Between October 7 and 13, 2023, following the Hamas attacks in Israel, the defendant posted a message on Facebook stating: "they hasten to qualify as terrorism what, in our eyes, is an obvious act of resistance". This post was a reaction to a column by [X] [R], a former Tunisian minister, which questioned the link between occupation and resistance regarding the October 7 events. The defendant was convicted by the Tribunal correctionnel and the Grenoble Court of Appeal (September 26, 2024) for apology for terrorism, receiving a four-month suspended prison sentence and two years of ineligibility. He appealed to the Court of Cassation, arguing that his remarks were part of a debate of general interest and did not constitute an endorsement of the acts. The court concluded that, given the context, the remarks functioned as an indirect incitement to terrorist violence. The judges also noted that the defendant showed no contradiction in his defense, as he had previously admitted to the police that the attacks could be qualified as "crimes against humanity" while still promoting the "resistance" narrative.

Apology for acts of terrorism (apologie d'actes de terrorisme) under Article 421-2-5 of the Penal Code; Freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

The Berlin Higher Regional Court (Kammergericht), acting as the State Security Senate, convicted four defendants for membership in a foreign terrorist organisation pursuant to §§ 129a, 129b German Criminal Code (StGB). The defendants, aged between 36 and 58, were found to have acted as so-called "foreign operatives" (Auslandsoperateure) of the military wing of Hamas. Their role consisted of locating, maintaining, and managing concealed weapons depots in several European countries, including Poland, Bulgaria, and Denmark, intended for potential terrorist attacks against Jewish and Israeli targets in Europe. One defendant was additionally convicted of unlawful possession of war weapons and firearms. The court imposed custodial sentences ranging from four years and six months to six years. The judgment is of particular legal significance because it constitutes the first decision by a German Higher Regional Court expressly holding that Hamas qualifies as a foreign terrorist organisation within the meaning of §§ 129a and 129b StGB. According to the court, Hamas unequivocally fulfils the statutory criteria of a terrorist organisation under German criminal law.

§§ 129a Abs. 1 Nr. 1, 129b Abs. 1 Strafgesetzbuch (StGB)

On October 19, 2023—shortly after the Hamas attacks—the defendant posted an illustration on his Facebook account titled "ISRAEL [Z]" with the text "Israel assassins," "You are not human beings," and "You are the ultimate problem". The image depicted a horde of "cloned rabbis" in traditional religious attire (white shirts, dark vests, and black hats) devouring a newborn baby, with their mouths smeared with blood. The court ruled that the depiction of individuals in traditional Jewish clothing as "vampires" who feed on the blood of victims and "sacrifice children" invokes classic antisemitic tropes. Such imagery does not represent a specific government or military policy but targets the Jewish community as a whole.The Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal.

des articles 24 de la loi du 29 juillet 1881 et 10 de la Convention européenne de sauvegarde des droits de l'homme et des libertés fondamentales.

The case concerns ownership shares in a property that had belonged to Jewish owners who disappeared during or after the Holocaust. The court emphasized that post-war legislation on abandoned property was intended to protect, rather than extinguish, the rights of Jewish owners and their successors, and rejected the State Treasury’s claim of adverse possession because it had not possessed the property as an owner.

Art. 172, Art. 206, Art. 336, Art. 339 Civil Code

Decree of 8 March 1946 on Abandoned and Former German Property

On October 12, 2023—five days after the Hamas attacks in Israel—the defendant was having lunch in a restaurant with his wife and a friend. During a conversation regarding the situation in the Middle East, he stated in a loud voice: "it is necessary to exterminate these kikes" (il faut exterminer ces youpins). The remarks were overheard by M. [S] [W], who was seated at a neighboring table. Upon the arrival of the police, the defendant further remarked: "Are you the police of the Jews or the police of the French?". The lower court initially convicted the defendant, but the Court of Appeal of Versailles (November 20, 2024) acquitted him, ruling that the element of "publicity" required for the offense was not established. The civil parties appealed to the Court of Cassation. The court upheld the finding that the remarks were made within the framework of a purely private conversation.

les articles 23 et 24 de la loi du 29 juillet 1881.

In June 2022, the defendant, a police officer, posted a tweet stating: "If #LFi had known Anne Frank's hiding place, she wouldn't have had the time to write a single line. #LFIAntisemite.". This was a response to a post by MP Sandrine Rousseau regarding the government's stance on antisemitism within French political parties. The lower court (Tribunal correctionnel) initially found the defendant guilty, sentencing him to a €500 suspended fine and ordering him to pay €800 in damages to LFI. The defendant appealed the conviction. Overturning the lower court's assessment, the Appellate Court ruled that the tweet was part of a "debate of general interest" regarding the rise of antisemitism and the political positioning of major French parties. Because the defendant spoke within a political context, the court concluded that a criminal or civil conviction would constitute a disproportionate interference with the right to freedom of expression.

association parti politique peut être victime d'injure envers un particulier au sens de l'article 33, alinéa 2, de la loi du 29 juillet 1881.

On April 20, 2024, during a demonstration titled "No Weapons for Israel," the defendant chanted the slogan "From the River to the Sea – Palestine will be free!". The Tiergarten District Court (AG Tiergarten) acquitted the defendant on July 9, 2025, arguing that the slogan was not a "symbol" of Hamas in a legal sense, that its use was protected by freedom of expression in an ambiguous context, and that the defendant lacked criminal intent. The Public Prosecutor filed a "leap appeal" (Sprungrevision) against this acquittal.The court defined a symbol under § 86a StGB as a characteristic identification object (visual or audible) that conveys to an impartial observer the impression of being an identifying mark of a prohibited organization. Adoption by Hamas: The court established that Hamas formally adopted this specific English slogan in its 2017 "Document of General Principles and Policies". By this act of authorization, the organization made the slogan its own identifier.The Kammergericht quashed the acquittal and referred the case back to a different department of the Tiergarten District Court for a new trial.

Art 5 Abs 2 GG, § 86 Abs 1 Nr 1 StGB, § 86 Abs 1 Nr 2 StGB, § 86 Abs 1 Nr 4 StGB, § 86a Abs 1 Nr 1 StGB, § 86a Abs 2 StGB, § 261 StPO, § 267 Abs 5 StPO

The case concerns the failure of public authorities to formally protect part of a historic Jewish cemetery before the land was acquired for commercial development. It highlights the legal protection of Jewish burial grounds as cultural heritage and the consequences of failing to preserve sites of Jewish historical and religious significance.

Art. 30(1)(1) Act on the Relationship of the State to Jewish Religious Communities in the Republic of Poland

Art. 6, Art. 7, Art. 22 Act on the Protection and Care of Monuments

Art. 361, Art. 415, Art. 417 § 1, Art. 441 § 1 Civil Code

Art. 321 § 1, Art. 379(5) Code of Civil Procedure

The case concerns a defamation dispute arising from a mutual conflict, where both parties used offensive language, including the claimant referring to the defendant as an “antisemite”; the court treated this as part of reciprocal hostility rather than a substantiated claim, highlighting that accusations of antisemitism carry serious weight and, when used without factual basis, can themselves infringe personal rights, while ultimately finding a violation but limiting the remedy due to the mutual nature of the conflict.

Art. 23, Art. 24 §1, Art. 448 Civil Code

Between February 2023 and October 2024, the defendant operated a social media profile with over 1,000 followers, where he published increasingly radical pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli content . In three specific instances, he posted images of the "Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades" (a listed terrorist organization), depicting armed fighters and the organization's logo . Furthermore, on December 13, 2024, during a demonstration in Berlin, the defendant repeatedly and loudly chanted the slogan "From the river to the sea – Palestine will be free" . The court ruled that "From the river to the sea" is a trademark/symbol of Hamas. While the phrase has historical roots, Hamas formally authorized and adopted this exact English wording in its 2017 "Document of General Principles and Policies" as its central political leitmotif .

§§ 86 Abs. 1 und 2, 86a Abs. 1 Nr. 1, Abs. 2, 53, 42 StGB

Constitutional review of a political party’s aims and activities involving tolerance of antisemitic and racist content. The Constitutional Tribunal examined whether the program and activities of the Communist Party of Poland complied with constitutional standards prohibiting parties that promote racial or national hatred. The Tribunal found that the party’s publications and public activity tolerated and disseminated antisemitic and racist ideas alongside totalitarian ideology, and held that such conduct is incompatible with the Constitution. The judgment reaffirmed that political pluralism does not protect organisations whose aims or activities legitimise antisemitism or other forms of hatred against ethnic or religious groups.

Art. 13, Art. 11(1), Art. 188(4) Constitution of the Republic of Poland

Art. 49, Art. 81 of the Act on the Organisation and Proceedings before the Constitutional Tribunal

The case concerns allegations that a judge used antisemitic language by referring to the applicant as being of Jewish nationality during judicial proceedings. The Supreme Court dismissed the request to lift the judge’s immunity, finding that the applicant had produced no evidence substantiating the alleged antisemitic statements.

Article 80(2c) of the Law on the Organisation of Common Courts

Articles 212 and 216(1) of the Criminal Code

On November 4, 2023—approximately four weeks after the Hamas terror attacks on Israel—the defendant participated in a pro-Palestinian demonstration in Düsseldorf with roughly 17,000 other participants. During the march, she displayed a sign with the inscription "FROM THE RIVER TO THE SEA PALESTINE WILL BE FREE". On the back of the sign, she had written a reference to Article 5, Paragraph 1 of the German Basic Law (Freedom of Expression). The court confirmed that the slogan is a symbol of Hamas. It noted that Hamas formally adopted this specific English wording in its 2017 charter as a concise summary of its goal to destroy the State of Israel. The court ruled that it is irrelevant if the slogan is also used by others; its adoption by a terrorist group is sufficient for a prohibition intended to keep such symbols out of the public sphere.

§§ 86a Abs. 1 Nr. 1; 140 StGB

The case concerns antisemitic and anti Ukrainian insults published on social media. The court held that publicly degrading Jews and Ukrainians because of their nationality constituted a criminal offense and emphasized that freedom of expression does not protect hateful attacks based on national origin.

Art. 257, Art. 91 § 1 Criminal Code

Art. 54 Constitution of the Republic of Poland

The First-tier Tribunal ordered the disclosure of government documents concerning the policy of free admission to the proposed UK Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre. It held that the public interest in transparency outweighed the government's interest in withholding the information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Ban on associations (Vereinsverbot) - Association banned for supporting another association directed against the idea of international understanding. Plaintiff incites hatred against members of other religions and combats the international legal order, partly through social networks.

Art. 9 Abs. 2 GG; § 3 Abs 1 VereinsG

Appeal regarding the validity of an extraordinary summary dismissal (§ 626 BGB) and claims for default of acceptance (Annahmeverzug) following social media posts.

§ 626 BGB

The applicant, SESI (the operator of the channel CNEWS), sought the annulment of a decision by Arcom dated May 2, 2024. Arcom had imposed a financial penalty of €50,000 following the broadcast of the program "L’Heure des Pros 2" on September 28, 2023. During this broadcast, a recurring guest attributed antisemitism, drug trafficking, and prison overcrowding to "Arab-Muslim immigration". The host of the program did not intervene to provide context or contradiction, merely ending the segment by stating, "That is what could be said on the subject". The guest's remarks imputed criminal actions to an entire population group based on origin and religion to support a political demand (changing immigration policy). This violates Article 2-3-2 of the convention, which prohibits encouraging discriminatory behavior. Because the remarks were broadcast without any "perspective or contradiction," the broadcaster failed its responsibility for the content and its duty to maintain control over the program under all circumstances, as required by Article 2-2-1 of the convention.

Articles 42, 42-1, and 42-2 of Law No. 86-1067 of September 30, 1986; Article 10 of the ECHR; Articles 2-3-2 and 2-2-1 of the broadcaster's convention

On September 26, 2009, the defendants participated in an action at a supermarket where they wore clothing with the inscription ""Palestine vivra, boycott Israël"" (Palestine shall live, boycott Israel). They distributed leaflets stating that buying Israeli products legitimizes ""crimes in Gaza"" and approves the policies of the Israeli government. After a complex legal history—including an initial acquittal in 2011, a subsequent conviction in 2013, and a 2015 rejection by the Court of Cassation—the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled in 2020 (Baldassi and others v. France) that the conviction violated Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Following this, the French Court of Revision annulled the previous conviction and remanded the case to the Paris Court of Appeal, which acquitted the defendants in 2024. The civil parties appealed this acquittal to the Court of Cassation. The Court of Cassation reaffirmed that a boycott is a modality of expressing protest opinions associated with specific actions. Under Article 10 of the Convention, such expressions are protected unless they cross the line into incitement to intolerance, hate, or violence. No anti-Semitic or racist remarks were recorded, and there were no insults or violence against employees or customers. So, the Court of Cassation approbed the acquittal.

l'article 10 de la Convention européenne des droits de l'homme; article 24 de la loi du 29 juillet 1881

The political association La France Insoumise (LFI) filed an emergency summons against a publishing company to obtain an advance copy of the book Les complices du mal, written by Omar Youssef Souleimane, prior to its scheduled release on October 2, 2025. LFI argued that the book's presentation suggested it contained defamatory statements and "fake news" regarding alleged links between the party and Islamist movements. The plaintiff sought this measure under Article 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure to prepare potential legal actions (such as defamation suits or an injunction to suppress passages) before the book could cause "irreversible damage" to the democratic process. The author intervened to oppose the communication of his work, citing his right of disclosure (droit de divulgation) under Article L.121-2 of the Intellectual Property Code. The court declared his intervention admissible, as he demonstrated a direct interest in the timing and conditions under which his work is made public. The court held that such a measure constitutes a significant interference with the freedom of expression and the freedom to communicate information, guaranteed by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It ruled that forcing an author to submit their work to the judgment of a third party before publication imposes a constraint on the creative process and the message's form.

article 29 alinéa 1 de la loi du 29 juillet 1881; article 27, 24 alinéa 1 de la même loi; l’article L.121-2 du code de la propriété intellectuelle et de l’article 10 de la Convention européenne des droits de l’Homme

The case concerns an application by the University of Cambridge for a final injunction restraining unauthorised protest activities on university property connected with Gaza-related protests. The High Court granted injunctive relief in respect of specified sites, holding that the measures were proportionate to prevent trespass and nuisance and that rights to freedom of expression and assembly do not confer a general entitlement to occupy private land.

The claimant brought a libel claim against The Spectator and Douglas Murray over an article alleging that he had inflamed tensions during unrest in Leicester and made disparaging remarks about Hindus. In assessing the claim, the High Court examined the claimant's participation in anti-Israel protests, including demonstrations involving Jewish passers-by, Holocaust imagery and antisemitic chants. The Court dismissed the claim, finding that the claimant had not established serious harm to his reputation.

The case concerns a final injunction granted to Teledyne UK Ltd to restrain unauthorised protest activity at a number of its industrial sites. The High Court found evidence of repeated unlawful trespass, obstruction and property damage linked to protest actions associated with Palestine Action, and held that injunctive relief against named defendants and persons unknown was necessary and proportionate to protect the claimant’s operations, while recognising that protest rights do not extend to unlawful interference with private property.

The Constitutional Council was petitioned by several members of the National Assembly to review the constitutionality of Article 3 of the Law on the fight against antisemitism in higher education. The applicants challenged: First, the delegation of legislative power to the executive regarding the composition and operation of new regional disciplinary sections (Article L. 811-5-1 of the Education Code). Second, the alleged lack of precision in defining new disciplinary offenses (e.g., antisemitism, incitement to hatred) and the fact that these could apply to conduct outside the university, which they argued violated the principles of legality, proportionality of penalties, and the separation of powers. Legislative Competence (Art. L. 811-5-1): The Council found that the Constitution does not place the specific details of the composition or functioning of these disciplinary sections within the domain of the law. Consequently, the legislator did not fail to exercise its full competence by referring these application modalities to a decree of the Conseil d’État. Concerning the clarity of the used terms (e.g. antisemitism), the Council ruled that these terms are sufficiently precise to prevent arbitrary enforcement and they are declared constitutional.

article L. 811-5 du code de l’éducation; article L. 811-6 du code de l’éducation; art. 34 constitution

The proceedings concerned an appeal against an extradition order to Germany based on allegations of large-scale cyber trading fraud. The central issue was whether extradition would be barred under section 25 of the Extradition Act 2003 due to serious physical and mental health conditions, in particular the risk of suicide, or whether it would constitute a disproportionate interference with Article 8 ECHR. It was also argued that prison conditions in Germany posed a particular risk, referring to an alleged increase in antisemitic incidents in German detention facilities. The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the extradition order, finding that neither an intolerable risk to health nor a disproportionate interference with private and family life had been established, and that the German authorities had provided sufficient assurances regarding protection and medical care. Extradition Act 2003, ss. 21A, 25, 27; European Convention on Human Rights, Art. 8.

VG Berlin ruled that the political activity ban imposed on physician Ghassan Abu-Sittah in connection with the 2024 Palestine Congress was unlawful. The authorities had justified the ban with his previous Hamas-related affiliations and anticipated anti-Israel or antisemitic statements. The Court found insufficient factual grounds for these assumptions.

The association LICRA (Auvergne Rhône-Alpes Section) challenged the implicit refusal of the Mayor of Tassin-la-Demi-Lune to reinstate substitution menus (pork-free or meat-free options) in school canteens. These menus had been provided between 2012 and 2016 but were suppressed in subsequent public service contracts starting in September 2016. Following a lower court judgment in October 2024 that annulled the refusal and ordered the reinstatement of the menus, the municipality appealed to the Cour administrative d’appel de Lyon. The municipality argued that LICRA lacked the standing to challenge the canteen policy. The court rejected this, ruling that LICRA’s statutory mission—to combat racism, anti-Semitism, and discrimination—gives it a valid interest in defending individual liberties and fighting discrimination in public services. The Cour administrative d’appel dismissed the municipality's appeal. The court found that Tassin-la-Demi-Lune had suppressed the menus based on an abstract application of secularism without demonstrating any actual operational, financial, or human resource obstacles It upheld the lower court’s order for the town to reintroduce substitution menus within six months.

l'article L. 243-2 du code des relations entre le public et l'administration; l'article 10 de la déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen; l'article 1er de la Constitution; principes de laïcité et de neutralité

M. A B, a French national born in 1990, was subjected to a MICAS order by the Minister of the Interior on September 25, 2024. The order prohibited him from leaving the municipality of Nîmes without authorization, required him to report daily to the police station, and mandated that he declare and justify his place of residence. These measures were set for a duration of three months starting October 9, 2024. The court noted that M. B had published an image of the Israeli flag with a swastika replacing the Star of David, a message dehumanizing Israel and its supporters, and a post glorifying the October 7 attacks and the terror they caused, using antisemitic connotations. Furthermore, a search of his computer revealed photographs of him in possession of weapons. The Toulouse Administrative Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. It confirmed that the individual control and surveillance measures were legally justified and proportionate under the Internal Security Code.

L. 228-1 et suivants du code de la sécurité intérieure

ollowing the Hamas attacks on Israel on October 7, 2023, two messages were published on the defendant's Twitter (now X) account. The first message, "Who's up for going to smash some Zionists, then?" (Qui se chauffe pour aller casser du sioniste, là ?), referred to a solidarity march for Israel. The second was a comment on a video of an Israeli family taken hostage, stating that they "did not make her feel sorry at all" and were "rather annoying, especially the kids". The defendant, the daughter of two members of parliament, contested being the author of the messages and refused to provide the unlocking codes for her seized mobile phones. The court held that while direct proof was absent, a set of consistent clues—including data extractions, connection logs, and private messages in which the defendant implicitly admitted to the publications—established her authorship. The "public character" was confirmed by the account's follower count and the lack of a "community of interest" among them. Concerning the first message on X, the court ruled that in the context of a march in support of Israel, the phrase "smash Zionists" explicitly targeted Jewish or Israeli people.

ne provocation à la violence aggravée prévue par l'article 132-76 du code pénal

The ruling concerns the criminal classification of a statement made at a pro-Palestinian rally after 7 October 2023. It focuses on the interpretation of Section 140 of the German Criminal Code (StGB) and the consideration of freedom of expression when determining the meaning of a statement. The ruling is set against the backdrop of the Hamas attack on Israel and the public debates surrounding it. § 140 Nr. 2 StGB Art. 5 Abs. 1 S. 1 GG