Previous 59 / 99 Next

29/09/2023, 12:35 SANCHEZ v. FRANCE - 45581/15 (Judgment : No Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{general} : Grand Chamber) [2023] ECHR 418 (1… 4. Whether the interference was necessary in a democratic society (a) General principles (i) Freedom of expression 145. The general principles concerning the question whether a given interference is “necessary in a democratic society” are well established in the Court’s case-law and can be summed up as follows (see, among many other authorities, NIT S.R.L., cited above, § 177, Perinçek, cited above, §§ 196‑197, and Delfi AS, cited above, § 131): “(i) Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society and one of the basic conditions for its progress and for each individual’s self-fulfilment. Subject to paragraph 2 of Article 10, it is applicable not only to ‘information’ or ‘ideas’ that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb. Such are the demands of pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no ‘democratic society’. As set forth in Article 10, this freedom is subject to exceptions, which ... must, however, be construed strictly, and the need for any restrictions must be established convincingly ... (ii) The adjective ‘necessary’, within the meaning of Article 10 § 2, implies the existence of a ‘pressing social need’. The Contracting States have a certain margin of appreciation in assessing whether such a need exists, but it goes hand in hand with European supervision, embracing both the legislation and the decisions applying it, even those given by an independent court. The Court is therefore empowered to give the final ruling on whether a ‘restriction’ is reconcilable with freedom of expression as protected by Article 10. (iii) The Court’s task, in exercising its supervisory jurisdiction, is not to take the place of the competent national authorities but rather to review under Article 10 the decisions they delivered pursuant to their power of appreciation. This does not mean that the supervision is limited to ascertaining whether the respondent State exercised its discretion reasonably, carefully and in good faith; what the Court has to do is to look at the interference complained of in the light of the case as a whole and determine whether it was ‘proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued’ and whether the reasons adduced by the national authorities to justify it are ‘relevant and sufficient’ ... In doing so, the Court has to satisfy itself that the national authorities applied standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in Article 10 and, moreover, that they relied on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts ...” (ii) Debate in the field of politics (α) Protection of political debate 146 . There is little scope under Article 10 § 2 of the Convention for restrictions on freedom of expression in the field of political speech (see NIT S.R.L., cited above, § 178; Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, § 61, ECHR 1999‑IV; and Fleury v. France, no. 29784/06, § 43, 11 May 2010). The promotion of free political debate is a very https://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2023/418.html 60/100

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Sanchez v. France (GC)

Case Law

Country

France

Country Location

Latitude: 46.808568018841505

Longitude: 2.799314618110868

Country Location (linked Case Law): France

Decision Date: May 15, 2023

Case Status: Closed

Case Outcome (Procedural)

Dismissed
Inadmissible
Motion Denied

Case Outcome (Disposition)

Judgment in Favor of Defendant/ Acquittal

Keywords

Access to Information
Content Regulation / Censorship
Digital Rights

Judicial Body: European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)

Court Name: European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)

Case Number: 45581/15

Case Summary: The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) dismissed the application brought by Mr Julien Sanchez against France for an alleged violation of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) by reason of the criminal conviction imposed on him by France—after he failed to remove hateful comments on his Facebook “wall”. Mr Sanchez, a politician in France and a candidate in the legislative elections, had been fined—in a criminal procedure—by French courts for failing to remove from his Facebook wall comments made by third parties that were discriminatory and incited hatred or violence against the Muslim community. The applicant argued that the fine violated his right to freedom of expression by requiring him to bear the disproportionate burden of monitoring all comments posted at any time by other users on his open and public Facebook wall. Mr Sanchez applied to the European Court of Human Rights alleging a violation of Article 10. The Fifth Section of the European Court of Human Rights held that Mr Sanchez's conviction, for failing to promptly remove unlawful comments posted by third parties on the public wall of his Facebook account, did not violate his rights under Article 10 of the ECHR. The Fifth Section of the Court held that the comments were manifestly unlawful because they discriminated against the Muslim community and that the sentence imposed by the French courts penalized him for his lack of control over a communication service open to the public which he had created on his own initiative. In that regard, it stressed that Mr Sanchez, as the owner of the wall of his Facebook account, had specific obligations to monitor and remove hateful comments. Finally, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights held —in a 13-4 votation— that Article 10 of the Convention had not been violated because, although France had interfered with the applicant’s freedom of expression, the interference was lawful and necessary in a democratic society and pursued a legitimate aim. The Grand Chamber held that it was not disproportionate to attribute shared liability—in varying degrees —to all the actors involved, including Mr Sanchez in his capacity as owner of the Facebook wall, for failing to take action in relation to the discriminatory comments. The ECtHR highlighted that the duty to act reasonably, in light of the circumstances, was greater for the applicant in his capacity as a politician, and that Mr Sanchez was aware of the controversial comments posted on his social network.

Case Significance: The decision establishes a binding or persuasive precedent within its jurisdiction.

Related Caselaw (self)

Source URL: Global Freedom of Expression

Collection

CIPIT

Date Updated: Sep 29, 2023

Primary Documents

SANCHEZ v. FRANCE - 45581_15 (Judgment _ No Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{general} _ Grand Chamber) [2023] ECHR 418 (15 May 2023).pdf
English
Download View

CYRILLA: Global Digital Rights Law

Select target paragraph3

Sanchez v. France (GC)

Primary Documents

Notifications