CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 19 janvier 2023

.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 } .s2D726B78 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s57F1263A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s88D564B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border:0.75pt solid #000000; padding:1pt 4pt } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s71C8BE52 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .sEC2CB098 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E460D6E { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:78pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-42.6pt; text-align:justify } .sCB055ACB { width:170.47pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sB590B913 { width:205.79pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s451A1BF5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sF0C5ABC2 { width:194.48pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .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 } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2A91C753 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid } .sC7F250FD { font-style:normal } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s6C5BED22 { margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s9CB19847 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sCD82236A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s661A4C7D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:61.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s16800832 { width:5.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .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 } .s684237A1 { margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase; list-style-position:inside } .sC3C29E73 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase; list-style-position:inside } .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 } .sC6C7C49B { margin-left:7.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .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 } .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 } .s38A1A3E1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:59.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.9pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s6FC64B9D { width:2.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3FA6240E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:59.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.9pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s8B983D37 { text-transform:none } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s695E2BCF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-19.8pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s16F6432D { width:7.9pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFABD3260 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-19.8pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sFF8BF293 { width:8.05pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s55F67FD3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .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 } .s235C1871 { width:137.76pt; display:inline-block } .s5A65B3DC { width:46.56pt; display:inline-block } .s44B8752F { width:177.11pt; display:inline-block }   FIFTH SECTION CASE OF PAGERIE v. FRANCE (Application no. 24203/16)     JUDGMENT Art 2 P4 • Sufficient procedural safeguards attaching to thirteen-month preventive residence restriction imposed on radicalised Islamist during state of emergency following terrorist attacks • High degree of interference of measure accompanied by night-time curfew and obligation to report to police three times a day on pain of imprisonment • Foreseeability of law • Effective review by courts • Periodic review of necessity of measure • Proportionate measure not preventing applicant from having social life or maintaining contact with outside world   STRASBOURG 19 January 2023   FINAL   19/04/2023   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 Pagerie v. France, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Síofra O’Leary, President ,   Mārtiņš Mits,   Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström,   Lətif Hüseynov,   Lado Chanturia,   Mattias Guyomar,   Mykola Gnatovskyy, judges , and Victor Soloveytchik, Section Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 13 December 2023, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The application concerns a compulsory residence order made in the context of a state of emergency and an individual administrative control and monitoring order ( mesure individuelle de contrôle administratif et de surveillance – “MICAS”). The applicant relied on Articles   8, 9 and 14 of the Convention and on Article   2 of Protocol No.   4. PROCEDURE 2.     The case originated in an application (no.   24203/16) 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 a French national, Mr   David Pagerie (“the applicant”), on 26   April 2016. 3.     The applicant was represented by Mr   S.   Khankan, a lawyer practising in Nantes. The French government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr   F. Alabrune, Director of Legal Affairs at the Ministry of European and Foreign Affairs, and by B. Chamouard, Head of the Human Rights Section of that same department. 4.     The application was allocated to the Fifth Section of the Court (Rule   52 §   1 of the Rules of Court). On 15   December 2020 notice of the application was given to the Government. 5.     On 30   August 2022, the Chamber of the Fifth Section decided of its own motion to hold a hearing (Rule   54   §   5 of the Rules of Court), which took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 18   October 2022. There appeared before the Court: (a)     for the Government: Mr   B.   CHAMOUARD,   co-Agent , Ms   M.   BLANCHARD, Mr   I.   HERZOG, Ms   A.   CAROLIN, Ms   P.   LÉGLISE, Mr   A.   AMADORI, Ms   C.   COLLIN,   Advisers ; (b)     for the applicant : Mr   S.   KHANKAN, Ms   C.   WAQUET,   Counsel .   6.     The Court heard addresses by Mr   Chamouard, Ms   Waquet and Mr   Khankan and their replies to the questions from the Court . THE FACTS The declaration of a state of emergency following the attacks of 13   November 2015 7.     On the night of 13-14   November 2015 coordinated attacks, responsibility for which was claimed by Daesh, were perpetrated in Saint Denis and Paris, taking the lives of 130   people. 8.     A state of emergency was declared across continental France and Corsica in decree no.   2015-1475 of 14   November 2015, which was issued pursuant to the Law of 3   April 1955 (see paragraph   62 below). Issued on the same day, decree no.   2015 ‑ 1476 authorised the enforcement of compulsory residence orders (see paragraphs   65 ‑ 72 below) in those areas. 9 .     The state of emergency was extended by six successive laws enacted on 20   November 2015, 19   February 2016, 20   May 2016, 21   July 2016, 19   December 2016 and 11   July 2017, respectively, upon delivery of favourable opinions by the Conseil d’État . It came to an end on 1   November 2017. 10 .     According to the material submitted by the French Government, eighteen attacks were committed or attempted in France in this period. Five of them resulted in fatalities. In this regard, the attack perpetrated in Nice on 14   July 2016 was particularly deadly. In addition, another thirty-two planned attacks were thwarted. The circumstances of the case 11.     The applicant is a French national who was born in 1988 and lives in Verrières-en-Anjou. The measures ordered in respect of the applicant 12.     From 22   November 2015 to 11   June 2017 the applicant was placed under a residence restriction by five successive orders of the Minister of the Interior. He was imprisoned from 5   August 2016 to 18   January 2017 and subsequently from 11   June to 15   November 2017. Save during the first of these two periods, the compulsory residence order was enforced continuously. The applicant was subsequently placed under a MICAS   order (see paragraphs   87 ‑ 89 below). The first compulsory residence period (a)    The order of 22   November 2015 13 .     By order of 22   November 2015 the Minister of the Interior placed the applicant under a residence restriction within the municipality of Angers, confining him to his home between the hours of 8   p.m.   and 6   a.m. and requiring him to report to the Angers police station three times a day (at 9   a.m., 2   p.m. and 7   p.m.), including on public holidays and non-working days. 14 .     The grounds for this order were as follows : “... In view of the serious nature of the terrorist threat throughout the national territory following the attacks of 13   November 2015, and having regard to his conduct, Mr   David Pagerie ... falls within the scope of [section   6 of the Law of 3   April 1955, as amended]. During his imprisonment in the Centre de détention in Argentan ( département no.   61) in 2012, he drew the attention of the prison authorities through his particularly radical practice of Islam, a religion to which he had converted in 2007. Acting in a provocative manner, he was sometimes violent and openly endorsed Islamist views in favour of enforcing Sharia. In June   2012 he began corresponding with Mohamed Achamlane, the then imprisoned former leader of the Forsane Alizza group, a small group which was founded in August 2010 and rapidly gained notoriety among Islamist circles, in particular owing to statements posted daily on its website, ‘forsane-alizza.com’, and its openly anti-West and antisemitic stance. Combining references to jihadist Islam with highly vitriolic anti-establishment rhetoric, ‘Forsane Alizza’ clearly stated that its goals were to establish a caliphate and enforce Sharia in France. It was dissolved by decree on 1   March 2012 and its website was shut down. Mr   David Pagerie was released from prison on 18   August 2015. In view of the serious nature of the threat he poses to public order and safety, there is cause to place him under a residence restriction within a circumscribed area, to require him to report to police headquarters in Angers ( département no.   49) and to designate the hours during which he is required to remain on the premises where he resides. ...” 15.     This administrative public-order measure ( mesure de police administrative ) was implemented from 25   November 2015 onwards. (b)    The orders of 24   February 2016 and 24   May 2016 16 .     The compulsory residence order was renewed in two orders dated 24   February and 24   May 2016, respectively, with identical   implementation conditions. In addition to the grounds initially put forward, the Minister of the Interior cited the following circumstances. 17 .     As to the order of 24   February 2016, after noting that Mr   Achamlane (see paragraph   14 above) had been sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment for criminal conspiracy linked to terrorism in July 2015, the Minister clarified as follows: “... Since his placement under the residence restriction, Mr   David Pagerie has made public statements in the local press confirming his endorsement of radical views and has refused to condemn the terrorist attacks which took place in France in January and November 2015. ...” 18 .     As to the order of 24   May 2016, the Minister further clarified as follows: “... Since his placement under the residence restriction, Mr   David Pagerie ... has also condoned and justified the attacks perpetrated in Brussels on 22   March 2016, stating that he too would be willing to conduct violent actions were he to have weapons. After reviewing Mr   David Pagerie’s situation, and in the context of an ongoing, high-level terrorist threat, coupled with the holding of two exceptionally large sporting events, there are still substantial grounds to believe that [the applicant] poses a threat to public order and safety. Consequently, there is cause to maintain his placement under a residence restriction within the municipality of Angers. ...” (c)    The day-long exclusion order issued for 4   July 2016 19.     By decision of the prefect on 20   June 2016 the applicant was placed under a separate exclusion order covering part of the territory of the municipality of Angers for the day of 4   July 2016, while the Tour de France passed through. (d)    Prohibition of contact under the order of 22   July 2016 20 .     In an order of 22   July 2016 the Minister of the Interior supplemented the measures that had been ordered in respect of the applicant with a prohibition on contacting Mr   Mario Nadir, on the following grounds: “... Mr   David Pagerie has maintained relations with Mr   Mario Nadir ...   since they were imprisoned at the same time in Argentan ( département no.   61) in February 2013. In 2010 Mr   Nadir was tried for the attempted murder of a police officer and was sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment for intentional wounding with aggravating circumstances. There are thus substantial grounds to believe that his conduct poses a threat to public safety and order. Consequently, there is cause to prohibit Mr   Pagerie from coming directly or indirectly into contact with Mr   Mario Nadir. ...” The applicant’s first prison sentence 21 .     On 4   August 2016 an administrative search was conducted at the applicant’s home. On the premises, the police seized a hand-written document containing football stadium addresses, a newspaper cutting in connection with the above-mentioned article about the applicant’s statements (see paragraph   17 above), a laptop computer hidden above a suspended ceiling and a mobile phone. 22 .     An inspection of the phone revealed that its user had subscribed to an account that relayed jihadist propaganda by means of an encrypted messaging application. It was established that the seized phone and laptop had been used to open files sent through that channel. These files contained pictures of the attacks perpetrated in Paris, Magnanville and Brussels, videos of summary executions and of children holding weapons or attending Islamic schools, and war songs inciting hatred and violence against the West. 23 .     During a police interview, Mr   Nadir confirmed that he had met with the applicant several times and stated that the latter had shown him videos of decapitations and scenes of combat. 24.     The applicant was prosecuted under the summary trial procedure ( comparution immediate ) first for breaching the prohibition of contact with Mr   Nadir under the order of 22   July 2016 and second for habitually accessing an online service that supplied messages, pictures or representations inciting or defending acts of terrorism. 25.     On 5   August 2016 he was placed in pre-trial detention. 26 .     In its judgment of 14   September 2016 the Angers Criminal Court requested a preliminary ruling on the constitutionality ( question prioritaire de constitutionnalité ) of the law defining the second of the above-mentioned offences, which was provided for at the time in Article   421 ‑ 2 ‑ 5 ‑ 2 of the Criminal Code. Without deferring its decision, it found the applicant guilty of both offences with which he was charged, sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment, returned him to custody and ordered the confiscation of the seized property. 27.     The applicant lodged an appeal and remained in prison until 18   January 2017. 28.     In its decision no.   2016-611 QPC of 10   February 2017, the Constitutional Council declared that Article   421 ‑ 2 ‑ 5 ‑ 2 of the Criminal Code was unconstitutional as drafted on the basis of the Law of 3   June 2016. 29 .     In consequence, the Angers Court of Appeal, ruling on the applicant’s appeal in a judgment delivered on 23   February 2017, acquitted him of that charge and sentenced him to six months’ imprisonment on the remaining charge. It ordered the return of the seized property. The second compulsory residence period 30 .     Upon his release on 18   January 2017 the applicant was placed under a fresh residence restriction that same day. (a)    The order of 18   January 2017 and its subsequent amendments 31 .     As the applicant was homeless following his release from Rennes–Vezin ‑ le ‑ Coquet Prison, he was first placed under a residence restriction in Rennes by an order of 18   January 2017. He was required to report periodically to police headquarters and to surrender his passport and all other identity documents, against delivery of a receipt. 32 .     In addition to the grounds on which the previous measures had been based, the new order relied on the results of the administrative search conducted on 4   August 2016 (see paragraphs   21 ‑ 22 above), on the circumstances that had resulted in his conviction on 14   September 2016 (see paragraph   26 above) and on the following considerations: “... During his imprisonment at Rennes–Vezin-le-Coquet Prison ( département no.   35), Mr   David Pagerie developed relations with the Algerian radical Islamist Jamel Beghal, also imprisoned there, who was sentenced to 10   years’ imprisonment on 15   March 2005 for criminal conspiracy to plot a terrorist act and to 10   years’ imprisonment on 20   December 2013 for taking part in a large-scale criminal plot involving the break-out of two individuals from Clairvaux Prison. ...” 33 .     In an amending order of 19   January 2017 the applicant was placed under a residence restriction in Angers. He was required to stay at home every night between the hours of 8   p.m. and 6   a.m. and to report to Angers police headquarters three times a day (at 9   a.m., 2   p.m. and 7   p.m.), including on public holidays and non-working days. In addition, he was prohibited from contacting Mr   Nadir. Lastly, the requirement to surrender an identity document was maintained. 34 .     The applicant’s place of residence was amended in a second amending order issued on 25   January 2017. From that date he was accommodated in a hotel room in Angers . (b)    The order of 27   March 2017 extending the applicant’s residence restriction beyond twelve months 35 .     The applicant’s residence restriction was renewed with identical conditions by an order of 27   March 2017. 36 .     Having regard to the total length of the measure imposed, which exceeded twelve months, this decision gave special reasons. In addition to reiterating all the considerations mentioned previously, the order relied on the following considerations : “... While in prison in 2013, he made unequivocal statements to the effect that, upon his release, he wished to enlist in jihad abroad. In January   2015, while once more imprisoned in Laval Prison, he consolidated the process of radicalisation, refusing any contact with the prison’s female staff and asking that the television set be removed from his cell . ... An administrative search conducted at his home on 4   August 2016 revealed that the applicant was accessing websites that defended terrorism. Since accessing such websites constituted a criminal offence at that time, [the applicant] was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment... Even though accessing websites that defend terrorism is no longer proscribed today as a result of the Constitutional Council’s decision of 10   February 2017, the facts which justified his conviction remain established and troubling nonetheless. Having been placed under a fresh residence restriction upon his release, Mr   David Pagerie ramped up his violent statements and provocations against representatives of the State. Thus, on 11   February 2017, the day following the above-mentioned decision of the Constitutional Council, he contacted the gendarmerie in Angers ( département no.   49) by telephone and sent a letter to the Principal Public Prosecutor at the Angers Court of Appeal ( département no.   49) to inquire as to the lawfulness of viewing videos of throat slitting online. The same day, when reporting to the police station, he refused to submit to checks using a metal-detector and, when the police officers refused to allow him to enter, yanked the door open and spat at them. Moreover, [the applicant] was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment on 23   February 2017, without immediate remand in custody, for breaching his residence restriction . In view of the serious nature of the facts which justified [the applicant’s] residence restriction and its successive renewals, and of the new evidence of Mr   David Pagerie’s ongoing involvement with radical circles, there are substantial grounds to believe that his conduct still poses a particularly grave threat to public safety and order. Accordingly, there is cause to extend Mr   David Pagerie’s residence restriction for a period of three months. ...” (c)    The denial of an adjustment request by decision of 30   March 2017 37 .     On 30   March 2017 the Minister of the Interior rejected the applicant’s request for a temporary suspension of his obligation to report to the police. The Minister considered that the medical certificate produced by the applicant did not show that his state of health was incompatible with the trips he was required to make between his place of compulsory residence and the Angers police station. 38 .     On 11   June 2017 the measure’s enforcement was interrupted by the applicant’s return to prison. The applicant’s second prison sentence 39.     On 9   June 2017 the police learned that the applicant was making regular trips to a swimming pool located in a municipality bordering Angers. He was arrested and his phone was seized. A technical inspection of the device identified new propaganda videos among the data contained in an encrypted messaging application. One such video described how to make a bomb. Another concerned an execution by decapitation . 40.     On 11   June 2017 the applicant was prosecuted and stood trial under the summary procedure for a breach of his residence restriction and habitual use of an online service that defended or incited acts of terrorism. As a result of the Constitutional Council’s decision of 10   February 2017, Article   421-2-5-2 of the Criminal Code, which provided for the latter offence, had been amended by the Law of 28   February 2017. He was placed in pre-trial detention by a decision of the liberties and detention judge delivered on the same day. 41 .     In a judgment of 13   July 2017 the Angers Criminal Court requested a fresh preliminary ruling on the constitutionality of the new wording of Article   421 ‑ 2 ‑ 5 ‑ 2 of the Criminal Code. Without deferring its decision, it acquitted the applicant of that charge, finding that it had not been established that he had accessed the files found on his phone. It sentenced him to six months’ imprisonment on the remaining charge, remanded him in custody and ordered the additional penalty of confiscation. 42.     The applicant lodged an appeal against the confiscation penalty alone. The Angers Court of Appeal partly overturned that judgment on 9   November   2017. 43.     The applicant was released from prison on 15   November 2017 . 44.     In its decision no.   2017 ‑ 682   QPC of 15   December 2017 the Constitutional Council declared that Article   421 ‑ 2 ‑ 5 ‑ 2 of the Criminal Code was unconstitutional as drafted on the basis of the Law of 28   February 2017. The MICAS order issued in respect of the applicant 45 .     On 14   November 2017 a MICAS order was issued in respect of the applicant, under which, among other things, he was prohibited from leaving Angers and required to report to the police station once a day. These requirements were renewed twice and lasted nine months in total. The legal remedies pursued by the applicant 46 .     The applicant brought several challenges against the decisions mentioned above, all of which were all rejected by the administrative courts . Urgent applications for interim relief to suspend the effect of administrative decisions on grounds of illegality ( référé-suspension ) 47 .     In two separate applications lodged under Article L.   521-1 of the Administrative Courts Code, the applicant asked the urgent-applications judge to suspend the enforcement of the orders of 22   November 2015 and 26   February 2016 . Proceedings in respect of his first application were discontinued by order of 29   February 2016. The second was dismissed on 11   March 2016, there being no serious doubts as to the lawfulness of the impugned decision. 48.     The applicant did not seek to have those decisions reviewed on points of law. Urgent applications for protection of a fundamental freedom ( référé-liberté ) 49.     The applicant also lodged five separate applications with the urgent-applications judges of the administrative courts of Nantes and Rennes under Article   L.   521-2 of the Administrative Courts Code to suspend the enforcement of the orders of 22   November 2015, 24   May 2016, 18   January 2017 and 27   March 2017, and of the decision of 30   March 2017 . 50.     He submitted that these measures had interfered with his freedom of movement in a serious and flagrantly unlawful manner and, in one of his applications, complained succinctly of a breach of Article   8 of the Convention. Furthermore, he alleged manifest errors of assessment and mistakes of law. From April 2017 onwards, he further submitted that the conditions of his obligation to report to the police were no longer appropriate on account of the deterioration of his state of health. 51 .     These applications were dismissed in four decisions dated 29   January and 4   July 2016, and 26   January and 10   April 2017, respectively. The last one concerned his applications for stays of execution of the order of 27   March 2017 and of the decision of 30   March 2017 refusing to adapt the residence restriction. 52 .     The applicant appealed against the decisions of 29   January 2016 and of 10   April 2017. He continued to maintain that the impugned measures had interfered with his freedom of movement in a serious and flagrantly unlawful manner, but refrained from alleging any interference with his right to respect for private and family life. 53 .     The urgent-applications judge of the Conseil d’État dismissed the applicant’s first appeal – against the order of 22   November 2015 – in a decision of 10   February 2016, which was reasoned as follows: “6.   The examination shows that, in issuing the impugned order, the Minister of the Interior based his decision – relying, in particular, on a ‘ note blanche ’ (intelligence report) from the intelligence services which was the subject of adversarial argument – on the fact that Mr   Pagerie had drawn attention to himself during his imprisonment in 2012 through his radical religious practice, his sometimes violent behaviour and his openly pro-Islamist ideological commitments. He began a correspondence with Mr   Mohamed   Achamlane, who was sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment for criminal conspiracy linked to terrorism and was the former leader of the Forsane Alizza group, which had been dissolved by decree on 1   March 2012 in the light of its anti-West, antisemitic and ‘jihadist’ stance. The Minister also took account of public statements made by Mr   Pagerie in the press, which had confirmed his radicalisation. 7. Mr   Pagerie, who did not attend the hearing scheduled by the urgent-applications judge of the Conseil d’État that he had himself initiated, did not provide any evidence in support of his application. He did not dispute the fact that he had corresponded with Mr   Mohamed   Achamlane, the leader of the Forsane Alizza group, who was convicted for having planned terrorist attacks in France. In an interview with the local press following the compulsory residence order, he made public statements confirming his radical views and refused to condemn the terrorist attacks which had taken place in France in January and November 2015. Having regard to all the evidence thus collected, it has not been shown, as the examination stands, that in imposing the residence restriction on Mr   Pagerie on the grounds that there were substantial reasons to believe that his conduct posed a grave threat to public safety and order, and in establishing its implementation conditions, the Minister of the Interior, who has struck a balance between the various interests in issue, has interfered with a fundamental freedom in a serious and flagrantly unlawful manner . 8. It follows from the above considerations that Mr   Pagerie is not justified in claiming that, in the decision appealed against, the urgent-applications judge of the Nantes Administrative Court wrongly dismissed his application.” 54 .     In his second appeal – against the orders of 27 and 30   March 2017 – the applicant complained only of flagrantly unlawful interference with his freedom of movement. His appeal was examined by the urgent-applications judge of the Conseil d’État , sitting as a member of a bench of judges, and was dismissed by a decision of 19   May 2017. Having pointed out the role of the urgent-applications judge in reviewing residence restrictions imposed under section   6 of the Law of 3   April 1955 (see paragraph   77 below), the Conseil d’État found as follows: “6. Firstly, in issuing the impugned order to renew the residence restriction, the Minister of the Interior based his decision – relying, in particular, on a ‘ note blanche’ from the intelligence services which was the subject of adversarial argument – on the fact that Mr   Pagerie had drawn attention to himself during his imprisonment in 2012, on account of his radical religious practice, his sometimes provocative behaviour, his openly pro-Islamist ideological commitments and his expressed wish to enlist in the jihad upon his release. He had thus begun a correspondence with Mr   Mohamed   Achamlane, who had been sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment for criminal conspiracy linked to terrorism and had formerly been the leader of the ‘Forsane Alizza’ group, which had been dissolved by decree on 1   March 2012 in the light of its stance as anti-West, antisemitic and ‘jihadist’. In addition, during his imprisonment at Rennes–Vézin-le-Coquet Prison from 5   August 2016 to 18   January 2017, he had allegedly come into contact with the Algerian radical Islamist Jamel Beghal, also imprisoned there, who had been sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment for criminal conspiracy to plot a terrorist act and for organising a plot to break two individuals out of Clairvaux Prison. The Minister also took account of public statements made by Mr   Pagerie in an interview with the local press following the initial compulsory residence order, in which he confirmed his radical views and refused to condemn the terrorist attacks that had taken place in France in January and November 2015 and in Brussels in March 2016. 7. In the light of all these considerations, the substance of which the applicant did not dispute, and of the exchanges during both the written and oral proceedings, it can be seen that the conduct of Mr   Pagerie, who has shown no intention of severing his ties to radical Islamism, poses a particularly grave threat to public order and safety. 8.   Secondly, during the twelve-month period preceding the impugned renewal of the residence restriction, Mr   Pagerie was subjected to an administrative search on 4   August 2016, following which he was remanded in custody on 5   August 2016, under the ‘summary’ procedure, then sentenced, by a judgment of the Criminal Division of the Angers tribunal de grande instance of 14   September 2016, to two years’ imprisonment for having had contact with Mr   Mario Nadir on 31   July 2016, in spite of the prohibition imposed as part of his residence restriction, and for having used an online public communication service from 3   June to 3   August 2016 which supplied messages, pictures or representations that incited or defended acts of terrorism. The judgment of the Criminal Division shows, in particular, that Mr   Pagerie subscribed to a group on the Telegram encrypted messaging service which disseminated messages, war songs and videos from the Daech organisation defending terrorism, and by means of which he viewed numerous pictures of the attacks carried out in France and Europe and propaganda videos that issued threats against France or showed summary executions. In a decision of the Angers Court of Appeal of 23   February 2017 Mr.   Pagerie was ... acquitted of the second charge, following the Constitutional Council’s decision no.   2016-611 QPC of 10   February 2017, which held that Article   421-2-5-2 of the Criminal Code, on which the charge had been based, was unconstitutional. However, both Mr   Pagerie’s failure to comply with the conditions of his residence restriction and his use of an online messaging service that defended terrorism and barbaric acts, even though he was acquitted of the charges in respect of those acts, constitute fresh or additional circumstances that have arisen or come to light in the past twelve months and are such as to justify an extension of Mr   Pagerie’s residence restriction. 9. Thirdly, [Mr]   Pagerie’s residence has been restricted to a hotel room in Angers provided by the administrative authority. The requirements to remain in the hotel between the hours of 8.30   p.m. to 6   a.m. and to report to the city’s police station at 9   a.m., 2   p.m. and 7   p.m. do not impose constraints that are excessive in relation to their aims. The medical certificate produced by the applicant dated 18   March 2017, according to which he had problems walking that were incompatible with the requirement to go out three times a day, even though the examination showed that, from the onset of these problems until 1   April 2017, the police had adjusted his reporting obligations by making the trip to his home, is not substantiated by sufficiently recent clarifications to demonstrate that the restrictions imposed on him are disproportionate. Accordingly, and despite of the length of the residence restriction under which he has been placed, it can be seen that the authorities have given due consideration to the constraints attaching thereto, without imposing excessive requirements on the applicant.” 55 .     The applicant subsequently lodged three urgent applications for the interim protection of a fundamental freedom ( référé-liberté ) against the MICAS order issued in respect of him and its two renewals. His applications were rejected and his appeals against those decisions were dismissed. The dismissal of his appeals became final with a judgment of the Conseil d’État on 5   July 2018. Applications for judicial review of administrative action 56 .     In the judicial review proceedings, the applicant lodged seven separate applications for judicial review of the orders of 22   November 2015, 24   February, 24   May, 22 July 2016, and 18   January and 27   March 2017, respectively, and of the decision of 30   March 2017 refusing to adapt his reporting requirement. 57.     He submitted, in particular, that the order of 22   November 2015 had been in breach of Article   2 of Protocol No.   4 to the Convention and of Article   8 of the Convention. (a)    The judgment of the Nantes Administrative Court of 13   February 2018 58 .     The seven applications were joined and dismissed by a judgment of the Nantes Administrative Court of 13   February 2018, which was reasoned as follows: “ The application [in respect of the order of 22   November 2015]: ... 7. ... [I]t can be seen from a note blanche from the intelligence services, which was produced by the Minister of the Interior and was the subject of adversarial argument, that, as mentioned in point   3, Mr   Pagerie, while in prison in 2012, developed relations with Mr   Achamlane, the former leader of the Forsane Alizza Islamist group, with whom he began corresponding. In a judgment delivered on 10   July 2015 by the Paris Criminal Court, Mr   Achamlane was sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment for criminal conspiracy linked to terrorism. Moreover, Mr   Pagerie drew attention to himself through his radical practice of Islam and statements that were openly in support of Islamist views in favour of enforcing Sharia. The applicant does not substantively challenge these sufficiently detailed elements, the substance of which is thus established. Consequently, having regard to all the factual elements thus made out and because the threat of new acts of terrorism was especially pronounced in the days that followed the declaration of a state of emergency, the Minister of the Interior, to whom it falls under the Law of 3   April 1955 to secure public safety and order, could reasonably have considered, without committing an error of judgment, that on 22   November 2015 there were substantial grounds to believe that Mr   Pagerie’s conduct posed a threat to public safety and order and, accordingly, could lawfully decide, in the impugned order, to impose a residence restriction on the applicant until 26   February 2016, without thereby acting in breach of the aforementioned section   6 of the Law of 3   April 1955. 8. Fourthly, while the impugned order had the effect of requiring Mr   Pagerie, until 26   February 2016, to report to the Angers police station three times a day and to remain within that municipality, confined to his home between the hours of 8   p.m. and 6   a.m., the applicant has failed to explain in what way these restrictions allegedly prevented him from seeking employment. In addition, he has provided no evidence of having applied to the prefect of the Maine-et-Loire département , as he was entitled to do, for authorisation to travel beyond the Angers city limits, in particular for the purpose of effectively seeking or engaging in professional activities. The residence restriction was thus appropriate, necessary and proportionate to the aim pursued. 9. Fifth, given the grounds adduced to justify the declaration of a state of emergency, the possibility of imposing a residence restriction on the basis of section   6 of the Law of 3   April 1955 is not incompatible with the provisions of Article   2 of Protocol No.   4 to [the Convention]... Consequently, and in any event, Mr   Pagerie cannot validly argue that the Minister of the Interior acted in breach of the above-mentioned provisions . 10. Sixth, although Mr   Pagerie submitted that the impugned order prevented him from visiting other members of his family residing outside of Angers, he failed to clarify his relationship to these alleged individuals, or their place of residence. He did not submit or even allege that they were unable to visit him in Angers. Consequently, and in any event, he is not justified in claiming that the Minister of the Interior, in imposing the impugned residence restriction on him, acted in breach of the provisions of Article   8 of [the Convention]. ... The application [in respect of the order of 24   February 2016]: ... 14. Secondly, to justify his decision of 24   February 2016 to extend Mr   Pagerie’s residence restriction, the Minister of the Interior produced an article published on 2   February 2016 in the ‘Courrier du Maine’ newspaper, which reported the applicant’s replies to questions from a journalist. It can be seen from these replies, the content of which is not in dispute, that the applicant refused to condemn the terrorist attacks perpetrated in France in November 2015 and submitted that the Marseillaise [the French national anthem] constituted a defence of terrorism. These statements – about which it has not been established that they were made only to provoke the readership of the aforementioned newspaper – demonstrate the applicant’s abiding adherence to radical Islamist views. Accordingly, the Minister of the Interior could, without committing an error of judgment, and having regard to all the information available to him, legitimately conclude from these statements that, on 24   February 2016, there were still substantial grounds to believe that Mr   Pagerie’s conduct posed a threat to public order and safety. ... The application [in respect of the order of 24   May 2016]: ... 18. Secondly, the evidence before the court shows that, in taking the impugned decision to impose a residence restriction on the applicant under section   6 of the Law of 3   April 1955, the Minister of the Interior took account of the information contained in a note blanche from the intelligence services, which was added to the file and was the subject of adversarial argument, according to which Mr   Pagerie, who had condoned and justified the attacks perpetrated in Brussels on 22   March 2016, stating that he too would be willing to conduct violent actions if he had weapons, appeared to be increasingly isolated, since the violence of his statements was rejected by some of his former Muslim acquaintances, and met once a month with his resettlement and probation officer, without ever providing him with the slightest proof that he had taken steps to find work, his evolution having been judged to be especially troubling in the light of his statements and general attitude. Having confined himself to denying, as a matter of principle, the sufficiently detailed information contained in this note, Mr   Pagerie has not substantively challenged its accuracy. Consequently, the Minister of the Interior could legitima