FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF AYOUB AND OTHERS v. FRANCE
(Applications nos. 77400/14 and 2 others –
see appended list)
 
JUDGMENT
 
Art 11 read in light of Art 10 • Freedom of association • Dissolution of paramilitary-type far-right association following violence and breaches of public order by members • Meticulous review of legal characterisation of facts • Wider margin of appreciation in cases of incitement to violence • Dissolution necessary to prevent breaches of public order as effectively as possible
Art 17 + 11 • Prohibition of abuse of rights • Dissolution of far-right associations engaging in racist and antisemitic paramilitary indoctrination

 
STRASBOURG
8 October 2020
 
FINAL
 
08/01/2021
 
 
This judgment became final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Ayoub and Others v. France,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
 Síofra O’Leary, President,
 Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer,
 Ganna Yudkivska,
 Mārtiņš Mits,
 Lətif Hüseynov,
 Lado Chanturia, judges,
 Jean-Marie Delarue, ad hoc judge,
and Victor Soloveytchik, Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the applications (nos. 77400/14, 34532/15 and 34550/15) against the French Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by three French nationals and two French associations, namely, Mr Serge Ayoub, Mr Yvan Benedetti together with L’Oeuvre Française (“French Endeavour”), and Mr Alexandre Gabriac together with the Jeunesses nationalistes (“Nationalist Youth”) (“the individual applicants and the applicant associations”), on the various dates indicated in the appended table;
the parties’ observations;
the decision to give notice to the French Government (“the Government”) of the complaints concerning Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the applications in accordance with Article 54 § 3 of the Rules of Court;
Considering that Mr Guyomar, the judge elected in respect of France, was unable to sit in the case (Rule 28), the President of the Chamber decided to appoint Mr Jean-Marie Delarue to sit as an ad hoc judge (Rule 29 § 1 (b));
Having deliberated in private on 8 September 2020,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
INTRODUCTION
1. The applications concerned, from the standpoint of Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention, the administrative dissolution, by presidential decree, of a de facto group and of two associations that were politically on the far right. THE FACTS
2. The applicant Mr Ayoub was born in 1964 and lives in Soissons. Prior to their dissolution, he was the leader of the Troisième Voie (“Third Way”) association and of its security squad, the Jeunesses nationalistes révolutionnaires (“Revolutionary Nationalist Youth” – hereinafter “the JNR”). The applicant Mr Benedetti was born in 1965 and lives in Paris. The applicant Mr Gabriac was born in 1990 and lives in Meylan. The applicant associations were created in 1968 and 1991 respectively. Mr Benedetti and Mr Gabriac were their respective chairmen prior to their dissolution. 3. The French Government were represented by their Agent, Mr F. Alabrune, Director of Legal Affairs at the Ministry of European and Foreign Affairs. I. Background to the case
4. The association of which the applicant Serge Ayoub was chair, Troisième Voie (application no. 77400/14), and the applicant associations L’Oeuvre Française and Jeunesses nationalistes (applications nos. 34532/15 and 34550/15) were dissolved under Article L. 212-1 of the Domestic Security Code (Code de la sécurité intérieure – hereinafter “the DSC”) derived from the provisions of the Law of 10 January 1936 on combat groups and private militias (see paragraph 43 below). The associations were dissolved in July 2013 following the death on 5 June 2013 of C.M., an eighteen-year-old student at Sciences Po (Institute of Political Studies) and moved in so-called anti-fascist circles, who had died in an altercation with skinhead supporters and/or members of Troisième Voie and its security squad, the JNR. The actions brought by the individual applicants and the applicant associations to have the dissolution orders set aside by the Conseil d’État, which had jurisdiction at first and last instance, are detailed below. 5. In June and September 2013 several individuals were placed under formal investigation for manslaughter by wounding. The investigation established that they had fled after the altercation and had met up again at Le Local (see paragraphs 13 and 17 below), the bar run by the applicant Mr Ayoub, with whom they were in contact by telephone just before and after the fight, and throughout that night. 6. On 14 September 2018 the Paris Assize Court sentenced two former members or supporters of the Troisième Voie association to eleven and seven years’ imprisonment respectively for the manslaughter of C.M. by wounding, using a weapon and as part of a group. At the time of the most recently available information the criminal proceedings were still ongoing before the Assize Court of Appeal. II.  application no. 77400/14
7. The applicant, Mr S. Ayoub, was the chair of the Troisième Voie association – which was registered on 3 July 1991 and the stated aim of which was “the promotion of revolutionary nationalist ideology” – and the leader of its security squad, the JNR, a “de facto group”. 8. On 6 June 2013, following the death of C.M. (see paragraph 4 above), the then Minister of the Interior stated via several media outlets that a far-right group was behind his murder. On 7 June 2013 the Prime Minister stated before the Senate that he had asked the judicial and law-enforcement authorities “to explore every avenue by which such movements that [were] inspired by fascism and Nazism and [were] undermining the Republic and France might be – democratically and with a basis in law – ‘torn to shreds’, so to speak”. On 8 June 2013 he announced that he had asked the Minister of the Interior to institute proceedings “immediately” for the dissolution of the JNR on the basis of prior evidence, which was “more ample” than merely the altercation in which C.M. had died. On 11 June 2013 he announced that similar proceedings were to be instituted in respect of the association Troisième Voie. 9. By letter dated 11 June 2013 the applicant was informed of the Government’s intention to dissolve the association of which he was chair and the JNR under points 2 and 6 of Article L. 212-1 of the DSC (see paragraph 43 below). He was invited to submit observations within ten days. 10. By letter dated 18 June 2013 the applicant informed the Minister of the Interior of the voluntary dissolution of the JNR and the Troisième Voie association “as a matter of honour” and forwarded the notice of the dissolution announcement that had been published in the Affiches parisiennes legal gazette. 11. By letter dated 2 July 2013 the Minister of the Interior informed the applicant that the Government intended to proceed with the dissolution, arguing that the Troisième Voie association had, in fact, continued to operate (website updated until 21 June 2013, events scheduled for 23 and 25 June 2013, updated Facebook network with 182 followers), which prompted the conclusion that there still existed a de facto group carrying on the same activities. He considered that the same was true of the JNR, since the announcement of their dissolution did not establish that they were no longer active, given the necessarily informal nature of any de facto group and the very recent date of the announcement. The Minister went on to point out that the request made by the association’s secretary that its assets be transferred to the Working Class Heroes association, the chair of which was a former member of the JNR, showed “that the activities of the association and of the group the dissolution of which [the applicant had] announced [would] carry on in other forms”. The Minister informed the applicant that he had eight days to submit any additional observations. 12. In his observations of 5 July 2013 the applicant denied any ongoing activity on the part of the association. He pointed out that its website had indeed been shut down since 21 June 2013, that the press conference of 25 June had been held to announce its dissolution to the media and that the event held on 23 June concerned a different association called Envie de rêver (“Desire to dream”). He further pointed out that the association’s official Facebook page, with 4,000 followers, had been taken down at the end of June and that he was unaware of the creation of another page. 13. In a Decree of 12 July 2013 the French President ordered the dissolution of the JNR and Troisième Voie:
“... Firstly, the de facto group Jeunesses Nationalistes Révolutionnaires has a highly hierarchical structure, which is composed of several ranks and modelled in certain respects on a military organisation. At the close of a secret ceremony, candidates take an oath of absolute obedience to the leader and are given a ‘dagger of honour’. The Nazi salute is used among members of the Jeunesses Nationalistes Révolutionnaires. Their leaders recruit men who are ‘resolute, athletic and battle-hardened’, brought on for their physical fitness and their activist credentials. Candidates must spend up to two years as ‘aspirants’ before ‘earning their stripes’. On various occasions, their members march under their banner, in close formation, on the public highway, wearing uniforms displaying the ‘JNR’ insignia, directed by their leader, who is referred to as a ‘general’ and whose uniform bears a distinctive marker in the form of an eagle. Their members are made to undergo physical training, cultivate a military appearance and adhere to the slogan ‘Believe, Fight, Obey’ (Croire, Combattre, Obéir), which adorns the cuffs of their uniform. Secondly, the stated aim of the Troisième Voie association is ‘to promote revolutionary nationalist ideology in France by any means and to coordinate the activities of local federations and groups’. In 2010 the association was revitalised through the creation of the de facto group Jeunesses Nationalistes Révolutionnaires, whose aims are identical. Mr Ayoub, the association’s chair, is also the leader of this de facto group, which shares premises with Troisième Voie. The Troisième Voie association’s website contains a clearly identified section that disseminates information by and about the Jeunesses Nationalistes Révolutionnaires and acts as a vehicle for their common ideology. Following the ‘stripe-bestowing’ ceremony members of the Jeunesses Nationalistes Révolutionnaires automatically become Troisième Voie activists. The Jeunesses Nationalistes Révolutionnaires accompany and flank Troisième Voie at all of their rallies and demonstrations. Thus, sharing as they do the same leader, premises, website, ideology, meetings and activists, the association and the de facto group are closely interconnected and form a single entity. Moreover, in his capacity as leader of the Jeunesses Nationalistes Révolutionnaires, Mr Ayoub acknowledged this close interconnection in a letter dated 18 June 2013. Lastly, the Envie de Rêver association runs an associative bar called Le Local. The association is managed by two members of Troisième Voie, who act as its chair and secretary respectively. Troisième Voie and Envie de Rêver have registered offices at the same address, namely those premises. Le Local, which is mainly open evenings, is a meeting place for Parisian right-wing extremists, led by Mr Serge Ayoub, who is the leader of Troisième Voie and the founder of the Jeunesses Nationalistes Révolutionnaires. Mr Serge Ayoub personally signed the application for a licence authorising the sale of alcohol on the premises, despite being neither chair nor secretary of the association. He hosts parties there, in particular when ‘bestowing stripes’ on new members of the Jeunesses Nationalistes Révolutionnaires. On Thursdays Le Local hosts talks on political themes that are closely linked to the radical right, as are the speakers who give them. These gatherings are open to supporters. The talks are publicised on the website, Facebook page and Twitter account of the Troisième Voie movement. Since the death of [C.M.] on 5 June 2013 Mr Serge Ayoub’s communication with the press in defence of Troisième Voie and the Jeunesses Nationalistes Révolutionnaires has been conducted exclusively from Le Local. Two members of the Jeunesses Nationalistes Révolutionnaires permanently ‘stand guard’ on those premises, which they regard as the sanctuary of their group and of Troisième Voie. Therefore, Envie de Rêver’s only real activities consist in facilitating the meetings of Troisième Voie and of the Jeunesses Nationalistes Révolutionnaires and thus in acting as an instrument for their propaganda of hatred and discrimination towards persons on account of the fact that they are not French citizens. Not having any other activities, it blends seamlessly into the greater whole formed by those two structures as a material instrument for their illegal activities. It follows from the foregoing considerations that, taken together, these three closely interconnected organisations form a private militia within the meaning of point 2 of Article L. 212-1 of the Domestic Security Code. In addition, these three entities propagate an ideology that incites hatred and discrimination against persons on account of the fact that they are not French citizens and of their status as immigrants. This ideology is expressed through the holding of meetings and the posting of messages on Troisième Voie’s websites. It relies on the rhetoric of hatred and war, calling for the ‘destruction’ of their ‘enemies’. Furthermore, this ideology spills over into numerous acts of violence implicating the leaders of the three associations. The three entities thus fall, whether through their own activities or taken together, within the scope of point 6 of Article L. 212-1 of that Code. Consequently, their dissolution is necessary on that ground as well. In any event, the Envie de Rêver association, the only real activities of which consist in facilitating the meetings of Troisième Voie and of the Jeunesses Nationalistes Révolutionnaires, and which blends seamlessly into the greater whole formed by these two structures as a material instrument for their illegal activities, must be dissolved as a consequence of the dissolution of the two others. ... The purpose of [the voluntary dissolutions] designed to circumvent the dissolution decree contemplated in respect of these two organisations is in fact to enable their members to re-form in pursuit of the same ends contrary to public order, while avoiding committing the offence provided for in the final paragaph of Article L. 212-1 of the [DSC]. In addition, the secretary of the Troisième Voie association sought to transfer the association’s assets to the Working Class Heroes association, the chair and secretary of which are former members of the group Jeunesses Nationalistes Révolutionnaires and the Troisième Voie association respectively. It is therefore appropriate that the initially instituted dissolution proceedings be maintained ... For all of these reasons inherent in public order, it is appropriate to order the dissolution of the Envie de rêver association and of the de facto groups Troisième Voie and Jeunesse Nationalistes Révolutionnaires.”
14. On 18 July and 15 October 2013 the applicant applied to the Conseil d’État to have the decree set aside and filed additional observations. He argued that the decision had been taken for political reasons and had not been justified on public-policy grounds. He pointed out that the voluntary dissolutions were lawful and ought to interrupt the administrative dissolution, which they rendered superfluous. Relying on Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention, the applicant submitted that the groups’ dissolution did not pursue a pressing social need and that their ideology, while potentially offensive or shocking, did not constitute hate speech within the meaning of that term in the Court’s case-law. Lastly, he stressed that their dissolution was in breach of Article L. 212-1 of the DSC and disputed the facts and complaints set forth in the decree. 15. In particular, the applicant criticised the characterisation of the JNR as a private militia. He relied in particular on the absence of a military-style hierarchy beyond what was required for any collective activity; on the fact that the members’ obedience was strictly limited to the operational requirements of a security squad; on the fact that they marched with their faces exposed; on the non-military, skinhead-style uniform worn, which was closer to that worn at private security or portering firms; on the members’ physical strength, but the absence of training camps or collective training; on the probationary period they had in common with the corporate world and, ultimately, on the fact that the JNR were a security squad similar to that of a political party. The applicant denied both that the impugned ideology embodied by the JNR and Troisième Voie took its inspiration from Nazism and that they engaged in any hateful conduct or speech directed at foreigners. Laying claim to a “revolutionary nationalist” and “solidarist” ideology that was in favour of putting a halt to immigration, he pointed out that this ideology was neither racist nor antisemitic, as he himself was regularly attacked by far-right activists for his republican views. He added that, in his writings, this ideology took the form of “a sort of synthesis of French nationalist thought as embodied by such writers and statesmen as Paul Déroulède, Maurice Barrès and Charles Maurras, the spirit of the Convention and of the French Commune, direct democracy, the economic platform of the Conseil national de la résistance (National Council of the Resistance) and socialist self-management”. Lastly, the applicant argued that acts of violence attributable to members of the association fell outside the scope of Article L. 212-1 of the DSC. 16. In his written observations before the Conseil d’État, the Minister of the Interior pointed out that Mr Ayoub was a former skinhead leader, a proponent of right-wing extremism and that his movement – within which the JNR paramilitary group had been created – was mainly composed of skinheads. 17. The Minister argued that the association of which the applicant was chair was named after an older structure that had been active from 1985 to 1990, which was a revolutionary, nationalist, anti-American, anti-communist and anti-Zionist organisation. He pointed out that the association claimed to be “solidarist”, a doctrine which advocated solidarity between workers and bourgeoisie, as opposed to class struggle, and was hostile to globalism. He clarified that it was headquartered at the association’s bar, Le Local, a focal point for the radical right. According to the Minister, the three entities – Troisième Voie (with twenty-five chapters throughout France and some two hundred and fifty to three hundred activists, essentially recruited from skinhead circles), the JNR and Le Local – all had, as follows:
(1) An ideology, conveyed via the website, which “clearly displayed its nationalistic views and [was] supported by openly neo-Nazi groups, whose ideas it share[ed]”. (2) A highly hierarchically organised structure, the JNR, which “clearly [embodied] the logic of combat in an organisation that promoted the value of obedience” and whose slogan was “Believe, fight and obey”. He produced photographs of the JNR in uniform during rallies on the public highway. In addition to the organisation and functioning of the JNR detailed in the decree, the Minister clarified that they were regularly implicated in acts of violence, namely wilful assault of a racist or homophobic nature, or against the police, and altercations provoked by young, neo-Nazi skinheads. He further pointed out that the applicant justified such acts of violence, citing the following statement published on the Troisième Voie website:
“we will have to confront directly, in the streets, physical attacks from counter-revolutionary militias like [anti-fascist activists], police repression ... we will never forsake our comrades, those who show up for each event ... The head-shaven and the tattooed are a source of pride for our movement.”
(3) Premises managed by the Envie de rêver association, which served as a rear base for the JNR, an address for Troisième Voie and a place where its talks were held and its activists would gather. 18. The Minister relied on several notes from the intelligence services to substantiate the association’s activities and those of its chair: talks held on themes linked to the radical right; the holding of a traditional homage to a nationalist who had died accidentally, which had brought together six hundred extremists in 2013; a campaign to stigmatise members of parliament who were in favour of extending the right to vote to aliens from outside the European Union; and the holding of a demonstration on the theme “Many peoples, one enemy: we stand united against Imperialism”. He did so again to substantiate the incidents implicating Troisième Voie: racial violence, arrests for firearm possession, assaults in bars, altercations with far-left activists, assault in a gay bar, fatal assault on C.M. 19. The Minister emphasised that the applicant was clearly using these structures to accomplish the following:
“to take in hand disaffected, extremist youth and gain a foothold in the political and trade-union spheres. It will thus be noted that since May 2010 he has held, in Paris, the traditional commemoration in honour of Joan of Arc, which marks the annual high point of French neo-Nazi circles, bringing together up to 1000 people. Moreover, in the interview in Rivarol (2012) [a French far-right weekly], Mr Ayoub admits: ‘For me, Troisième Voie is all of the following things: a manifesto, a doctrine, a website, a news site updated daily, a video production company, Parisian premises, the re-formation of a steadfast security group (the JNR) ...’”
The Minister concluded that the dissolution had been necessary to maintain public order:
“... the dissolution was ordered in a situation of heightened conflict between far-left and far-right activists after a far-left activist had been the victim of a fatal assault, and against the background of debates and clashes surrounding the Marriage Equality Act (loi sur le marriage pour tous): in that context of tension, the actions of ... Troisième Voie and the JNR ... were therefore even more likely than in the past to degenerate into serious breaches of public order.”
20. The applicant submitted observations in reply before the Conseil d’État. He reiterated that Troisième Voie functioned like a normal political movement and disputed all the evidence submitted by the Minister as grounds for dissolution. He questioned the notes from the intelligence services as being “without merit and biased as to their content”. 21. On 15 July 2014 the Minister of the Interior filed a memorandum for the deliberations of the Conseil d’État in which he pointed out that, contrary to the public rapporteur’s submissions, it could be seen from the material in the case file that the very purpose of the Troisième Voie association and the JNR was to propagate an ideology that incited discrimination, hatred and violence. He clarified that although Troisième Voie had ensured that a doctrine punishable under criminal law was not publicly disseminated, it was nonetheless true that it “was the vehicle for an ideology that regularly led its members to commit attacks on foreign nationals or homosexuals, as [was] evident from the deplorably eloquent list of their misdeeds contained in the accompanying documents”. 22. In a judgment delivered on 30 July 2014 the Conseil d’État dismissed the application. It considered, first of all, that the decree had not been issued in breach of the fundamental principle of freedom of association since the grounds for dissolution under Article L. 212-1 of the DSC that could, subject to judicial review, give rise to dissolution, had been justified by “the need to protect public order, taking into account the severity of any breaches thereof as might be occasioned by the associations and groups that [fell] within the scope of those provisions”. It pointed out that the Government had thus struck “the requisite balance between respect for freedoms and the protection of public order without which no such freedoms [could] be secured”. 23. The Conseil d’État went on to find as follows:
(a) Article L. 212-1 of the DSC sought to ensure public order both by dissolving associations or groups which placed themselves in the situations listed under that Article and by preventing their rebirth. Thus, the voluntary dissolution of the JNR and Troisième Voie did not preclude their being regarded as de facto groups, since those entities had not immediately ceased their activities and had sought to circumvent the criminal sanctions provided for in that Article in the event of continuation or re-formation of a dissolved association or group. (b) The decree’s reliance on the grounds for dissolution under point 6 of Article L. 212-1 of the DSC was unlawful since the evidence before the court did not establish that these de facto groups had, by way of their activities and, in particular, their writings, statements or collective actions, incited hatred, discrimination or violence. (c) The JNR constituted a private militia within the meaning of point 2 of Article L. 212-1 of the DSC by reason of their hierarchical structure centred around the applicant and their slogan “Believe, fight, obey”, their members’ recruitment on the basis of the ability to use physical force in the event of “clashes” and their staging of rallies, in particular on the public highway, in the form of uniformed, military-style parades. (d) Taken together, Troisième Voie and the JNR were to be regarded as forming a private militia. They were highly interconnected in terms of their organisation, functioning and activities, and the evidence in the file demonstrated that they had the same leaders and pursued the same aims, with the JNR actively taking part in the events and rallies called for or organised by Troisième Voie. (e) The decree was not in breach of Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention since the impugned dissolutions, while they restricted the exercise of freedom of expression, were justified by the seriousness of the danger to public order and safety resulting from the activities of the entities in question. (f) The decree was to be set aside in so far as it ordered the dissolution of the Envie de rêver association, on the grounds that the fact that supporters of Troisième Voie and the JNR met on its premises did not suffice to establish a breach of public order that might warrant such a measure. Nor did the material in the file show that the association had incited discrimination, hatred or violence during the events it had organised. III.  application no. 34532/15
24. The individual applicant, Mr Benedetti, was chair of the applicant association, L’Oeuvre française, registered on 7 February 1968, which the Minister of the Interior described as the oldest far-right organisation in France (see paragraph 28 below) and the stated aim of which had been “to bring together French people who wish[ed] for the immediate rehabilitation of all those convicted for defending French Algeria and the dissolution and outlawing of Marxist organisations”. Its chair at that time had been Mr Pierre Sidos, a leading figure in radical far-right circles. The applicant became the association’s chair in 2012. According to the most recent amendment on file, its stated aim at present was “to help the French people recover a sovereign national State that [was] once again independent vis-à-vis foreign affairs and impartial in domestic affairs”. According to the information provided by the Government, L’Oeuvre française’s activism had fallen into a certain lethargy until the applicant had taken charge, at which point it had recovered an “undeniable dynamism, illustrated in particular by public propaganda with antisemitic and racist connotations and a series of street-level initiatives, some of which aimed to incite racial antagonism.” The Government also submitted that a proposal to dissolve the association had been examined in 2005 but the evidence collected had not sufficed for the judicial process to be implemented. At the time of the association’s dissolution in 2013 it had dozens of activists. 25. On 28 June 2013 the Minister of the Interior, in the context mentioned in paragraph 8 above, informed the applicant of the Government’s intention to dissolve the applicant association. 26. In a decree issued on 25 July 2013 the French President ordered the dissolution of the applicant association:
“Firstly, the discourse developed by the L’Oeuvre française association divides humanity into a racial hierarchy, at the top of which sits the white race. In its internet publications and at its meetings the association L’Oeuvre française calls for a national rally or revolution in order to restore the sovereignty of France, which is described as having been invaded by immigrants, and goes so far as to assert that ‘only a national revolution can cleanse France of the parasites that are destroying her’. The association propagates the idea that the aim of political Judaism is to destroy the identity of France and alleges that the French people are in danger. The chair of L’Oeuvre française has stated that he is ‘anti-Zionist, antisemitic and anti-Jew’. L’Oeuvre française has facilitated the spread of anti-Zionist and antisemitic ideas through the publication of articles – in Rivarol and on its website – by Hervé Lalin, also known as Ryssen, who has been a member of the association for several years and runs its Ile-de-France chapter, and by Fabrice Bourbon, who is also a member of L’Oeuvre française, both of whom have moreover been convicted for inciting discrimination, hatred or violence towards a group of persons on account of their origin or because they belong to a given religion. Individuals notorious for their antisemitism, such as Vincent Reynouard and Hervé Lalin, have given talks at forums or meetings of L’Oeuvre française. Every year, L’Oeuvre française commemorates the Parti nationaliste (‘Nationalist Party’), an openly xenophobic movement dissolved by decree on 13 February 1959. The L’Oeuvre française association thus spreads an ideology that incites hatred and discrimination, within the meaning of point 6 of Article L. 212-1 of the Domestic Security Code, towards groups of persons on account of the fact that they are not French citizens or that they are of Muslim or Jewish faith or origin. Secondly, L’Oeuvre française commemorated the 60th anniversary of the death of Philippe Pétain, who was convicted on 15 August 1945 of high treason and collusion with the enemy by the High Court of Justice and sentenced to forfeiture of his civic rights. On that occasion, uniformed members of L’Oeuvre française gathered in close formation and under their flag at Philippe Pétain’s grave. L’Oeuvre française’s 2011 summer camp was placed ‘under the high patronage of Marshal Pétain’ and a vigil was held there, during which a talk on ‘the life and works of Marshal Pétain’ was scheduled. L’Oeuvre française’s activists take the Vichy regime as their model and venerate Charles Maurras, who was convicted of collaboration with the enemy. The so-called ‘Première ligne’ (‘First Line’) security squad, which is in charge of security at L’Oeuvre française demonstrations, adopted the francisca as its emblem, in reference to the Vichy regime’s Révolution nationale. The association celebrates the 6th of February – a day it describes as the ‘solstice of the nation’ – to commemorate Robert Brasillach, who was sentenced to death on 6 February 1945 for colluding with the enemy and whom the association presented, in a 6 February 2013 post on its website, as having been ‘murdered by order of the traitor De Gaulle’. Vincent Reynouard, who is known for his negationist views, took part in the 2009 ‘Jeune Nation’ (‘Youth Nation’) camp. Through all the above activities, the association L’Oeuvre française glorifies collaboration with the enemy within the meaning of point 5 of Article L. 212-1 of the [DSC]. Thirdly, L’Oeuvre française runs paramilitary, physical and ideological training camps, bringing together the movement’s leaders and activists for the purpose of training ‘political soldiers’. Crowd-control training sessions, shooting sessions conducted in special attire, and boxing, self-defence and transmission classes are all held during these camps. As in the army, the most deserving are decorated and each class receives a name selected from among the revered figures of the movement’s ideology. L’Oeuvre française also holds training camps for activists responsible for its ‘première ligne’ security squad. Participants practice wielding defence canes and tonfa, receive training in commando course techniques, close formation, VIP-protection and demonstration-flanking, and keep in shape. In the light of these considerations, the association L’Oeuvre française constitutes a private militia or combat group within the meaning of point 2 of Article L. 212-1 of the [DSC]. For reasons inherent in public order, it is appropriate to order the dissolution of the association L’Oeuvre française.”
27. On 21 September 2013 the applicant applied to have the decree set aside. He argued that the applicant association did not fall within the scope of points 2, 5 and 6 of Article L. 212-1 of the DSC, be it in in the aims it pursued or the methods it employed, and that its dissolution was in breach of Articles 9, 10 and 11 of the Convention. In particular, he rejected the accusation of defending Philippe Pétain’s policy of collaboration, which he distinguished from the Vichy regime’s economic and social policy and its slogan: “Travail, famille, patrie” (“Work, Family, Fatherland”). He added that the dissolution constituted an abuse of process and that the facts had been artificially cherry-picked in the interests of what was, in reality, a political decision to punish the applicant association’s members for taking part in the protests against the so-called “marriage for all” act. 28. In his written observations before the Conseil d’État, the Minister pointed out that L’Oeuvre française was the oldest far-right group [in France] and that it honoured figures of the collaboration and Nazism, took the Vichy regime as its model and revered well-known individuals who had collaborated with Nazi Germany or with the Franco regime. Relying on supporting documents, he insisted on the association’s core political project, namely the rehabilitation of Mr Pétain’s collaborationist regime – a “recurring issue” which led the association to call for “the establishment of a second Révolution nationale, with completely explicit and unabashed reference to Philippe Pétain’s national revolution”. The Minister pointed out that this doctrinal postulate was part and parcel of an ideology characterised by a tradition of antisemitism that was all but openly embraced and by the veneration of well-known collaborators. As to Mr Benedetti, the Minister pointed out that he himself had declared himself to be “anti-Zionist, antisemitic and anti-Jew”, for which he had been excluded from the Front national party in 2011. 29. In addition, the Minister described the ideology promoted by the association – which incited hatred and discrimination towards a group of persons on account of their origin or because they belonged to a given ethnic group, nation or race – and the media through which it was conveyed (website, references to articles published in Rivarol by authors convicted of inciting discrimination and racial hatred, one of whom was a leading Holocaust-denier). 30. He added that this ideology also spilled over into highly publicised shock actions, Mr Benedetti and his association’s activists often being mentioned in minor news columns in connection with acts of violence. Among the most emblematic of these, he pointed to their participation in the fatal assault of B.B., a Moroccan individual who had been pushed into the Seine and had drowned. The Minister also cited thirteen acts of violence perpetrated between 2011 and 2013 during racist demonstrations and the demonstrations against marriage equality. As to the first of these, he referred in particular to the so-called “revolt of the born-and-bred” (révolte des souchiens, i.e. born-and-bred French – Français de souche), a demonstration which had been held despite its having been prohibited and had resulted in the arrest of fifty-eight activists, including the applicant, for firearm possession, assault and incitement to rioting; a prohibited “Masters in our own house” (Maîtres chez nous) demonstration, during which the Government and “the police of that kippa-coiffed minister, Manuel Valls” had been taken to task, and which had ended with the applicant’s being taken into police custody for taking part in a rally and for resistance to a public officer (rébellion); and to a “kick them out” (foutons-les dehors) protest against the building of a mosque. As to the second set of demonstrations, the Minister listed a number of acts of violence committed during protests against marriage equality organised by the Civitas association (a fundamentalist Catholic movement, which had since become a political party) – such as the attack on Femen activists that had led to the arrest of seven activists for wounding as part of a group – and some of the slogans chanted on that occasion: “Blue, white, red, France for the French!”, “Israel the murderer; US the accomplice!”. The Minister concluded from the foregoing considerations that the ideology thus conveyed relied on “the rhetoric of hatred and war, calling for the destruction of [the group’s] enemies, who [were] identified as those not forming part of the French nation”. 31. Lastly, relying on supporting documents and photographs, the Minister added that the association constituted a private militia and described the annual camps organised by Jeune Nation, a movement of which the applicant had been chair since 2009. These camps involved paramilitary-style training, where one could observe the raising of flags, the pinning of medals and activists – some of them very young – in close formation, sporting uniforms (beret, blue shirt in reference to the Francist movement – a collaborationist party whose members were nicknamed “the Blueshirts” –, black trousers, combat boots, bomber jackets), together with training in the use of weapons and combat techniques. A special group called the Hoplites (in reference to infantry soldiers in ancient Greece) had been created in the camps for young children aged four to fourteen. 32. The applicant lodged observations in reply before the Conseil d’État. He submitted that the Minister was conflating different things and decried the accusations of hate, arguing in particular that political sovereignty was a political concept and that Zionism was a political position condemned by the United Nations (UN) as a form of racism. He also either denied or nuanced the acts of violence described by the Minister and his and the applicant association’s links to figures on the far right. 33. In a judgment delivered on 30 December 2014 the Conseil d’État rejected the application. It found that the Government had rightly considered that there was reason to regard L’Oeuvre française as seeking to glorify collaboration with the enemy and that the evidence they had produced had established the existence of acts listed under point 5 of Article L. 212-1 of the DSC, the applicant having confined himself to challenging their seriousness. It clarified that, although certain events had not been directly organised by the applicant association, they had nevertheless been so at its instigation and had enabled it to propagate its own ideology. The Conseil d’État further found that the material contained in the decree as to the ground for dissolution under point 6 of Article L. 212-1 was “clear and concordant”:
“... although the applicants argued that neither the constitution of the L’Œuvre française association nor the course it had set for itself in a 2000 ‘Charter’ contained ideas or theories that sought to justify or incite discrimination, hatred or violence within the meaning of point 6 of Article L. 212-1, the evidence before the court shows that press articles by, or interviews with, leading members of the association, or former leaders whose influence on its functioning remained strong, together with statements by the association published on its website, contained, either directly or indirectly, in particular through references to the authors of racist or antisemitic theories or publications, material which incited discrimination, hatred or violence, or which justified such discrimination, hatred or violence, within the meaning of point 6 of Article L. 212-1. While the decree takes into consideration certain events which were not officially organised by the association, the evidence before the court nevertheless shows that, regard being had to the close interconnection between this association and the organisers of those events, the activities conducted there were attributable to the association itself. Even assuming [the applicant] did not himself make the antisemitic remarks attributed to him by the decree, and although the material in the file does not establish that the articles published by Mr B and Mr D in the Rivarol weekly ... are attributable to the L’Oeuvre française association, those considerations do not suffice to negate the clear and concordant nature of the material adduced in the decree.”
The Conseil d’État upheld the finding that the applicant association could be regarded as a private militia within the meaning of point 2 of Article L. 212-1:
“... it can be seen from the evidence before the court that, during these camps, participants wear the emblem of the L’Oeuvre française association and that the ‘Jeune C...’ publication, which organises these camps, is an offshoot of that association. In addition, although the applicants submit that the association has no more than a security squad, it can also be seen from the evidence before the court that the squad’s organisation, in any event, shows such discipline and capacity for the use of force that, in the light of the training exercises conducted during the training camps, the association can be regarded as a private militia...”
Lastly, it pointed out that the dissolution was justified by the seriousness of the danger to public order and safety and that, accordingly, the decree was not in breach of Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention. IV.  application no. 34550/15
34. The applicant, Mr Gabriac, was chair of the applicant association, Jeunesses nationalistes (“Nationalist Youth”), registered on 19 October 2011, the stated aim of which was to “promote French nationalism, defend its values and principles and develop mutual aid among members of the national community”. According to the Government, the association was created on the occasion of the 14th Forum of the Nation organised in Lyon by the L’Oeuvre française association, of which it was the youth branch. Its slogan was “action with no concessions” and its emblem was a fascist eagle. At the time of its dissolution, it had one hundred and fifty active members, grouped into fifteen chapters. 35. On 24 June 2013 the Minister of the Interior, in the context mentioned in paragraph 8 above, informed the applicant of the Government’s intention to dissolve the applicant association. 36. In a decree issued on 25 July 2013, worded as follows, the French President ordered the dissolution of the applicant association:
“... First, the stated aim of the Jeunesses nationalistes association is to ‘promote French nationalism, defend its values and principles and develop mutual aid among members of the national community’. The ideology conveyed targets persons presented as a ‘majority-Muslim immigrant population ... a symbol of the outright colonisation of which the born-and-bred French are the victims’. Those same persons are also referred to as ‘ethnic gangs’ and are accused of being responsible for ‘constant attacks’, the desecration of churches and ‘the assassination of France and [of its] people’. The association also seeks to combat ‘interbreeding as a model of society’ and the ‘Americano-Zionist axis’. The members of the Jeunesses nationalistes call themselves ‘born-and-breds’ (souchiens) in reference to a ‘European stock’ (souche européenne). The Jeunesses nationalistes association spreads its own ideology by way of articles and statements regularly published on its website. By carrying out ‘shock actions’, it seeks the greatest possible media exposure in order to spread its ideas on a massive scale, as was the case, for example, during the descent on the Beauvais Mosque construction site on 6 October 2012 under the slogan ‘kick them out’. It organises numerous rallies, demonstrations, commemorations and trips, both within France and abroad. It also participates in organising and running a ‘Jeune Nation boot camp’ dedicated to doctrinal and athletic training for its younger members. Moreover, the ideology developed by the Jeunesses nationalistes spills over into various acts of intimidation, vandalism and violence involving members of the association. The Jeunesses nationalistes association spreads an ideology that incites hatred, discrimination and violence towards persons or groups of persons because they belong, or do not belong, to a given ethnic group, nation or race within the meaning of point 6 Article L. 212-1 of the Domestic Security Code. Secondly, the Jeunesses nationalistes association takes part in commemorations of the death of militia fighters and members of the Waffen SS killed in 1944 and 1945. A delegation of the Jeunesses nationalistes regularly attends the annual homage to Benito Mussolini held in Predappio, Italy. [The applicant] took part in the celebration in honour of the sixtieth anniversary of the death of Philippe Pétain, who was convicted on 15 August 1945 of high treason and collusion with the enemy by the High Court of Justice and sentenced to forfeiture of his civic rights. [The applicant], who is chair of the Jeunesses nationalistes association, was pictured in the national press on 25 March 2011 giving the Nazi salute in front of a Nazi flag. Mr [D.S.], a member of the Jeunesses nationalistes, was also photographed making a Nazi salute and dressed in a uniform inspired by that worn by the SS. Ms [L.L], a senior member of the Jeunesses nationalistes, publishes articles on an internet site linked to by the Jeunesses nationalistes website inviting nationalist activists and supporters to correspond with imprisoned revisionists and Holocaust-deniers and to show their support by turning up to greet them in person upon their release. She volunteers practical information and tips to this end, such as avoiding the words ‘Shoah’ or ‘Holocaust’ to prevent the letters from being intercepted. Through all the actions detailed above, the Jeunesses nationalistes association glorifies collaboration with the enemy within the meaning of point 5 of Article L. 212-1 of the Domestic Security Code. For reasons inherent in public order, it is appropriate to order the dissolution of the Jeunesses nationalistes association ...”
37. The applicants lodged an urgent application to stay the execution of the dissolution order and applied to have it set aside. In their written observations on the merits, the applicants disputed all the complaints against them, alleging guilt by association and manifest errors of assessment. In each case, they argued either that they were unaware of the impugned acts, or that those acts had not resulted in criminal convictions. Lastly, they submitted that the dissolution order was a political decision and was in breach of Articles 9, 10 and 11 of the Convention. 38. In a decision of 25 October 2013 the urgent applications judge at the Conseil d’État found that there was no serious doubt as to the lawfulness of the decree. 39. In his written observations before the Conseil d’État, the Minister emphasised that when the applicant association had been created, its chair, the applicant, had stated in Rivarol that the Jeunesses nationalistes’ self-assigned mission was to “organise and train combative youth, mount shock actions and other operations that [could] not be disclosed in advance, discretion being the key to success”. The Minister pointed out that the facts set out in the decree as to the rehabilitation of Pétain’s collaborationist regime were firmly established and added that the applicant association itself organised commemorative or propagandistic events which were regularly attended by the applicant. As in the case of L’Œuvre française, the Minister emphasised the applicants’ political project, namely “the rehabilitation of Philippe Pétain’s collaborationist regime”. The Minister then shared “particularly abject” statements and messages published on the association’s website or in the press: “the Jeunesses nationalistes [claim to be at] ‘the forefront of the fight against inverts (homosexuals) and their supporters’ [and launch rallying cries against the law on] ‘sodomite copulation’; their slogan is ‘kick them out’; ‘we wish to assert that the natural-born French can only be descended from a shared European stock, spiritual tradition, and intellectual culture’; ‘the most zealous promoters and partisans of homosexuality or pornography of every variety are Jews’. Lastly, the Minister pointed to the actions undertaken by Jeunesses nationalistes activists which had received media coverage and had incited hatred and discrimination against a “Muslim-majority immigrant population” and homosexuals. In addition to the acts previously mentioned in the case of L’Oeuvre française in the context of the demonstrations against marriage equality organised by Civitas (see paragraph 30 above), during which the Jeunesses nationalistes had brandished the Celtic cross, the Minister referred to a number of acts of violence committed against homosexuals. 40. The applicant lodged observations in reply before the Conseil d’État, arguing, in particular, that defending the “born-and-bred French” and criticising the Islamisation of France were not criminal offences. He took issue with the enumeration of acts of violence or incitements to hatred that the Minister had set out in his observations. 41. In a judgment delivered on 30 December 2014 the Conseil d’État rejected the application:
“... Although the applicants point out that neither the constitution nor the charter of the Jeunesses nationalistes association contain ideas or theories justifying or inciting discrimination, hatred or violence within the meaning of point 6 of Article L. 212-1 of the Domestic Security Code, it can be seen from the very terms of those provisions that it was open to the decree to take into consideration the association’s actual activities, irrespective of its stated aims or the general course it had set for itself. While the ‘JN’ association’s participation, as such, in organising and running ‘boot camps’ is not established by the evidence before the court, it can nevertheless be seen from several statements published on the association’s website, from those made by [the applicant] in his capacity as chair, and from actions in which he and members of the association took part that there is clear and concordant evidence to substantiate the alleged facts for the purposes of point 6 of Article L. 212-1. The applicants’ unsubstantiated denial of the significance of those facts and their argument that the acts committed did not result in criminal convictions or prosecutions cannot be regarded as sufficient to negate their existence or their proper legal characterisation. Secondly, the evidence before the court does not show that the ‘JN’ association – through its activities or those of its members which were, having regard to the date or circumstances, attributable to it, and in particular the association’s writings, statements or collective actions – glorified collaboration with the enemy within the meaning of point 5 of Article L. 212-1 of the Domestic Security Code. It can nevertheless be seen from the investigation that the Government would have taken the same decision if it had relied solely on the ground of incitement of hatred, violence or discrimination within the meaning of point 6 of Article L. 212-1 in ordering the dissolution of this association...
... While the impugned dissolution constitutes a restriction of the exercise of freedom of expression and association, it is justified by the seriousness of the danger to public order and safety resulting from the activities of the association in question...”
RELEVANT DOMESTIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE
FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION AND THE DISSOLUTION OF ASsociations
42. Concerning the relevant provisions governing freedom of association and the dissolution of associations, the Court refers to the section on domestic law in the Les Authentiks and Supras Auteuil 91 v. France judgment (nos. 4696/11 and 4703/11, §§ 27-29, 27 October 2016). The Court would point out that freedom of expression is governed by the Associations Act (Law of 1 July 1901), which has constitutional status (Constitutional Council, 16 July 1971, no. 71-44 DC). Sections 3 and 7 of that Act provide for the dissolution of associations, by the ordinary courts, where the stated aims of those associations are unlawful, contrary to law and morality or undermine territorial integrity and the republican form of government. In parallel with compulsory dissolution as ordered by the ordinary courts, the administrative courts have the power to dissolve associations in three cases (ibid., § 29), including the case in issue in the present applications. 43. This power to dissolve associations derives from the Law of 10 January 1936 on combat groups and private militias, which has been amended on various occasions and is now codified in Article L. 212-1 of the DSC. The law was enacted as part of the fight against anti-republican forces, such as the “Blueshirts” mentioned in paragraph 31 above. The relevant provision reads as follows:
“The Cabinet shall issue a decree dissolving any associations or de facto groups
(1) Which incite armed street protests;
(2)  Or constitute combat groups or private militias by reason of their military structure and organisation;
(3)  Or whose aim is to violate the territorial integrity of the nation or undermine the republican form of government by force;
(4) Or whose activities serve to undermine measures to restore the republican legal order;
(5) Or whose aim to bring together individuals convicted of collaboration with the enemy, or to glorify such collaboration;
(6) Or which either incite discrimination, hatred or violence towards a person or group of persons on account of their origin or because they belong to a given ethnic group, nation, race or religion, or spread ideas and theories justifying or encouraging such discrimination, hatred or violence;
(7) Or which act within or from French territory to bring about the commission of terrorist acts in France or abroad. The perpetuation or re-formation of an association or group dissolved pursuant to the present Article – or the organisation of such perpetuation or re-formation – and the organisation of a combat group shall be punishable in accordance with the Criminal Code, Book IV, Title III, Chapter I, section 4.”
44. Under Article 431-15 of the Criminal Code, the perpetuation or re-formation of an association or group dissolved pursuant to point 2 of Article L. 212-1 of the DSC is punishable by three years’ imprisonment and a fine of 45,000 euros (EUR). 45. In 1936 the Conseil d’État laid down criteria to determine what qualified as a “private militia” or “combat group”, taking account of the association’s stated aims, the presence of groups organised according to a hierarchy based on ranks (potentially with uniforms to match) and the enforcement of discipline, and which developed paramilitary strategies, in particular the holding of combat-preparation exercises (Conseil d’État (CE), Judicial Assembly, 27 November 1936, nos. 54992, 55207 and 55208, Associations Le mouvement social des Croix de feu, Les Croix de feu et briscards, Les Fils de Croix de feu et volontaires nationaux and the association Parti national Populaire; CE, 8 September 1995, no. 155161, Comité du Kurdistan and Others). REPORT ON COMBATTING SMALL FAR-RIGHT GROUPS IN FRANCE
46. In November 2018 a commission of inquiry was created in the National Assembly to report on the status of small far-right groups in France given “the increase in assaults committed and the growing resonance of their racist, antisemitic, sexist and homophobic ideas within society, together with a troubling capacity for action, in particular through the organisation of summer camps where self-defence classes [were] held that bore comparison to paramilitary training”. The report on combatting small far-right groups in France prepared by that commission and deposited in the National Assembly on 6 June 2019 contained information relevant to the examination of the present applications. 47. The report first clarified the scope of the question: the State was not pursuing a policy against the far right, but it was responsible for preventing any breach of public order and punishing any offences which individuals or groups might commit. It was incumbent on the intelligence services to monitor small far-right groups, not on account of the latter’s political positions, but because they advocated or carried out acts of violence aimed at destabilising the State, threatening its institutions or undermining its security and that of its citizens. The report thus focused on “extremist” groups (groupes “ultras”), namely those which resorted to violence to impose their radical ideas (pp. 48-49). 48. In addition, the report pointed out that these small groups formed a shifting, heterogeneous network. While they had a shared foundation –namely, the glorification of violence; the expression of strong feelings of hatred; rejection of those from migrant backgrounds (with confirmation over the course of the hearings that right-wing extremists adhered to the so-called “great replacement” theory); opposition to the Republic and to its institutions and authorities; violent opposition to left-wing extremist groups (groupes d’ultragauche) –, they were deeply divided and were often rivals (pp. 55-59). These groups were responsible for the commission of various offences, including deliberate acts of violence, such as vandalising their opponents’ premises or those of pro-migrant associations; desecrating cemeteries; taking part in demonstrations on the public highway with a view to perpetrating attacks; altercations, in particular with far-left groups; in some cases insulting and resisting law-enforcement officers; and, lastly, acts, assaults and statements of an antisemitic, racist, sexist or homophobic nature. 49. In addition to allocating greater resources to monitor and understand the phenomenon, the report recommended “reinforcing the policy of administrative and judicial constraints”. On the judicial level, a reminder was provided of the various offences under which the individual acts committed by members could be classified, it being clarified that criminal proceedings against them could weaken the groups’ collective dynamics. It was also possible under criminal law to take into consideration the collective nature of the offences committed by members of small groups. The latter could also be dissolved by order of the ordinary courts (see paragraph 42 above), although that option was rarely used, in particular because, “as the Minister of Justice [had] emphasised, ‘it [had] been given a relatively strict interpretation in the case-law in view of the constitutional status of freedom of association’” (pp. 93-99). According to the report, the policy of administrative constraints – namely, the measures designed to prevent breaches of public order occasioned by the activities of small groups – was to be applied strictly, since the freedom to demonstrate and freedom of assembly enjoyed very strong protections. Concerning the administrative dissolution of associations (see paragraphs 42 and 43 above), the report explained that it was carried out in several stages. First, the intelligence services gathered evidence to determine the legal characterisation to be given to the association’s activities. It then fell to the Ministry of the Interior’s Department of Public Freedoms and Legal Affairs to draw up a draft dissolution order, while ensuring its lawfulness. The association received notice of dissolution as part of adversarial proceedings, in the course of which it could submit its observations. At the end of that exchange, the dissolution was enacted through the publication of a decree issued by the Cabinet and signed by the French President (p. 107). According to the Minister of the Interior, who had been interviewed during the commission of inquiry’s proceedings, dissolution could only be ordered following an investigation and on the basis of solid factual evidence (p. 111). The report clarified that administrative dissolution was a “useful” procedure that sought “to prevent breaches of public order occasioned by the activities of these small groups” and “genuinely disorganis[ed] the groups” (pp. 106 and 110):
“... As indicated by the DGSI [Directeur général de la sécurité intérieure – Director General of National Security], if the traditional organisations of the neo-Nazi, skinhead and identitarian variety have been ‘mainly on the decline for 5 or 10 years’, this is ‘principally because the series of administrative dissolutions that were ordered in 2013 following the murder of [C.M.] dealt a powerful blow to these small groups’. In M.L.’s view, these groups ‘have been disorganised and the fact that re-formation is punishable as a criminal offence has led them to exercise great caution’. This analysis was confirmed by the Minister of the Interior. ‘I know that there is some debate’, he stated. ‘Some considered that these dissolutions failed to achieve anything. What I have seen is that they were genuinely effective: these measures have completely disrupted a system. While that system has been able to re-establish itself in other forms, it has by no means done so on the same scale or as powerfully’.”
50. The report further indicated that the dissolution procedure was made more complex by the groups’ circumvention strategies, whereby they avoided having acts attributed to them by advising their members not to claim to be part of the group, while subsequently financing their legal defence. 51. As to Mr Benedetti, the applicant in application no. 34532/15, who was interviewed by the commission of inquiry, the report indicated that he had a substantial history of court proceedings. The report also showed that, in his testimony, the applicant had made negationist statements under oath, denying the reality of the Shoah and decrying it as a conspiracy, which had resulted in a referral of those statements to the prosecutor pursuant to Article 40 of the Criminal Code. RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL LEGAL FRAMEWORK
52. In its Belkacem v. Belgium decision (no. 34367/14, 27 June 2017), the Court cited the relevant Council of Europe texts, such as Recommendation no. (97) 20 of the Committee of Ministers on “hate speech” adopted on 30 October 1997 (see also Perinçek v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27510/08, §§ 78-79, ECHR 2015). The preamble of that recommendation read as follows:
“... Recalling that the Vienna Declaration [of 9 October 1993] highlighted grave concern about the present resurgence of racism, xenophobia and antisemitism and the development of a climate of intolerance, and contained an undertaking to combat all ideologies, policies and practices constituting an incitement to racial hatred, violence and discrimination, as well as any action or language likely to strengthen fears and tensions between groups from different racial, ethnic, national, religious or social backgrounds;
...”
53. In the Belkacem decision (cited above), the Court also referred to the work of the Council of Europe’s European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI). Point 17 of ECRI’s amended General Policy Recommendation no. 7 on national legislation to combat racism and racial discrimination provides that “the law should provide for the possibility of dissolution of organisations which promote racism”. Furthermore, point 9 of its General Policy Recommendation no. 15 on combating hate speech, adopted on 8 December 2015, makes the following recommendation to the governments of member States:
“withdraw all financial and other forms of support by public bodies from political parties and other organisations that use hate speech or fail to sanction its use by their members and provide, while respecting the right to freedom of association, for the possibility of prohibiting or dissolving such organisations regardless of whether they receive any form of support from public bodies where their use of hate speech is intended or can reasonably be expected to incite acts of violence, intimidation, hostility or discrimination against those targeted by it;
...”
54. In its report on France adopted on 8 December 2015 (CRI (2016)1), ECRI noted a substantial rise in intolerance and a worsening of racist behaviour in recent years. It recommended that certain conduct be expressly criminalised: (i) the public expression of an ideology claiming the superiority of or depreciating or denigrating a group of persons; and (ii) the creation or leadership of a group which promotes racism, support for such a group or participation in its activities (§ 10). ECRI noted a fall in the tolerance of diversity since 2009, as the National Consultative Commission for Human Rights had found in its report for 2013 on the combating of racism, antisemitism and xenophobia (published by La documentation française, 12 June 2014), and the prevalence of antisemitic tropes, especially in various segments of French society (Front national supporters, part of the population of Arab origin, and supporters of the Front de gauche). It pointed out that hate speech had led to acts of racist violence, especially by extremist groups. Concerning homophobic/transphobic hate speech, ECRI pointed out that it had come to a head at the time of the passing of the Law of 17 May 2013 legalising same-sex marriage, which had given rise to a large number of cases of hate speech by some participants in the public demonstrations. THE LAW
JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
55. Given the similarity of the applications as to the facts and the legal issues raised, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly (Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court). ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 10 AND 11 OF THE CONVENTION
56. The applicants alleged that the measures taken to dissolve the associations that they had chaired constituted unjustified interference with their right to freedom of association and to freedom of expression under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention. 57. Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention read as follows:
Article 10
“1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers ... 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, ... for the protection of the reputation or rights of others ...”
Article 11
“1. Everyone has the right to freedom ... of association with others ... 2. No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, ... or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. ...”
58. As a preliminary matter, the Court would point out that, although dissolved, the applicant associations can nevertheless claim to be victims of the alleged violations, within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, AGVPS-Bacău v. Romania, no. 19750/03, §§ 38 and 39, 9 November 2010). The individual applicants can also claim victim status (see Jehovah’s Witnesses of Moscow and Others v. Russia, no. 302/02, § 101, 10 June 2010, and the case-law references cited therein, and Zehra Foundation and Others v. Turkey, no. 51595/07, §§ 34 and 38, 10 July 2018). 59. The Court further reiterates that the protection of opinions and the freedom to express them within the meaning of Article 10 of the Convention is one of the objectives of the freedoms of assembly and association enshrined in Article 11, such that Article 11 must be considered in the light of Article 10 (see Young, James and Webster v. the United Kingdom, 13 August 1981, § 57, Series A no. 44; Parti nationaliste basque – Organisation régionale d’Iparralde v. France, no. 71251/01, § 33, ECHR 2007-II; and Vörður Ólafsson v. Iceland, no. 20161/06, § 46, ECHR 2010). The link between Articles 10 and 11 has recently been freshly highlighted, in particular in cases where the authorities interfered with the right guaranteed by the second of those provisions in reaction to the opinions held or statements made by participants in a demonstration or by members of an association (see Navalnyy v. Russia [GC], nos. 29580/12 and 4 others, § 102, 15 November 2018). In the circumstances of the present case, Article 10 is to be regarded as lex generalis in relation to Article 11, the lex specialis, so that it is unnecessary to take it into consideration separately (see, mutatis mutandis, Ezelin v. France, 26 April 1991, § 35, Series A no. 202). Notwithstanding its autonomous role and particular sphere of application, Article 11 must, in the present case, also be considered in the light of Article 10 (see Young, James and Webster, cited above, § 57). The parties’ submissions
1. Application no. 77400/14
(a)  The Government
60. The Government submitted as their principal argument that the application was inadmissible, not on the basis of Article 17 of the Convention, but as manifestly ill-founded and, in the alternative, that – for the same reasons – there had been no violation of Articles 10 or 11 of the Convention. 61. The Government submitted that the interference complained of had been “prescribed by law”, namely by Article L. 212-1 of the Domestic Security Code (“DSC”). They clarified that the voluntary dissolution of the association Troisième Voie had not rendered that provision unenforceable since, as the Conseil d’État had noted, the association’s self-dissolution had not put an end to its activities and had been designed to circumvent the application of criminal sanctions (see paragraph 23 above). The dissolution order had also sought to prevent the association from re-forming in the medium or long term. Thus, through the calculated voluntary dissolution of Troisième Voie and of the Jeunesses nationalistes révolutionnaires (hereinafter “the JNR”) who were interconnected with it, the applicant could not have been unaware that he was liable to expose himself to the application of the provisions of Article L. 212-1 of the DSC. 62. According to the Government, the interference had moreover pursued the legitimate aims of ensuring public safety, preventing disorder and protecting the rights of others, which had been threatened by the violent and dangerous nature of the actions undertaken by Troisième Voie and the JNR and by the dissemination of an ideology that was incompatible with democratic principles. 63. The fact that the interference had been necessary was demonstrated by the breaches of public order caused by these entities and the threat they represented to public safety. 64. In the light, in particular, of the Vona v. Hungary judgment (no. 35943/10, ECHR 2013), and having regard to the description of Troisième Voie’s security squad in the dissolution decree (see paragraph 13 above), the Government emphasised the intimidating nature of the organisations led by the applicant. These were closely interconnected from an institutional and relational point of view, and the potential use of force advocated on Troisième Voie’s website corroborated the threatening and aggressive nature of the JNR. 65. In addition, certain members of the JNR had committed acts of violence, whether on the margins of gatherings, during rallies, or acting alone. In addition to the death of C.M. (see paragraphs 4-6 above), the Government cited the following events, specifying that the list was not exhaustive: in May and October 2009 individuals leaving Le Local had been involved in altercations; on 8 May 2011, following a meeting of the JNR, five of their supporters had assaulted a minor from an immigrant family, and then a police officer; in April 2013 a member of the JNR and three other individuals from radical far-right circles had perpetrated homophobic attacks in a bar. 66. The Government considered that the impugned dissolution had been necessary since the actions of the organisations in question had overstepped the bounds of the protection afforded by the Convention in matters of free expression or assembly. This was what the Conseil d’État had found when it had concluded from the description given of the JNR, who were closely interconnected with Troisième Voie, that they constituted a private militia which posed a threat to public order. 67. The Government pointed out that only dissolution could achieve the legitimate aims pursued. Absent any other measures by which those aims might be achieved, they considered that it was the most suitable and appropriate measure and, consequently, that it was proportionate. Moreover, no additional penalty had been imposed on Troisième Voie or its members, who had not been prevented from carrying on their activities in other forms. In particular, the applicant had published a book entitled “The C.M. Affair: From Anecdote to Political Scandal”. 68. Lastly, the Government pointed out that the dissolution decree had been issued in compliance with the adversarial principle and had undergone thorough, rigorous review by the Conseil d’État. (b)  The applicant
69. The applicant submitted that the impugned dissolution had been political and founded on a string of lies about the way Troisième Voie and the JNR were organised, based on dubious notes provided by the intelligence services. 70. He considered that the self-dissolution of his association and of its security squad had rendered the subsequent dissolution order superfluous. He submitted that all of the association’s activities had ceased on 12 July 2013, when the decree had been published and after its website and Facebook page had been taken down on or around 18 June 2013. The applicant accused the Government of manoeuvring, in breach of Article 11 of the Convention, to bring the assessment of the voluntary dissolution within the purview of the administrative authorities and of the special rules laid down by Article L. 212-1 of the DSC, when, in his view, its dissolution followed directly from the freedom of association secured by the Associations Act of 1 July 1901. 71. The applicant challenged the Government’s submission to the effect that the Troisième Voie association had undermined democratic values. He pointed out that it had always claimed to be republican and the heir to the social doctrine of the church, to Léon Bourgeois (the theorist of solidarism) and to the Conseil national de la Résistance. Furthermore, the Conseil d’État had not found that it had incited hatred, discrimination or violence. 72. The applicant also disputed the “military appearance” of the members of Troisième Voie’s security squad. He considered that their outfit was necessary to distinguish them from demonstrators. He disputed their characterisation by the Government as a “private militia”, submitting that the hierarchy within the JNR was basic (a single leader, the chair) and pointing to its egalitarian nature (it was also called “the society of equals”). In addition, he submitted that the JNR’s military-style, dissuasive appearance was necessary to maintain order. He pointed out that theirs was not a military uniform, since they wore black trousers, bomber jackets and trainers, were unarmed, and brandished flags the emblems of which were the fasces of the Republic and the coat of arms of the French Republic from the Élysée palace. 73. The applicant also pointed out that the JNR had obtained authorisation from the prefecture every year to take part in the “Joan of Arc parade” and considered that the Government could hardly criticise its members for marching in uniform during an official parade. The other rallies (once a year on average) were demonstrations that were systematically authorised and concerned job protection and combatting imperialism and war across the globe. These were not, in the applicant’s view, extremist themes, and there had been no incitement to rioting. 74. As to JNR members participating in breaches of public order, the applicant considered that the group could not be held to account for the actions of its members outside the collective actions for which was responsible. 75. Lastly, the applicant considered that the association of which he was chair had been dissolved “by contagion”, on the sole basis of its interconnection with the JNR. Beyond the fact that the latter group was not a “private militia”, it could not – as a handful of some thirty people scattered throughout France – have “transferred” such a characterisation to an association bringing together hundreds of people. He pointed out that Troisième Voie disseminated “solidarist” political ideas, especially in written form (press, books), without thereby undermining public order. Moreover, all the public demonstrations or rallies it had held had been authorised. The applicant concluded that the dissolution decree had also unjustifiably interfered with freedom of expression, since it had sought to silence views opposed to those of the powers that be. 2. Applications nos. 34532/15 and 34550/15
(a)  The Government
76. The Government submitted as their principal argument that both applications were inadmissible pursuant to Article 17 of the Convention. They submitted that the dissolved associations had provided an institutional framework for the expression of racist, homophobic or antisemitic views that were contrary to the democratic values of the Convention, adding that this fact could not be contested merely by pointing to the associations’ constitutions or programmes in which such ideas were not visible. 77. To substantiate its argument with regard to L’Oeuvre française, the Government cited the following:
(a) Its website, containing several sections on nationalism – defined as a method “that places ... man at the forefront of its concerns ... man in the true sense ... namely, the white man” – and laying claim to certain “teachers”, such as E. Drumont, known for his antisemitism, or R. Brasillach, described as the “poet of fascism”. (b) Texts or statements with racist or antisemitic connotations reproduced on that site, such as the 2007 interview with the association’s founder, Pierre Sidos, a leading figure of the radical right, in which he referred, in turn, to “the sinister farce of Nuremberg”, to the “struggle against immigration from outside Europe that [was] incompatible with [French] atavism and ... traditions” and to the rejection of “the intrusion into the life of [French] cities of ethno-cultural morals which are alien to [the French] spiritual and moral heritage”, or to publications that propagated antisemitic and racist ideas: “Dinner at the CRIF [Conseil représentatif des institutions juives de France – Representative Council of the Jewish Institutions of France], or the Hatred of France” of 22 March 2013, “Stop the Genocide of the French People” of 28 October 2012. (c) The individual applicant’s closing statements at a 2007 forum of the nation mentioning the “forces siding with foreigners” who had “taken over everything” with a platform of “genuine ethnic cleansing” and of “annihilating the white world through repopulation by immigration or mass abortion”. (d) A “scholarly text” published on the website entitled “Thoughts about whiteness by Pierre Sidos”. (e) Publications glorifying Marshal Pétain: the association called for a “Second National Revolution”, “which alone [could] restore France’s destiny by cleansing her of the parasites that [had been] destroying her with increased efficiency for 60 years” (statement of 15 May 2012); commemorations in homage to Marshal Pétain or to the Vichy regime; the use of an emblem – a Celtic cross – reminiscent of that regime. In a video posted on the website on 1 June 2013 the applicant mentioned the Marshal’s principles, which were “the foundation of political action”, while clarifying that France was an “ethnically white country”. (f) The specific links between L’Oeuvre française, the publication director of the Rivarol journal (which was convicted on several occasions, together with its publication director, for statements and articles inciting to racial discrimination, hatred or violence) and the chair of the Jeunesses Nationalistes association, and their adherence to the revisionist ideas defended by M. Bardèche, who was considered to be one of the founders of Holocaust denial. 78. With regard to the Jeunesses Nationalistes, the Government mentioned the following:
(a) Articles published on the website containing references to the fact “of having to live with foreigners who [had] no respect for [the French people’s] land” and to the country’s “colonisation” by immigrants, or, on the occasion of the construction of a mosque, a reference to “a Muslim-majority immigrant population that buil[t] gargantuan places of worship in ever greater numbers” on the territory, this being “a symbol of the outright colonisation of which the born-and-bred French [were] now the victims”. (b) Pamphlets used during demonstrations containing the slogans “Kick them out” and “Masters in our own house”. (c) An October 2011 Rivarol interview with their chair, the applicant, where he spoke of the French wishing to remain “masters in their own house”, of the “natural-born Frenchman [who] could only be descended from European stock” and of the applicant association’s having been created for the purpose of “organising and training combative youth [and] carrying out the necessary shock actions to express that enough [was] enough (ras-le-bol)”; in that interview, the applicant had stated that “for the nationalist youth, every nationalist [was] a revolutionary in so far as he or she [did] not recognise the legitimacy of the current democratic, globalist order”. (d) The applicant association’s expression of hatred towards homosexuals, as witnessed during the demonstrations against marriage equality with the publication of particularly hostile and violent propaganda posters. In that connection, the Government produced a poster from the association’s website in May 2013 showing a monkey along with the following caption: “Their marriage for all?! And why not for him, while we’re at it!” The material produced also included a newspaper article published in Le Monde in January 2013 reporting on the vandalism of several of the Socialist Party’s local offices by the posting of Jeunesses nationalistes stickers, which were sold on their website under the designation “anti-sodomite copulation model” and on which the Celtic cross was displayed, along with the following warning: “Hey homo: don’t forget you’ve got a father AND a mother!”, “No to homosexual marriage”. (e) The fact that the applicant association and the individual applicant were close to structures that propagated antisemitic and negationist ideologies, such as those of the L’Oeuvre française association. 79. The Government concluded that the applicants had widely and repeatedly disseminated antisemitic and racist statements and that they had sought to deflect Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention from their intended purpose by using the freedoms of expression and association for purposes that were inconsistent with the Convention’s fundamental values of justice and peace. They concluded that the applications were inadmissible as being incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention. 80. Alternatively, the Government took the view that the dissolution of the applicant associations constituted a justified and proportionate interference with the rights guaranteed by Articles 10 and 11 and that those associations’ complaints should be dismissed as manifestly ill-founded or for non-violation of those provisions. As indicated in paragraphs 61 and 62 above, they considered that such interference had been prescribed by law and had pursued a legitimate aim. It had moreover been necessary in a democratic society given the breaches of public order caused by the associations’ menacing activities. The Government emphasised the ideology promoted by the applicant associations, as described above, taking the opportunity to point out that L’Œuvre française had a security squad named “first line” – a highly hierarchical paramilitary structure consisting of activists in uniforms that gave them a military appearance – which had organised “Jeune Nation nationalist boot camps” since 2009 in order to train “political soldiers”. Lastly, the Government argued that nothing short of the applicant associations’ dissolution could have achieved the legitimate aims pursued. (b)  The applicants
81. The applicants submitted that the Government were seeking to tar the two applicant associations with the same brush, even though, like the measures taken to dissolve them, they were separate. They denied that they had any financial or structural ties to Rivarol, or any responsibility for the annual organisation of certain rallies. 82. In application no. 34550/15, the applicants pointed out that the Minister of the Interior had confused the Jeunesses nationalistes with other organisations. In application no. 34532/15, the applicants denied any particular link between the L’Oeuvre française association and the ideologically closely aligned figures cited by the Government. They further denied the presence of any weapons during the summer camps organised by Jeune nation (see paragraph 31 above). They considered that the training offered during the camps, the uniforms, the parades in close formation and the flag-salute did not suffice to make out the convening of a combat group. It was a case of Scout-style camping, among nationalists, with talks given and homages paid to the flag. 83. The applicants submitted that the Government had sought to create confusion by submerging the Court in a flood of erroneous information and that the real reason the two associations had been dissolved was that they had taken part in the protest movement against the law on same-sex marriage. It had in fact been a manoeuvre on the part of the Government to deprive that movement of the associative framework through which it made itself heard and to get rid of the political opponents within it. Lastly, the applicants considered that the Government had taken advantage of a tragic but minor news item to attempt to wipe its most resolute political opponents off the political map.

Outcome for Article 11: no_violation