It was true that dissolution was a drastic measure of last resort. Nevertheless, in view of the seriousness of the context, the authorities had been justified in believing that allowing the JNR and Troisième Voie to continue in existence would be perceived as indirectly legitimising past and future public disturbances. They had not had any less intrusive legal means available to them, for instance the possibility of suspending the groups’ activities. The domestic courts had performed detailed scrutiny of the characterisation of the facts and had examined the compatibility of the impugned measure with freedom of association. In view of the broader margin of appreciation left to the authorities in cases of incitement to violence, and the findings of the parliamentary commission of inquiry concerning the deterrent effects of dissolution, the measure had been necessary in order to prevent public-order disturbances as effectively as possible, and could therefore be regarded as proportionate to the aim pursued.

Conclusion: no violation (unanimously).

(b) The applications concerning L’Œuvre française and Jeunesses nationalistes

The members of these two associations had not been involved in the tragic incident which had resulted in their dissolution. Likewise, prior to that tragedy no proceedings had ever been brought against the associations in connection with the pursuit of their stated aims, with only individual members being arrested or convicted for their personal actions. The decrees ordering their dissolution had been issued following adversarial proceedings and the reasons given had been subjected to judicial scrutiny encompassing the veracity of the facts. In so far as the applicant associations complained that their dissolution had been a “political” measure aimed at suppressing radical opposition, the Court decided to focus its examination on the compatibility of their programme and political activities with the foundations of democracy.

The following elements emerged from the evidence adduced before the domestic courts and the Strasbourg Court:

(i) all of the materials disseminated by these associations had contained references to the authors of theories or publications of an antisemitic or racist nature, and contained elements inciting discrimination and seeking to justify it, including making calls for a xenophobia-inspired national revolution, claiming the existence of a supposed “political Judaism” hostile to national identity, receiving writers with negationist views, and so on;

(ii) the associations concerned had expressed support for persons who had collaborated with Nazi Germany, and had promoted the ideology of the Vichy regime, whose racial legislation they proposed to implement once in power;

(iii) the associations in question had organised paramilitary training camps designed to turn young activists into “political soldiers”; this demonstrated the existence of aims of indoctrination and training which posed a threat to education for democratic citizenship, in view of the ideology they sought to further.

Hence, it was apparent that the objectives actually promoted and put into practice by the members of these associations, including on various occasions by violent means, indisputably contained elements of incitement to hatred and racial discrimination aimed in particular at Muslim immigrants, Jewish people and homosexuals.

In the Court’s view, the dissolution of these two associations had been ordered on the basis of in‑depth knowledge of the domestic political situation and in support of a “democracy capable of defending itself”, against a backdrop of persistent and heightened racism and intolerance in France and in Europe. Through their political views, propaganda and actions, the applicant associations had sought to use their right to freedom of association to destroy the ideals and values forming the foundations of a democratic society. Accordingly, under Article 17 of the Convention, the applicants could not claim the protection of Article 11 of the Convention read in the light of Article 10.

Conclusion: inadmissible (incompatible ratione materiae).

(See Les Authentiks and Supras Auteuil 91 v. France, 4696/11 and 4703/11, 27 October 2016, Information Note 200, and Vona v. Hungary, 35943/10, 9 July 2013, Information Note 165; see also the Article 17 Case-law Guide).

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy