CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 16 juin 2009

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 120 June 2009 Association Solidarité des Français v. France (dec.) - 26787/07 Decision 16.6.2009 [Section V] Article 11 Article 11-1 Freedom of association Ban on distributing meals mainly composed of pork to the underprivileged: inadmissible   The applicant, Association Solidarité des Français, is an association aimed at helping persons in need. In 2003 it began distributing clothing and meals. However, several sections of the media criticised what they saw as the discriminatory nature of the meals served, which consisted mainly of soup made with pork. The law-enforcement agencies therefore prevented an initial handout of soup in 2005. In 2006 the Commissioner of Police prohibited the handout planned by the association for the following day on the ground that the staging of the event on the streets entailed a considerable risk of a reaction posing a threat to public order, given the discriminatory nature of the implied message and the controversy surrounding it. An order was issued prohibiting a second planned handout. The urgent-applications judge of the Administrative Court suspended that order on the ground that, while the information obtained on the applicant association indicated that its charitable activities pursued aims that were clearly discriminatory in terms of the potential beneficiaries, this fact did not in itself amount to a threat to public order. The applicant association informed the police authorities of its intention to organise another soup handout, which was also prohibited by the Commissioner of Police. It then requested the urgent-applications judge to suspend the prohibition order. The judge granted the request and suspended the order, with the result that the association was able to distribute the soup as planned. The following day the Minister of the Interior and Regional Development lodged an application with the Conseil d’Etat asking it to set aside the decision suspending the order and reject the association’s request for suspension. The applicant association argued that the prohibition infringed its right to freedom of association, expression and assembly, as there was no disturbance to public order which would justify such a measure. It further contended that no discrimination had been established, as the association had never refused to serve its meals to anyone. The applicant requested the Conseil d’Etat to find that it was unnecessary to rule on the Minister’s application, which had been made after the soup handout in question. The urgent-applications judge of the Conseil d’Etat set aside the decision of the first judge and rejected all the applicant association’s claims. Inadmissible : The prohibition complained of amounted to interference with the rights enshrined in Article   11, in the light of Article 9. It had been based on the public-order regulations and had pursued legitimate aims, namely to protect public order and morals and the right of others to respect for their religious beliefs. As to whether it had been necessary in a democratic society, the Commissioner of Police had noted that the applicant association’s Internet site stated explicitly that the food being handed out to those in need contained pork. Hence, the prohibition of the handout had been justified on the basis of the clearly discriminatory aims of the applicant association, the affront to the dignity of vulnerable persons and the considerable risk of public disorder in view of the controversy surrounding the handouts. Furthermore, while the urgent-applications judge of the Administrative Court had held that the event did not pose a threat to public order, the judge of the Conseil d’Etat had stated, among other things, that there had been no unlawful infringement of the freedom to demonstrate in view of the risk of a reaction that might disturb public order. The Court pointed out that freedom of assembly also covered demonstrations which were likely to annoy or give offence to persons opposed to the ideas or claims that they sought to promote. In addition, the authorities had a duty to take the necessary measures to ensure that lawful demonstrations passed off smoothly and to protect the public’s safety. In the instant case, however, the Commissioner of Police had legitimately considered that the handing out in the streets of meals containing pork, given the underlying message, which was clearly discriminatory and an affront to the beliefs of those persons unable to take advantage of the meals on offer, was liable to cause public disorder which could only be prevented by prohibiting the event. This finding had been upheld at final instance by the Conseil d’Etat . Accordingly, the national authorities, who were in principle best placed to assess the situation, had drawn conclusions which were in conformity with the reasons contemplated in Article 11 §   2 of the Convention: manifestly ill-founded .   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes