CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 16 mai 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7167D8C8 { margin-top:30pt; margin-bottom:10pt; 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 } .s59272B2C { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .s71604A6B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:10pt } .s2D1013D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:10pt } .sEB972D3E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .sD37EA1D6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:9pt } .s598389FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:13pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sD7287D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:9pt } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA43C3626 { width:28.35pt; font-family:Arial; 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 } .sD0A217A5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3936C9DD { width:11.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sBB64854C { width:8.45pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sE8F2C496 { width:5.11pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3BF0B6C7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5BDECA8 { width:5pt; 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 } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s7C9EDFAD { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s54B12A03 { width:6.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s945C4070 { width:28.44pt; text-indent:0pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .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 } .s71220C2D { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sDBF374D0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6B38CF35 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .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 } .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 } .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 } .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 } .sAB798EC2 { width:3.78pt; 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 } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .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 } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .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 } .s7A7B69A2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-11.3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sFA550501 { width:6.3pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sA6765C01 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-11.3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s3CAF9CA4 { width:8.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD62BB3FA { width:7.11pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD0489F03 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sECF8538A { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sB0C17269 { width:6pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .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 } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sF0C78780 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s5165BC52 { margin-left:17pt } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s31FAC864 { margin-left:17.05pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; list-style-position:inside } .sE5C1F6E3 { width:3.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s264C04A0 { margin-left:17.05pt; text-indent:-17.05pt } .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 } .sC617E28F { width:20.21pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sE417EA85 { width:127.42pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s1E019DFF { width:46.56pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sA49AD2E4 { width:177.11pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s27210F8D { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; text-transform:uppercase } .s50CB62E2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:32.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify } .s5F086C28 { width:14pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD00444C6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .sEC2C3242 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 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 } .s6CDC6B81 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .fixListIndent { list-style-position: inside } FIFTH SECTION CASE OF DOMENJOUD v. FRANCE (Applications nos. 34749/16 and 79607/17)   JUDGMENT   Art 2 P4 • Freedom of movement • Preventive residence restrictions imposed on two applicants – under state-of-emergency legislation enacted following terrorist attacks – on suspicion of possible violent actions during COP21 summit • Foreseeability of law • No direct link between measure and countering terrorism • Measure imposed on first applicant: adequate procedural safeguards; sufficiently linked to state-of-emergency context in very specific circumstances of case; relatively short; relevant and sufficient reasons; material evidence based on applicant’s conduct and background reflecting serious risk of participation in particularly violent disruptions; proportionality • Measure imposed on second applicant: essence of procedural rights not preserved; no individual and detailed assessment of conduct or acts allowing risk to be characterised • Art   15 • Second applicant’s placement under residence restriction not covered by derogation on grounds of public emergency threatening life of nation, as not ordered to counter threat of terrorism and not strictly required by exigencies of situation Art 5 • Residence restriction regarded as mere restriction, not deprivation, of liberty, in light of its duration, effects and combined implementation conditions • Incompatibility ratione materiae   Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court .   STRASBOURG 16   May 2024   FINAL   16/08/2024   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 Domenjoud v. France, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Georges Ravarani, President ,   Lado Chanturia,   Mārtiņš Mits,   Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström,   María Elósegui,   Kateřina Šimáčková, judges ,   Jean-Marie Delarue, ad hoc judge , and Victor Soloveytchik, Section Registrar, Having regard to: the applications (nos.   34749/16 and 79607/17) 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”) on 10   June 2016 and 17   November 2017; the decision to give notice to the French Government (“the Government”) of the complaints under Articles   5 and 6 §   1 of the Convention and under Article   2 of Protocol No.   4 and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the applications; the observations submitted by the parties; the comments submitted by the French Défenseure des droits and by the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism (“the Special Rapporteur”), who were granted leave to intervene as third parties; Considering that Mattias Guyomar, the judge elected in respect of France, was unable to sit in the case (Rule   28 §§   2   (b) and 3 of the Rules of Court), and that the President of the Section decided to appoint Jean-Marie Delarue to sit as an ad hoc Judge (Rule 29 §   1   (a)); Having deliberated in private on 30   January and 2   April 2024; Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1 .     The cases concern two compulsory residence orders made under state-of-emergency legislation with a view to maintaining public order during a climate change summit. The applicants complained of breaches of Articles   5, 6 and 13 of the Convention and, in the alternative, of Article   2 of Protocol No.   4. They argued that the measures were not covered by Article   15 of the Convention. THE FACTS 2.     The applicants are two brothers. Mr   Cédric Domenjoud (“the first applicant”) was born in 1985 and lives in Marseilles. Mr   Joël Domenjoud (“the second applicant”) was born in 1982 and lives in Commercy. They were represented before the Court by Ms   M. Ruef, a lawyer practising in Lille . 3 .     The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr F. Alabrune, Director of Legal Affairs at the Ministry of Europe and Foreign Affairs. I.         DECLARATION OF A STATE OF EMERGENCY 4.     On the night of 13 to 14   November 2015 Islamist terrorist attacks, responsibility for which was claimed by Daesh, were perpetrated in Saint-Denis and Paris . One hundred and thirty people were killed, most of them in an attack on a concert hall (the Bataclan). 5 .     In a decree of 14   November 2015 the French President declared a state of emergency under the Law of 3   April 1955 (see paragraphs   37-38 below). In two further decrees issued the same day, the Minister of the Interior was authorised to enforce compulsory residence orders across continental France and Corsica. 6 .     The state of emergency was extended six times by the legislature. It ended on 1   November 2017. 7 .     According to the material submitted by the French Government, five further attacks were perpetrated in France in this period. They caused 92 deaths, with the attack in Nice on 14   July 2016 proving especially deadly. In addition, 13   attempted attacks took place, while plans for another 32 attacks were thwarted. II.       NOTICE OF DEROGATION 8.     On 24   November 2015 the Permanent Representative of France to the Council of Europe informed the Organisation’s Secretary General of the decision by France to exercise its right of derogation under Article   15 of the Convention (see paragraph   54 below). III.     CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 9 .     Despite the terrorist threat to France, it was decided to maintain arrangements for France to host the 21st session of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (“COP21”). That session was held in Le Bourget and Paris from 30   November to 12   December 2015. Various preventive measures were taken to ensure security at the summit, including compulsory residence orders, demonstration bans and the establishment of security perimeters. A.    The compulsory residence orders in respect of the two applicants 10 .     At the time of the measures, Cédric Domenjoud was living in squatted premises in Ivry ‑ sur-Seine. Joël Domenjoud was living in Malakoff. 11 .     In two orders issued on 25   November 2015 under section   6 of the Law of 3   April 1955 (see paragraph   39 below), the Minister of the Interior placed the applicants under residence restrictions within their respective municipalities until 12   December   2015. The measures included the obligation to report to a police station three times a day at fixed times (at 9   a.m., 1   p.m. and 7.30   p.m.) and not to leave their homes between the hours of 8   p.m. and 6   a.m. 12 .     The orders were initially reasoned on the basis of the following general considerations: “In view of the seriousness of the terrorist threat on national territory, specific measures are necessary to ensure security at ... ‘COP21’, which is scheduled to take place in Paris and Le   Bourget ..., bringing together a very large number of heads of State. Rallying cries have circulated calling for violent protest actions in the vicinity of both venues where the summit is to be held and of sensitive sites in the Île-de-France region, including operations of vital interest to the nation. The heavy deployment of security forces to counter the threat of terrorism cannot be redirected to respond to the risk of [breaches of] public order in connection with such protests.” The Minister indicated that he feared violent disruptions by “black bloc” activists, as had occurred at the inauguration of the headquarters of the European Central Bank in Frankfurt in March   2015 and at the Milan Expo in May 2015 . 13 .     He then relied on considerations specific to the applicants . B oth were described as having been among the “main leaders of the [left-wing extremist] radical protest movement” in the greater Paris area. Both had been involved in “violent protest actions” in the past and were likely to take part in especially violent protests during COP21 . 14 .     With regard the first applicant in particular, the Minister stated as follows: “[F]or several weeks, he has been organising most of the meetings held in a squat where the movement’s most determined and violent activists have gathered to prepare the actions they intend to mount in an attempt to prevent this international conference from being held. These actions include blocking official motorcades, personalities and heads of State, along with more violent actions targeting State institutions and the representative offices of industrial or financial firms sponsoring COP21. Mr   Cédric Domenjoud was one of the main organisers of the anti-authoritarian ‘summer camp’ held in Bure (Meuse département ) from 1 to 10   August 2015 to protest against a project for the installation of a waste burial site. On that occasion, on the night of 3 to 4   August, in Bure, he took part in an action targeting the premises of the Agency for the Management of Radioactive Waste [ Agence de gestion des déchets radioactifs ] (ANDRA), in particular by severing fibre-optic cables in order to neutralise cameras, using ropes and grappling hooks to tear down 25   metres of fencing and throwing Molotov cocktails at the gendarmes, who were attempting to intervene. On 22   November 2015 he was spotted on Place de la Bastille (11th arrondissement ) at a rally in support of migrants that had been banned by order of the prefect on 18   November 2015, at the end of which he also took part in a protest, after breaking through a roadblock set up by police. ...” 15 .     Regarding the second applicant, he stated as follows: “Mr   Joël Domenjoud ... has been actively involved for several years in actions against State bodies, in particular the police, the courts and the prison authorities, and against symbols of capitalism, including banking establishments. ... [He] takes part in the preparatory meetings [for protest actions to prevent COP   21 from taking place] held in a squat. He was one of the main organisers of the anti-authoritarian ‘summer camp’ in Bure (Meuse département )... In the period during which that camp was held, violent actions were perpetrated against the premises of [ANDRA]. These actions led to clashes with law enforcement and resulted in significant criminal damage (severing of fibre optic cables, tearing-down of fences, throwing of Molotov cocktails).” 16 .     The orders were enforced from 26   November to 12   December 2015. 17 .     During that period, the first applicant was able to procure leave to appear in person before the Administrative Court and attend a job interview. B.    The legal remedies pursued by the applicants 18 .     The applicants pursued various remedies before the administrative courts to challenge their placement under residence restrictions. 19 .     In defence of his orders, the Minister of the Interior produced a series of notes blanches (see paragraph   49 below) to demonstrate that the measures complained of were justified. 1.      The remedies pursued by the first applicant 20 .     On 27   November 2015 Cédric Domenjoud applied to the urgent-applications judge of the Melun Administrative Court seeking, under Article   L.   521-2 of the Administrative Courts Code, a suspension of the residence restriction imposed . He submitted, inter alia , that the measure interfered with his individual liberty, freedom of movement and right to lead a normal family life in a serious and flagrantly unlawful manner. He disputed the facts on which the Minister of the Interior had based his decision but submitted nothing more than the impugned decision itself, along with an invitation to a job interview and his curriculum vitae . 21 .     After the hearing, the urgent-applications judge dismissed his application in a decision of 3   December 2015, for the following reasons: “5.     It can be seen from the preparatory work for the Law of 20   November 2015 ... that the declaration and subsequent extension of the state of emergency were designed to deal with Islamist terrorism. However, that aim does not preclude the measures for which it provides from being implemented to guard against other threats to security and public order, in particular to allow the services tasked with security to carry out their duties, especially during an exceptional event like [COP21], which hosts numerous heads of State. 6.     Under the Law of 3   April 1955 the administrative courts’ review must take account of the emergency situation and the grave danger in response to which it has arisen. It must be admitted that a compulsory residence order, which is not a sanction but serves a preventive purpose, is based on facts that are probable and sufficiently substantiated by the intelligence services. 7.     It can be seen from the material in the case file, and in particular from the ‘ note blanche ’ drawn up by the domestic intelligence services [on] 24   November 2015, together with an undated note submitted to the court on 2   December 2015, which have been the subject of adversarial argument in the present proceedings, that the applicant was one of the main organisers of and fundraisers for the anti-authoritarian ‘summer camp’ held in Bure... In that context, during the night of 3 to 4   August 2015, he took part in an action against the premises of the Agency for the Management of Radioactive Waste, causing criminal damage to them. He was also present at the demonstration in support of migrants on 22   November 2015 at Place de la Bastille, in Paris, despite the fact that it had been prohibited by order of the prefect on 18   November 2015. On that occasion, he broke through a police roadblock. He is one of the leaders of the radical protest movement. 8.     In these circumstances, in finding that there were substantial grounds to believe that Mr   Domenjoud’s conduct posed a threat to public safety and order – in particular owing to his active role in organising banned demonstrations – and in placing him under a residence restriction on that ground for a period corresponding to that of COP21, a period during which he intended to concentrate the police’s efforts, the Minister of the Interior – having regard to the limited duration of the residence restriction and the clarification given at the hearing that Mr   Domenjoud would be granted leave, if he so requested, to attend a job interview on 7   December 2015, just as he was granted leave to attend the hearing on 2   December 2015 – has not interfered with a fundamental freedom in a flagrantly unlawful manner.” 22 .     Cédric Domenjoud appealed against this decision. Before the Conseil d’État , he submitted, firstly, that section   6 of the Law of 3   April 1955 was incompatible with a number of rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution, in particular the right to individual liberty and freedom of movement. Secondly, he argued that his placement under a residence restriction seriously undermined these fundamental freedoms and was in breach of Article   5 of the Convention and Article   2 of Protocol No.   4. He further complained of factual inaccuracies and of the weight that had been given to the notes blanches submitted by the authorities, arguing that it was materially impossible for him to adduce any refuting evidence. He pointed out that he had never been convicted of serious offences, only of causing minor damage and refusing to submit to DNA sampling. He supplemented his submissions with extracts from parliamentary proceedings and a copy of a circular on the use of notes blanches . 23 .     In a decision of 11   December 2015 the Conseil d’État decided to refer the first applicant’s request for a preliminary ruling on constitutionality to the Constitutional Council, specifying that it concerned the provisions of section   6 of the Law of 3   April 1955 as it had interpreted them. In addition, it declined to order interim measures of protection pending the Constitutional Council’s decision, on the following grounds: “23.     Mr   Domenjoud relies ... on the provisions of Article   5 of the [Convention] and of Article   2 of Protocol No.   4... 24.     On the one hand, although a compulsory residence order of the kind made in respect of the applicant restricts the exercise of certain freedoms, in particular freedom of movement, it does not, having regard to its duration and manner of implementation, amount to a deprivation of liberty within the meaning of Article   5... Consequently, and in any event, Mr   Domenjoud cannot validly rely on that Article to challenge the compulsory residence order made against him. 25.     On the other hand, and in any event, it has not been shown, at this stage of the urgent proceedings that, where a state of emergency has been declared in response to an imminent danger resulting from serious breaches of public order or a public calamity, the possibility of making a compulsory residence order under section   6 of the Law of 3   April 1955 is manifestly incompatible with the provisions of Article   2 of Protocol No.   4... ...   27.     As currently drafted ... the provisions of section   6 must not be understood as precluding the Minister of the Interior, while the state of emergency remains in force, from ordering ... the placement under a residence restriction of any person residing in the area subject to the state of emergency, provided that there are substantial grounds to believe that his or her conduct poses a threat to public safety and order, in view of the imminent danger or public calamity which has led to the declaration of a state of emergency. ... 28.     It can be seen from the examination, and in particular from the material submitted by the Minister of the Interior in the adversarial proceedings before the Conseil d’État , that Mr   Cédric Domenjoud took part in violent protest actions, including the action targeting the National Agency for the Management of Radioactive Waste’s waste burial site in Bure of the on the night of 3 to 4   August 2015, during which the site’s fence and video-surveillance system were damaged and incendiary devices were thrown at the law-enforcement officers attempting to halt the intrusion. He took an active part in preparing protest actions to prevent and disrupt the United Nations climate change conference, including violent actions against sites owned by the State or by legal entities sponsoring that conference. There is no legislative provision or principle barring the administrative courts from taking into consideration the facts set out in the ‘ notes blanches ’ submitted by the Minister, which have been the subject of adversarial argument and have not been substantively challenged ( sérieusement contestées ) by the applicant. 29.     The examination also shows that law enforcement remains heavily deployed to counter the threat of terrorism and guard against the imminent danger which led to the declaration of a state of emergency, and to ensure security at, and the proper conduct of, the United Nations conference in Paris and Le   Bourget through to its conclusion . 30.     In these circumstances, it has not been shown, at this stage, that in placing Mr   Domenjoud under a residence restriction until the end of [COP21]   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, having weighed up the various interests at stake, has interfered with a fundamental freedom in a serious and flagrantly unlawful manner.” The Conseil d’État deferred its decision on the remainder of the application. 24 .     In a decision of 22   December 2015, the Constitutional Council held that the first nine paragraphs of section   6 of the Law of 3   April 1955 were compatible with the Constitution. Firstly, it found that the compulsory residence order provided for in these provisions did not amount to a deprivation of liberty within the meaning of Article   66 of the Constitution: “5.     Firstly, the impugned provisions enable the Minister of the Interior, where a state of emergency has been declared, to ‘order the placement under a residence restriction, in a place determined by him or her, of anyone residing within the sector specified’ in the decree declaring a state of emergency. Such a residence restriction, which may only be imposed on someone in respect of whom ‘there are substantial grounds to believe that his or her conduct poses a threat to public safety and order’, is an exclusively administrative public-order measure and can therefore pursue no other aim than to maintain ordre public and prevent crime. Such a residence restriction ‘must allow those on whom it is imposed to reside in, or in the immediate vicinity of, a populated urban area’. It may not under any circumstances ‘result in the creation of camps wherein the persons [placed under such restrictions] are held’. Neither the subject matter nor the scope these provisions entails a deprivation of individual liberty within the meaning of Article   66 of the Constitution. 6.     Secondly, under a compulsory residence order made by the Minister of the Interior, the person concerned ‘may also be placed under home curfew in a place of residence determined by the Minister of the Interior, during the hours specified by him or her, for up to twelve hours every twenty-four hours’. The maximum length of home curfew under a compulsory residence order, which is set at twelve hours per day, cannot be extended without the residence restriction being thereby deemed a custodial measure subject, accordingly, to the requirements of Article   66 of the Constitution.” Secondly, it held that the provisions in question did not disproportionately interfere with freedom of movement, for the following reasons: “8.     The Constitution does not bar the legislature from providing for rules governing a state of emergency. In that context, it is for the legislature to ensure that the prevention of breaches of public order can be reconciled with respect for the rights and freedoms secured to everyone residing on French territory. These rights and freedoms include freedom of movement... ... 11.     Firstly, a compulsory residence order may be made only where a state of emergency has been declared. Under section   1 of the Law of 3 April 1955, a compulsory residence order may be made only ‘in case of imminent danger resulting from serious breaches of public order’ or ‘in case of events which, by their nature and gravity, constitute a public calamity’. Such a restriction may be imposed only on an individual residing in the area covered by the state of emergency and in respect of whom ‘there are substantial grounds to believe that his or her conduct poses a threat to public safety and order’. 12.     Secondly, not only the compulsory residence order itself, but also its length, implementation conditions and any additional requirements as may be attached thereto must be justified and proportionate in view of the reasons given for this measure in the particular circumstances which led to the declaration of a state of emergency. It is for the administrative courts to ensure that this measure is appropriate, necessary and proportionate to the aim pursued. 13.     Thirdly, after a period of twelve days, a state of emergency declared in a decree issued by the Cabinet must be extended by a law which establishes its term. That term may not be excessive with regard to the imminent danger or public calamity which led to the declaration of a state of emergency. If the legislature passes a new law extending the state of emergency, the residence restrictions ordered previously cannot be extended without being renewed.” 25 .     In a decision of 20   January 2016 the Conseil d’État held that there was no need to examine the matter further, as the effects of the impugned order had lapsed. 26 .     Cédric Domenjoud did not bring proceedings on the merits in the administrative courts . 2.      The remedies pursued by the second applicant (a)    Urgent application for protection of a fundamental freedom ( référé-liberté ) 27 .     On 27   November 2015 Joël Domenjoud applied to the urgent-applications judge of the Cergy-Pontoise Administrative Court under Article   L.   521-2 of the Administrative Courts Code seeking a suspension of the residence restriction imposed on him. Like his brother, he argued, inter alia , that the measure interfered in a serious and flagrantly unlawful manner with his individual liberty, freedom of movement and right to lead a normal private and family life. He submitted nothing more than the decision complained of. He pointed out that he had no criminal record and described himself as an ordinary activist. 28 .     In a decision of 28   November 2015 the urgent-applications judge of the Cergy-Pontoise Administrative Court dismissed his application for lack of urgency under Article   L.   522-3 of the Administrative Courts Code , noting, in particular, as follows : “Mr   Domenjoud, a civil servant in the public education system who was on leave of absence until February   2016, has failed to demonstrate that the impugned order ... deprives him of the ability to travel or engage in any activity, in particular owing to formalities he is required to perform vis-à-vis the relevant authorities, or that it has the effect of causing damage to his reputation.” 29 .     The second applicant lodged an appeal against that decision, requesting that the Conseil d’État decide the matter under the urgent-applications procedure. He challenged the admissibility of the notes blanches submitted by the Minister of the Interior and the measure’s proportionality. 30 .     In a decision of 11   December 2015 the Conseil d’État quashed the decision of 28   November 2015, holding that the urgency criterion had been incorrectly assessed at first instance. In so doing, it laid down the following principle: “... [H]aving regard to its purpose and effects, in particular to the restrictions thereby placed on freedom of movement, a decision taken by the administrative authority to place someone under a residence restriction under section   6 of the Law of 3   April 1955 will, in principle and of itself, unless the authorities allege particular circumstances, seriously and immediately interfere with that person’s situation such that an emergency situation is thereby created, on the basis of which the administrative urgent-applications judge, applied to under Article   L.   521-2 of the Administrative Courts Code, will be justified, provided the other requirements of that Article are met, in swiftly ordering an interim and precautionary measure of protection. ” Ruling under the urgent-applications procedure, it nevertheless dismissed his request on the following grounds: “19.     It can be seen from the investigation, and in particular from the material submitted by the Minister of the Interior in the adversarial proceedings before the Conseil d’État , that Mr   Joël Domenjoud took part in violent protest actions, including the action targeting the National Agency for the Management of Radioactive Waste’s waste burial site in Bure on the night of 3 to 4   August 2015, during which the site’s fence and video-surveillance system were damaged and incendiary devices were thrown at the law-enforcement officers who were attempting to halt the intrusion. He took an active part in preparing protest actions to prevent and disrupt the United Nations climate change conference, including violent actions against sites owned by the State or by legal entities sponsoring that conference. There is no legislative provision or principle barring the administrative courts from taking into consideration the facts set out in the ‘ notes blanches ’ submitted by the Minister, which have been the subject of adversarial argument and have not been substantively challenged ( sérieusement contestées ) by the applicant. ...” In view of the heavy deployment of security forces, it held that the Minister had not interfered with the applicant’s freedom of movement in a serious and flagrantly unlawful manner in placing him under a residence restriction. (b)    Application for judicial review 31 .     On 15   December 2015 Joël Domenjoud applied to have the order against him set aside. He submitted, inter alia , that there had been a breach of Article   5 of the Convention and of Article   2 of Protocol No.   4. He challenged the accuracy of the notes blanches submitted against him, arguing that there was no evidence establishing that he had ever resorted to violence as part of his activism . He pointed out that he had never been prosecuted or arrested for acts of that nature . He further sought the redaction of the Minister of the Interior’s written remarks characterising him as a violent individual and 2,000   euros in damages, arguing that such allegations were defamatory. In support of his application, he produced his personal criminal record extract (Bulletin no.   3), showing no criminal convictions, and a press article on the organisation of the Bure camp. 32 .     The Cergy-Pontoise Administrative Court dismissed his application in a judgment of 18   February 2016, on the following grounds : “11.     Mr   Domenjoud maintains that, although he is an active advocate of environmental causes, he has committed no violent acts and has not been the subject of any criminal proceedings. However, it is clear from the material in the file, and in particular from the notes blanches supplied by the intelligence services – which have been the subject of adversarial argument – that Mr   Domenjoud has taken part in several unannounced demonstrations, that he is an organiser for the ‘Vladimir, Martine and Co.’ collective, which is named after the driver of the construction vehicle responsible for the death of the Chairman and Managing Director of Total, and that he took part in organising and running the anti-authoritarian ‘summer camp’ in Bure (Meuse département ), which gave rise to a violent protest action against the waste burial site of the National Agency for the Management of Radioactive Waste. On 20   September, 23   September and 1   October, he took part in preparations for protest actions to prevent and disrupt [COP   21]. Mr   Domenjoud has failed to produce any detailed evidence to rebut these allegations. Thus, he is not justified in submitting that the Minister of the Interior’s decision to place him under a residence restriction within the municipality of Malakoff until 12   December 2015, the day after [COP   21] was scheduled to end, was vitiated by an error of assessment, notwithstanding the fact that the heads of State present at that conference are alleged to have left French territory by 1   December at the latest. 12.     Lastly, ... the circumstances listed under section   1 of the Law of 3   April 1955 must be understood as corresponding to the subject matter of the above-mentioned provisions of Article   15 of the [Convention]. Thus, and in accordance with the second paragraph of that Article, the applicant cannot validly rely on the provisions of Article   2 of Protocol No.   4 ... and Articles   5, 8 and 10 of [the Convention] to challenge the lawfulness of the impugned order, which was made in accordance with the provisions of section   6 of Law no.   55 ‑ 385 of 3   April 1955.” The Administrative Court further held that it was not established that the Minister’s written remarks were defamatory and dismissed the claims under that head. 33 .     Joël Domenjoud appealed against that judgment. He supplemented his submissions in evidence by producing six statements from private individuals attesting to the peaceful nature of his political activism. A number of them described him as a non-violent activist and lauded his involvement in organising the Bure camp, emphasising that the actions in Bure that summer could not be reduced to the incidents of the night of 3 to 4   August 2015. 34 .     In a judgment of 21   June 2016 the Versailles Administrative Court of Appeal rejected his appeal, dismissing his factual challenges as follows: “6.     While Mr   Domenjoud argues that he has never been convicted, he does not substantively challenge the facts contained in the intelligence services’ notes blanches , which have been the subject of adversarial argument. In particular, he does not dispute that he took part in organising the Bure camp to protest the burial of radioactive waste, which gave rise to violence, or in other demonstrations against the Notre-Dame-des-Landes airport project and in support of an activist who had died during protests against the Sivens dam, some of which had been banned and resulted in disruptions, or, lastly, that he took part in meetings to prepare protests against COP21 – protests likely to cause serious disturbances of public order, given what is commonly observed at major international summits. In the light of those facts, of the requirements of public order and of the fact that the measure placing him under a residence restriction within the municipality Malakoff expired on 12   December 2015, the day after COP21 was scheduled to end, that Mr   Domenjoud was confined to his home only at night, that he was free to travel within city limits and that adjustments could be made at his request, the measure in question is necessary, appropriate and proportionate, and the ground of appeal alleging an error of assessment must be rejected.” It further held that the measure taken against the applicant did not amount to a deprivation of liberty within the meaning of Article   5 of the Convention and was not in breach of Article   2 of Protocol No.   4, in so far as it was in accordance with law and was “necessary for security and ordre public and proportionate to its purpose”. Lastly, it upheld the dismissal of the second applicant’s other claims. 35 .     Joël Domenjoud appealed against that judgment on points of law. Before the Conseil d’État , he argued that the Administrative Court of Appeal had misconstrued the material in the file in holding that he had not substantively challenged ( sérieusement conesté ) the statements of fact contained in the notes blanches submitted by the Minister of the Interior. He further alleged that an error of law had been made, consisting in treating the content of the notes blanches as established fact. Lastly, he contested the necessity and proportionality of the measure . 36 .     In a decision of 18   May 2017 the Conseil d’État declared Joël Domenjoud’s appeal on points inadmissible. LEGAL FRAMEWORK I.         DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE A.    Domestic legislation on states of emergency 1.      Declaration and extension of a state of emergency   37 .     Law no.   55-385 of 3   April 1955 sets out the conditions under which a state of emergency may be declared and the public-order powers exceptionally conferred on prefects, the Minister of the Interior and the Cabinet in such circumstances. 38 .     Those conditions, together with the procedures for parliamentary oversight of the state of emergency, are set out in Pagerie v.   France (no.   24203/16, §§   62 ‑ 64, 19   January 2023), to which the Court refers. Legislative framework for residence restrictions 39 .     The relevant provisions of the Law of 3   April 1955, as in force at the relevant time, read as follows: Section   6 “The Minister of the Interior may order the placement under a residence restriction, in a place determined by him or her, of anyone residing within the sector specified [by] decree ... and in respect of whom there are substantial grounds to believe that his or her conduct poses a threat to public safety and order in the administrative areas mentioned in that same section. ... The person mentioned in the first paragraph of this section may also be placed under home curfew in a place of residence determined by the Minister of the Interior, during the hours specified by him or her, for up to twelve hours every twenty-four hours. A residence restriction must allow those on whom it is imposed to reside in, or in the immediate vicinity of, a populated urban area. Under no circumstances shall a residence restriction result in the creation of camps wherein the persons mentioned in the first paragraph are held. The administrative authority shall take every measure to ensure the subsistence of those placed under a residence restriction and of their family. The Minister of the Interior may require the following of a person placed under a residence restriction: 1.   The obligation to report periodically to the services of the police or   gendarmerie   at the times set by the Minister, up to three times a day, specifying whether this obligation also applies on Sundays and on public holidays or non-working days; ...” 40 .     In a slew of decisions of 11   December 2015, delivered in response to requests by the applicants and five other individuals placed under residence restrictions during COP21, the Judicial Division of the Conseil d’État held that a person could be lawfully placed under a residence restriction for reasons other than those justifying the declaration of a state of emergency “provided that there [were] substantial grounds to believe that his or her conduct pos[ed] a threat to public safety and order, in view of the imminent danger or public calamity which [had] led to the declaration of a state of emergency” ( Conseil d’État , Judicial Division, 11   December 2015, M.   Gauthier and M.   Domenjoud , nos.   394990 and 395099, published in Recueil Lebon , and five others). 41 .     Furthermore, the Constitutional Council has held that “not only the compulsory residence order itself, but also its length, implementation conditions and any additional requirements as may be attached thereto must be justified and proportionate in view of the reasons given for this measure in the particular circumstances which led to the declaration of a state of emergency (decision   no.   2015-527 QPC of 22   December 2015, M.   Cédric   D. , cited in paragraph   24 above). 2.      Judicial scrutiny of compulsory residence orders 42 .     Section   14(1) of the Law of 3 &