CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 8 octobre 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sE207830C { margin-top:54pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .sE77B86B8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .sD423F84E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sFCC17DF1 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s8EB5F569 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDD998142 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sCBF2D345 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:8.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sCD7D0356 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:4.85pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sE485344B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:28.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s3136E68F { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:36.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5CCD731E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sEE251087 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:31.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sC6C7C49B { margin-left:7.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sD0682254 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s30C8A987 { width:4.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sB2ED4664 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s4E0353E8 { width:4.23pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .sF7610474 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:36.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s448F0C15 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s74818F78 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; list-style-position:inside } .sE7B3A78A { width:1.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .s9D025815 { width:20.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC6726222 { width:137.43pt; display:inline-block } .s5A65B3DC { width:46.56pt; display:inline-block } .s44B8752F { width:177.11pt; display:inline-block } .s2E302ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:14pt } .s39E5096F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top }   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 n o .   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 n o .   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