Les Authentiks and Supras Auteuil 91 v. France

Information Note on the Court’s case-law 200

October 2016

Les Authentiks and Supras Auteuil 91 v. France - 4696/11 and 4703/11

Judgment 27.10.2016 [Section V]

Article 11

Article 11-1

Freedom of association

Dissolution of association of football supporters as a result of repeated acts of violence by members resulting in supporter’s death: no violation

Facts – The two applicant associations belonging to the “Ultras” movement at the Paris Saint-Germain (PSG) stadium were dissolved under two Decrees in April 2010 on the ground that some of their members had been involved in repeated collective acts of violence and vandalism during the 2009-2010 football season, including the violence of February 2010 which had ended in the death of one supporter.

The applicant associations submitted requests for a stay of execution of the dissolution orders but these were dismissed by the urgent applications judge of the Conseil d’État. Subsequently, the Conseil d’État dismissed applications from the applicant associations to set aside the orders.

Law – Article 11: The impugned dissolution measure amounted to an interference with the right to freedom of association, prescribed by law with the aim of preventing disorder and crime.

The Conseil d’État did not find any negligence on the part of the applicant associations, but concluded that their involvement in the events that had led to public disorder by certain supporters acting as members of the association had been established.

In order to combat outbreaks of violence in football stadiums the legislature allowed the dissolution of a supporters’ association as a collective, rather than an exclusively individual, measure to prevent the serious misconduct noted during sports events, in cases of recurrent acts, and the 2 March 2010 Law had extended that measure to cover extremely serious acts, while at the same time introducing an interim measure that allowed mere suspension of an association’s activities.

In so doing the legislature sought to tackle acts of extreme violence which had caused serious physical harm to some supporters and led to the deaths of two of them. In the instant case, the decision had been taken to implement those legislative provisions in the wake of a series of collectively committed acts, involving the throwing of projectiles at the police and violent confrontations leading to the death of one supporter, just when the PSG football season was about to begin. Those decisions were taken in an extremely difficult context threatening the very organisation of football matches which had led to the dissolution of other PSG supporters’ associations or clubs. The national authorities could legitimately have considered that there was a “pressing social need” to impose drastic restrictions on groups of supporters, thereby infringing the very essence of freedom of association, in order to prevent and eliminate all risk of public disorder. Accordingly, the impugned measures had been necessary in a democratic society for preventing disorder and crime.

Before ordering the dissolution, the Préfecture de Police had issued a large number of stadium bans, which had proved insufficient, but the possibility of a suspension as introduced under a legislative amendment of 2 March 2010, which encroached less on freedom of association, would appear not to have been envisaged, in view of the seriousness of the offences committed by members of the applicant associations and of the imminence of the future matches. The authorities had opted for “halting the vicious circle of violence” and “preventing dangerous emulation among the various associations, which had in fact all been dissolved”, and considered that the applicant associations were actually incapable, at that juncture, of preventing their members from causing public disorder. In that regard, in cases of incitement to violence against an individual, a representative of the State or a section of the population, the national authorities benefited from a broader margin of appreciation in their assessment of the necessity of interference under Article 11. Finally, associations whose official object was to promote a football club were of less importance in a democracy than a political party, and consequently the necessity of restricting the right of association did not need to be considered so thoroughly in their case. In view of the scope of the corresponding margin of appreciation, the said distinction and the particular circumstances of the case, the dissolution orders should be regarded as being proportionate to the aim pursued.

In conclusion, the interference was necessary in a democratic society.

Conclusion: no violation (unanimously).

The Court also unanimously held that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1, given that the parties had been able to debate both the arguments advanced to justify the dissolution order and the use of a different ground, which then become the sole, sufficient justification. Therefore, the use of a different ground by the Conseil d’État had not infringed the applicant associations’ right to a fair trial.

© 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