29/09/2023, 12:35 SANCHEZ v. FRANCE - 45581/15 (Judgment : No Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{general} : Grand Chamber) [2023] ECHR 418 (1… (iii) Hate speech 154. In its Perinçek judgment (cited above, §§ 204-208), the Court reiterated the applicable principles concerning calls to violence and hate speech, as summed up in its judgment in Erkizia Almandoz v. Spain (no. 5869/17, §§ 40‑41, 22 June 2021): “40. For the purpose of identifying hate speech there are a certain number of factors to be taken into account and they have been consolidated in, for example, the Perinçek judgment (cited above, §§ 204-207, with the references cited): (i) The question whether the statements were made against a tense political or social background. The presence of such a background has generally led the Court to accept that some form of interference with such statements was justified. (ii) The question whether the statements, being correctly interpreted and assessed in their immediate or more general context, may be regarded as a direct or indirect call to violence, or as justifying violence, hatred or intolerance. Where it examines this question, the Court has been particularly sensitive towards sweeping statements attacking or casting in a negative light entire ethnic, religious or other groups. (iii) The Court has also paid attention to the manner in which the statements were made, and their capacity - direct or indirect - to lead to harmful consequences. 41. In the context of the above-mentioned cases, it was the interplay between the various factors rather than any one of them taken in isolation that determined the outcome of the case. The Court’s approach to that type of case can thus be described as highly context-specific (Perinçek, cited above, § 208).” 155. Moreover, as the Court pointed out in its Féret judgment (cited above, § 73 - see also Atamanchuk v. Russia, no. 4493/11, § 52, 11 February 2020), where the circumstances had arisen in a political context and specifically that of an election campaign: “... incitement to hatred does not necessarily require a call for specific acts of violence or other offences. Attacks on persons committed by insulting, holding up to ridicule or slandering certain parts of the population or specific groups thereof, or to incite discrimination, as was the case in the present instance, will be sufficient for the authorities to seek to combat such racist speech in response to freedom of expression which has been exercised in an irresponsible manner and is harmful to the dignity, or even the safety, of those parties or groups ... Political speeches that stir up hatred based on religious, ethnic or cultural prejudices represent a threat to social peace and political stability in democratic States ...” 156. The question of statements directed at particular groups on account of their origin or religion is nothing new (see, in particular, Le Pen, no. 18788/09, cited above, and Soulas and Others, cited above, §§ 36 et seq.). Where the remarks in question incite violence against an individual or a public official or a sector of the population, the State authorities enjoy a broader margin of appreciation in assessing the https://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2023/418.html 63/100