Administrative dissolution of far-right organizations after a student’s death. Strasbourg welcomes their dissolution
JUDGMENT
Ayoub and others v. France 08.10.2020 (app. no. 77400/14, 34532/15 and 34550/15)
SUMMARY
The cases concerned the administrative dissolution of three extreme right-wing entities: a de facto
group (the Troisième Voie association and its security squad) and two associations (L’Oeuvre
française and Jeunesses nationalistes).
The Court held that the dissolution of the association Troisième Voie and of its security squad, the
Jeunesses nationalistes révolutionnaires, had been aimed at ensuring public safety, preventing
disorder and protecting the rights of others, all of which constituted legitimate aims for the purposes
of Article 11 § 2 of the Convention. In view of the information on file and the context – the death on
5 June 2013 of C.M., a student at Sciences Po and a member of the anti-fascist movement, in a fight
with skinheads – the Court accepted that the authorities had been justified in finding that there
were relevant and sufficient reasons demonstrating a “pressing social need” to order the dissolution
of the associations concerned so as to prevent and put an end to public disorder.
The Court observed that the associations L’Oeuvre française and Jeunesses nationalistes had
pursued aims prohibited by Article 17 of the Convention and had abused their right to freedom of
association in a manner incompatible with the values of tolerance, social peace and
non-discrimination underpinning the Convention.
PROVISION
Article 11
Article 10
Article 17
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The applicants are: Mr Serge Ayoub (application no. 77400/14), a French national who was born in
1964, lives in Soissons (France) and was the leader of the association Troisième Voie (Third Way) and
of its security squad, the Jeunesses nationalistes révolutionnaires (JNR – Revolutionary Nationalist
Youth), prior to their dissolution; the association L’Oeuvre française (The French Work) and its
president, Mr Yvan Benedetti (application no. 34532/15), a French national who was born in 1965
and lives in Paris; and the association Jeunesses nationalistes (Nationalist Youth) and its president,
Mr Alexandre Gabriac (application no. 34550/15), a French national who was born in 1990 and lives
in Meylan.
The associations were dissolved in July 2013 following the death, on 5 June 2013, of C.M., a student
at Sciences Po (Paris Institute of Political Studies) and a member of the anti-fascist movement, in a
fight with skinheads. Several individuals were placed under formal investigation. The investigation established that after the fight, the individuals concerned had met at Le Local, a bar run by Mr Ayoub, with whom they were in contact by telephone before and after the fight and throughout that night. On 14 September 2018 the Paris Assize Court sentenced two former members and/or
supporters of Troisième Voie to eleven and seven years’ imprisonment for the manslaughter of C.M.
by wilful armed assault, committed as part of a group. The criminal proceedings are still ongoing.
Application no. 77400/14
Mr Serge Ayoub was the president of the association Troisième Voie, the aim of which was “to
promote nationalist and revolutionary ideology”, and the leader of its security squad, the JNR, a de
facto group. On 11 June 2013 Mr Ayoub was informed of the government’s intention to dissolve his
association and the JNR. On 18 June 2013 Mr Ayoub informed the Minister of the Interior of the
voluntary dissolution of the JNR and Troisième Voie. The government then informed him of its
intention to proceed with the dissolution, noting that the association had continued to operate, thus
prompting the conclusion that there was still a de facto group carrying out the same activities. In a
decree of 12 July 2013 the President of France ordered the dissolution of the JNR and Troisième
Voie. On 18 July and 15 October 2013 Mr Ayoub applied to the Conseil d’État to have the decree set
aside, arguing that the decision had been political in nature. The Conseil d’État rejected the
application.
Application no. 34532/15
In 2012 Mr Benedetti was appointed president of L’Oeuvre française. On 28 June 2013 the Minister
of the Interior informed Mr Benedetti of the government’s intention to dissolve the association. In a
decree of 25 July 2013 the President of France ordered its dissolution. On 21 September 2013
Mr Benedetti applied to have the decree set aside. In a judgment of 30 December 2014 the Conseil
d’État rejected the application.
Application no. 34550/15
Mr Gabriac was president of the Jeunesses nationalistes association, which was registered on
19 October 2011. According to the Government, the association is the youth wing of L’Oeuvre
française. On 24 June 2013 the Minister of the Interior informed Mr Gabriac of the government’s
intention to dissolve the applicant association. Jeunesses nationalistes and Mr Gabriac as its
president lodged an urgent court application for a stay of execution of the dissolution decree, which
they also sought to have set aside. In a judgment of 30 December 2014 the Conseil d’État rejected
the application.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT…
Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) in the light of Article 10 (freedom of
expression)
The Court reiterated that the protection of opinions and the freedom to express them, as secured by
Article 10 of the Convention, was one of the objectives of freedom of assembly and association as
enshrined in Article 11. Hence, Article 11 was to be read in the light of Article 10.
Application no. 77400/14
The Court noted that the dissolution of the association Troisième Voie and of the JNR had been
ordered by the government on the basis of the situations contemplated in paragraphs 2 and 6 of
Article L. 212-1 of the Homeland Security Code (Code de la sécurité intérieure – CSI). The judge’s
decision had been based on the first ground for dissolution, namely the existence of a private militia.
However, the judge had ruled that there was insufficient evidence of the existence of the second
ground, namely incitement to discrimination, hatred or violence.
The Court therefore found that the interference had been prescribed by law. Although the applicant
had anticipated the dissolution order by voluntarily dissolving the association Troisième Voie and the
JNR, the authorities had taken the view that those entities continued to be “de facto groups” which
could be dissolved under the aforementioned statutory provision. The dissolution had also been
designed to prevent the re-formation of the entities concerned. This was an offence under the final
paragraph of Article L. 212-1 of the CSI, a provision which the voluntary dissolution might have
served to circumvent.
The Court considered that the dissolution order could be regarded as being aimed at ensuring public
safety, preventing disorder and protecting the rights of others, all of which constituted legitimate
aims for the purposes of Article 11 § 2 of the Convention.
The Court noted that Troisième Voie was not a political party seeking election but rather an
association which pursued a political programme defined as a revolutionary nationalist ideology. The
Court observed that the dissolution had been prompted by a specific act rather than by the group’s
aims or political statements or the political views of its president. The French authorities’ decision to
dissolve the association and the JNR had been taken following C.M.’s death, in view of the public
disorder sparked by the violent incident. This had been a decisive factor in the decision; according to
the Minister of the Interior in his memorial before the Conseil d’État, the incident had disclosed “a
situation of heightened conflict between left and right-wing extremists” against a “background of
debates and clashes surrounding the Marriage Equality Act”. There had thus been a “context of
tension” which suggested “even more than in the past [that] the actions of Troisième Voie and the
JNR were liable to degenerate into serious public disorder”. In addition to this act of violence, the
Court noted that the executive and the Conseil d’État had taken into account the groups’ previous
activities as private militias. Hence, they had taken into consideration the hierarchical structure of
the JNR, the fact that it held uniformed rallies and military-style parades and the fact that it
recruited members on the basis of their ability to use physical force in the event of clashes. The
Court pointed to its case-law (Vona v. Hungary) emphasising that paramilitary rallies were designed
to engender fear and stressing the right of States to take preventive action to protect democracy.
In the circumstances of the present case the Court could not regard as unreasonable or arbitrary the
criteria applied by the Conseil d’État in finding that the JNR constituted more than a conventional
security squad for the association Troisième Voie. It was clear from the information provided by the
Minister of the Interior that the JNR in fact carried out activities as a group of military-style
organisation and appearance. The Government had also emphasised its threatening and aggressive nature. In the Court’s view, the authorities had had reason to fear that a group of this nature would
promote a climate of violence and intimidation going beyond the existence of a group expressing
offensive or disturbing ideas. The Court observed that the ideology in question had spilled over into
numerous acts of violence, as demonstrated by the surveillance activity and by the criminal offences
committed. Over time, this had led to a climate which posed a threat to the rights and freedoms of
others and to public order. The Court observed that Mr Ayoub himself, as the president, had
advocated political violence by inciting others to engage in combat and in physical attacks on
anti-fascist movements and the law-enforcement agencies. The JNR had enabled the association
Troisième Voie to attain goals that were in fact seditious, entailing recourse to violent actions such
as those which had led to C.M.’s death.
In view of these considerations and of the context in which the measures had been taken, the Court
accepted that the authorities had been justified in finding that there existed relevant and sufficient
reasons demonstrating a “pressing social need” to order the dissolution of the groups in question so
as to prevent and put an end to public disorder.
As to whether the measure had been proportionate, the Court found that the authorities’ action had
been necessary in order to prevent public disorder. It reiterated that 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.
In view of this margin and of the particular circumstances of the case, the Court held that the
dissolution measure could be regarded as proportionate to the aim pursued. The interference had
thus been necessary in a democratic society.
There had therefore been no violation of Article 11 read in the light of Article 10.
Article 17 (prohibition of abuse of rights)
Applications nos. 34550/15 and 34532/15
The Government argued that the applications should be declared inadmissible as being incompatible
with the provisions of the Convention under Article 17. The Court decided to focus its examination
on the compatibility of the applicants’ programme and political activity with the foundations of
democracy.
The Court noted that the dissolution of L’Oeuvre française had been ordered by the government on
the basis of paragraphs 2, 5 and 6 of Article 212-1 of the CSI, that is, on the grounds that the
association incited hatred or discrimination towards groups of people on account of the fact that
they were not French citizens or the fact that they were of Muslim or Jewish faith or origin, that it
glorified collaboration with the enemy and that it constituted a private militia. The Conseil d’État had
ruled that the dissolution had been justified for reasons inherent in public order.
The Court observed that the authorities had studied the actions and views of the association’s
president in detail before ordering the association’s dissolution. Firstly, the association and its
president had called for a national revolution motivated by a general wish to get rid of “non-whites”,
“parasites” who were destroying France’s sovereignty. Alongside this xenophobic call they had
propagated the idea that “political Judaism” was seeking to destroy France’s identity. Individuals
known for their negationist views and convicted on that account had taken part in the events
organised by the applicants. Secondly, it had been demonstrated in the proceedings before the
Conseil d’État that L’Oeuvre française and its president had expressed support for persons who had
collaborated with Nazi Germany. They were admirers of Marshal Pétain and the ideology of the
Vichy regime, identifying with that regime by using a Celtic cross as an emblem during
commemorations and at a summer camp organised in the name of Philippe Pétain. They claimed
ideological affiliation with public figures who had promoted collaboration with the enemy, and sought to implement the revolution of Philippe Pétain with its racial laws, thereby reviving a painful past for which the State’s responsibility was recognised. Thirdly, paramilitary training camps had been organised in order to spread the association’s ideology and train young militants as “political
soldiers”. This aspect underscored the aim of indoctrinating young people, which in the Court’s view
represented a threat to education for democratic citizenship, essential for combating racism and
xenophobia. The Court inferred from this that the aims espoused by the association L’Oeuvre
française and its president undoubtedly contained elements of incitement to hatred and racial
discrimination, prohibited under the Convention. Consequently, the Court held that through the
political views advocated, the propaganda disseminated and the activities organised to promote
those views, the applicants had sought to use their right to freedom of association to destroy the
ideals and values of a democratic society.
With regard to Jeunesses nationalistes the Court noted that while the Conseil d’État had accepted
incitement to hatred, discrimination or violence as a ground for dissolution, it had also found that
there was insufficient evidence of the existence of the ground of glorifying collaboration with the
enemy.
The Court observed that Jeunesses nationalistes was the youth wing of L’Oeuvre française. As in the
case of the latter, the Court considered it established that the political programme of Jeunesses
nationalistes contained aims that were based on hatred and discrimination towards Muslim
immigrants and promoted antisemitism and violent hatred and discrimination towards homosexuals.
The Court inferred from this that the applicants had sought to use their right to freedom of
association to destroy the ideals and values of a democratic society. Their activities had been
incompatible with the foundations of democracy.
In the Court’s view, the State had been justified in finding that the applicant associations (L’Oeuvre
française and Jeunesses nationalistes) and their leaders (Mr Benedetti and Mr Gabriac) had pursued
aims prohibited by Article 17 of the Convention. It found that they had abused their freedom of
association in a manner incompatible with the values of tolerance, social peace and
non-discrimination underpinning the Convention. The dissolution orders had been made on the basis
of in-depth knowledge of the domestic political situation and in support of a “democracy capable of
defending itself”.
Consequently, the Court held that, under Article 17 of the Convention, the applicants could not claim
the protection of Article 11 of the Convention read in the light of Article 10. Their complaints
therefore had to be rejected as being incompatible with the provisions of the Convention.
