In September 1992, the applicant, a retired engineer, published a technical article in the periodical "Révision" titled "The gas chamber homicide at Struthof-Natzweiler, a special case". In the article, he used chemical and technical arguments to question the existence and functionality of the gas chambers at the Struthof concentration camp during the German occupation. He concluded that the alleged gassings were a "special case" and cast doubt on the reality of mass extermination.The applicant was convicted by the Paris Criminal Court on June 10, 1993, for contesting crimes against humanity. The Commission emphasized that the fundamental aim of the Convention is to protect justice and peace. Negationism and revisionism are seen as attempts to rehabilitate the Nazi doctrine and incite racial hatred. Therefore, the applicant’s attempt to rely on Article 10 to justify his denial of the Holocaust was a manifest abuse of the rights guaranteed by the Convention.The Commission declared the application inadmissible.

Freedom of expression (Article 10 ECHR); Prohibition of abuse of rights (Article 17 ECHR); Holocaust denial (Revisionism/Negationism) under the Gayssot Act (Article 24 bis of the Law of July 29, 1881).

The applicant, the owner and editor of the newspaper Russkoye Veche, was convicted in Russia of inciting ethnic, racial, and religious hatred through the mass media. Between 2000 and 2002, he published a series of articles portraying the Jewish people as the "source of all evils in Russia" and alleging a "Ziono-Fascist" conspiracy against the Russian people. During his trial, he further claimed that Jews did not exist as a race or nation and therefore he could not have incited national hatred. He was sentenced to a fine of 10,000 Russian roubles. The Court reiterated that the Convention does not protect the right to engage in activities aimed at destroying the rights and freedoms of others. It found that the applicant's articles were of a "markedly anti-Semitic tenor" and constituted a "vehement attack" on one ethnic group.The ECHR unanimously declared the application inadmissible.

reedom of expression (Article 10 ECHR) and Prohibition of abuse of rights (Article 17 ECHR)

On September 11, 2001, the day of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, the applicant created a drawing representing the collapsing towers with the caption: "NOUS EN AVIONS TOUS RÊVÉ ... LE HAMAS L’A FAIT" ("We all dreamed of it ... Hamas did it"). The drawing was published on September 13, 2001, in the Basque weekly magazine Ekaitza.Following the publication, the applicant was prosecuted and convicted in France for complicity in condoning terrorism (complicité d'apologie du terrorisme). He was sentenced to a fine of €1,500 and ordered to publish the judgment in several newspapers. The French Court of Cassation dismissed his appeal in 2003. Considering the sensitive political climate in the Basque region and the moderate fine, the Court ruled that the conviction was "necessary in a democratic society" and not disproportionate. But the Court found that the applicant had not been informed of the date the reporting judge's report was filed, nor was he given the opportunity to examine it, while the Advocate General had access to it. This constituted a breach of the principle of equality of arms.

l’article 24 de la loi du 29 juillet 1881; des articles 6, 10 de la Convention

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

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 association "Comité Action Palestine," founded in 2004 to support the Palestinian cause, was dissolved by a government decree on March 9, 2022. The Ministry of the Interior justified the dissolution under Article L. 212-1 of the Code of Internal Security, alleging that the association's "radical anti-Zionist" publications provoked discrimination, hatred, and violence against Jews and supported acts of terrorism. The association challenged the decree, arguing it was a manifest and illegal violation of their fundamental freedoms.The court ruled that the association’s positions, while "sharp and sometimes virulent" regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Israeli authorities, did not—in the current state of the investigation—constitute an incitement to discrimination, hatred, or violence. The court noted it was not established that the association disseminated antisemitic content.

l'article L. 521-2 du code de justice administrative :

The five defendants, including three police officers, were involved in an incident in a public establishment (a bar/restaurant),. Under the influence of significant amounts of alcohol, they made openly antisemitic remarks, specifically shouting "mort aux juifs" (death to Jews) and making references to Hitler. One defendant, M. [U], was found to have neo-Nazi photographs at his home, suggesting his actions were rooted in an openly neo-Nazi ideology. The atmosphere created was described as one of "arrogance and challenge," leading some customers to leave and reducing others to silence. The Court of Appeal convicted the defendants. M. [U] was dismissed from the police force, while others received suspended prison sentences (e.g., three months for M. [X] and M. [O]),. The defendants appealed, primarily challenging the publicity of the remarks and the legal qualification of the offense. The court affirmed that the remarks were held in a place open to the public and spoken at a high volume specifically to be heard by those present. The court rejected the defense's argument that the remarks were "private" because they were made while "clinking glasses" at a table.

articles 23 et 24 de la loi du 29 juillet 1881,

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.

The two convicted men, Täschner and Brückner, had been serving in the fascist police since 1939. They were deployed in occupied Poland. Between 1941 and 1943, they participated in the persecution and expulsion of hundreds of people, in executions and murders claiming thousands of victims, in the deportation of tens of thousands of people, in arrests for the purpose of forced labor in Germany, and in the destruction of a village. In the process, they also committed several murders themselves. The two men's appeal against their conviction for multiple counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity was rejected.

Art. 6 lit. b., lit. c. of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal, Art. 8, 91 VerfDDR, §§ 91 II, 93 III StGB, § 1 VI EGStGBuZPO, Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity

The case concerns wartime assistance provided to Jewish people during the German occupation and a claim for combatant status based partly on that assistance. The court emphasized the need to fully investigate the applicant’s experiences, including her assistance to Jews facing Nazi persecution and her own alleged wartime persecution.

Art. 1(2)(7), Art. 2, Art. 4(1), Art. 21(1), Art. 22(1) Act on Combatants and Certain Persons Who Are Victims of Wartime and Post-War Repression

Art. 7, Art. 77 § 1, Art. 80, Art. 107 § 3, Art. 138 § 1(1) Code of Administrative Procedure

Art. 134 § 1, Art. 135, Art. 145 § 1(1)(c), Art. 250 Law on Proceedings before Administrative Courts

The case concerns an attempt to exclude persons of Jewish nationality from participating in administrative proceedings. The court rejected the request, holding that public officials cannot be excluded from proceedings on the basis of their nationality.

Art. 1, Art. 3(1)(1), Art. 4(1)(1), Art. 12(1)(7), Art. 13d(1) Act on Agricultural Tax

Art. 1(1)–(2), Art. 2(1)(1), Art. 3 Act on Forest Tax

Art. 130, Art. 132, Art. 194 § 1 Tax Ordinance

Art. 21 Geodetic and Cartographic Law

Art. 3 Act on the Constitutional Tribunal

Art. 134, Art. 145 § 1(1), Art. 151 Law on Proceedings before Administrative Courts

The case concerns armed robberies committed by a member of an underground organization, including against a Jewish citizen. The court refused to treat these acts as part of legitimate independence activity, emphasizing that membership in a resistance organization did not justify ordinary crimes against private individuals, including Jewish victims.

Art. 1(1), Art. 1(2), Art. 13 Act of 23 February 1991 on the Recognition as Invalid of Judgments Issued Against Persons Repressed for Activities for the Independent Existence of the Polish State

Art. 86 § 2 Military Criminal Code

Art. 259 Criminal Code

Art. 1 §§ 1–3, Art. 4 § 1 Decree of 13 June 1946

After serving in the Wehrmacht, the two convicted men joined the fascist police in 1937. Their battalion was deployed in the territories occupied by the Nazi regime. While stationed in Lodz (Litzmannstadt) between 1939 and 1940, the two men participated in several execution squads, during which they each personally shot and killed several Polish citizens. In total, they participated in the murder of over 100 people. They were convicted of multiple counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Their appeal was denied.

Art. 6 lit. b, lit. c of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal, Art. 8, 91 VerfDDR, §§ 91 I, 93 II StGB, § 1 VI EGStGBuZPO, Convention of the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity

The case concerns a Jewish Holocaust survivor subjected to forced labour, confinement in the Grodno ghetto, attempted deportation to the Treblinka extermination camp, and hiding from Nazi persecution. The court recognized these experiences as consequences of Nazi antisemitic policies aimed at the extermination of Jews.

Art. 1(2)(4), Art. 4(1)(1)(b), Art. 4(1)(2), Art. 4(1)(4), Art. 21, Art. 22 Act on Combatants and Certain Persons Who Were Victims of Wartime and Post-War Repression

Art. 7, Art. 70, Art. 77 § 1, Art. 86, Art. 127 § 3, Art. 138 § 1(1) Code of Administrative Procedure

The case concerns the alleged killing of approximately 14 Jewish persons during the German occupation by a member of an underground organization. The Supreme Court later overturned his post war conviction due to serious procedural violations, while leaving unresolved the factual circumstances and responsibility for the killings of the Jewish victims.

Art. 1 (1) in conjunction with Art. 5 § 1 and § 2 of the Decree of 31 August 1944

Art. 17 § 1 (5) Code of Criminal Procedure

Art. 537 § 2 Code of Criminal Procedure

Art. 3, Art. 5 and Art. 240 former Military Code of Criminal Procedure

Art. 21 Code of Criminal Law of the Polish Armed Forces of 1944

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 case concerns assistance provided to Jews hiding from Nazi antisemitic persecution during the Holocaust. The Supreme Administrative Court addressed the meaning of providing shelter to persecuted Jews, an activity that exposed those assisting them to the threat of severe punishment, including death.

Art. 2(31) Act on Combatants and Certain Persons Who Were Victims of Wartime and Post-War Repression

Art. 183 § 1, Art. 185 § 1, Art. 207 § 2 Law on Proceedings Before Administrative Courts

The case concerns allegations of discriminatory and racist treatment, including references to incitement and the propagation of hatred against persons of the Jewish faith. It is relevant to antisemitism because it raises concerns about anti Jewish hatred and discrimination in the context of interactions with public authorities.

Art. 3 § 2, Art. 49 § 1, Art. 57 § 1, Art. 58 § 1, Art. 232 § 1 Law on Proceedings before Administrative Courts

Art. 45 Constitution of the Republic of Poland

Act on Access to Public Information

The case contains an allegation that a businessman faced persecution in Poland because of his Jewish roots. However, antisemitism was not examined as a legal issue and appeared only as part of the factual background to an unrelated contractual dispute.

Art. 6, Art. 647 Civil Code

Art. 233 § 1, Art. 245, Art. 247 Code of Civil Procedure

The case concerns the use of Nazi antisemitic propaganda as an analogy to stigmatize an individual in public discourse. The court held that comparing a person’s statements to Nazi propaganda against Jews violated their dignity and good name.

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

Art. 321 § 1 Code of Civil Procedure

Art. 47, Art. 54 Constitution of the Republic of Poland

Art. 10 European Convention on Human Rights

The case concerns the use of Nazi and Holocaust comparisons to publicly stigmatize an individual. The Supreme Court held that comparing a woman seeking a lawful abortion to Nazi criminals, including Adolf Eichmann, violated her dignity and honour and could not be justified by freedom of expression.

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

Art. 321 § 1, Art. 39813 § 1 Code of Civil Procedure

Art. 30, Art. 31 § 3, Art. 47, Art. 54 § 1 Constitution of the Republic of Poland

Art. 8, Art. 10 European Convention on Human Rights

The case concerns a family dispute in which the mother’s Jewish origin allegedly motivated efforts by the father and his family to separate her from her child. Although the court did not expressly classify the conduct as antisemitic, the case raises the possible role of antisemitic prejudice in the interference with her parental relationship.

Art. 14, Art. 29 § 1, Art. 30 § 1, Art. 32, Art. 35, Art. 54 Family Code

Art. 14, Art. 58, Art. 65, Art. 66, Art. 68 Constitution of the Polish People’s Republic

Art. 242 § 1, Art. 311, Art. 371 § 1, Art. 380 § 2, Art. 386, Art. 431, Art. 437 Code of Civil Procedure

The case concerns property abandoned after its Jewish owners were deported by German occupiers during the Holocaust. The Supreme Court addressed the protection of ownership rights following Nazi antisemitic persecution, holding that efforts by owners or authorized persons to recover such property could prevent its acquisition by the State.

Art. 172, Art. 175, Art. 336, Art. 339, Art. 121(4) Civil Code

Art. 34 Decree of 8 March 1946 on Abandoned and Former German Property

Art. 37 Act of 6 May 1945 on Abandoned and Deserted Property

Art. 227, Art. 229, Art. 233, Art. 398³ § 3 Code of Civil Procedure

The case concerns a claim that the omission of a given name in official correspondence infringed the claimant’s Jewish ethnic identity. The court held that a person’s name does not necessarily determine ethnic identity and found no unlawful interference with the claimant’s Jewish identity.

Art. 23, Art. 24, Art. 415, Art. 448 Civil Code

Art. 98 § 1 and § 3, Art. 99, Art. 227, Art. 230, Art. 233 § 1, Art. 365 § 1, Art. 366, Art. 385 Code of Civil Procedure

The case concerns difficulties in determining ownership of property belonging to Jewish owners after the Holocaust, particularly due to unresolved succession and the destruction or displacement caused by Nazi persecution. The Supreme Court recognized these lasting consequences but held that they could not justify creating an incomplete land register.

Art. 1 ust. 1–2, Art. 3, Art. 31–34, Art. 36 ust. 3 Act on Land and Mortgage Registers and Mortgage

Art. 13 § 2, Art. 6268 § 2 and § 10, Art. 39814 Code of Civil Procedure

The case concerns property formerly owned by persons of Jewish origin who faced post war emigration, loss of citizenship, and difficulties exercising property rights. The Supreme Court held that these circumstances did not themselves prevent the State from acquiring the property by adverse possession.

Art. 1, Art. 5, Art. 33, Art. 121 pkt 4, Art. 172 § 1–2, Art. 175, Art. 336 Civil Code

Art. 1, Art. 33, Art. 34 Decree of 8 March 1946 on Abandoned and Former German Property

Art. 13 § 2, Art. 231, Art. 233 § 1, Art. 328 § 2, Art. 378 § 1, Art. 391 § 1, Art. 3983 § 1 and § 3, Art. 39813 § 2, Art. 39814, Art. 39821, Art. 520 § 3 Code of Civil Procedure

The case concerns property formerly owned by a Jewish family whose successors emigrated amid political persecution. The Supreme Court considered whether state actions and restrictions affecting persons of Jewish origin prevented them from recovering their property and held that the State had possessed the property in bad faith.

Art. 121 pkt 4, Art. 172 § 1, Art. 175, Art. 336 Civil Code

Art. 15, Art. 16, Art. 19, Art. 20, Art. 33, Art. 34 Decree of 8 March 1946 on Abandoned and Formerly German Property

Art. 233 § 1, Art. 328 § 2, Art. 382, Art. 391 § 1, Art. 3983 § 1 and § 3, Art. 39815 § 1 Code of Civil Procedure

The case concerns property belonging to a Jewish owner who was forced into hiding during the German occupation because of antisemitic persecution. The Supreme Court rejected a claim to acquire the property by adverse possession, preserving the ownership rights affected by the owner’s wartime persecution and displacement.

Art. 172 Civil Code

Art. 50 § 1–2 Property Law

Art. 11, Art. 16 Decree of 6 June 1945 on the Binding Force of Judicial Decisions Issued During the German Occupation in the Territory of the Republic of Poland

Art. 98 § 1, Art. 244 et seq., Art. 258 et seq., Art. 3931, Art. 39312 Code of Civil Procedure

The case concerns property belonging to Jewish owners following the Holocaust, which resulted in the murder or displacement of much of Poland’s Jewish population. The Supreme Court emphasized the need to protect the property rights of Jewish survivors and heirs, particularly where Nazi persecution and its consequences prevented owners from reclaiming their property.

Art. 1, Art. 15, Art. 16, Art. 33, Art. 34 Decree of 8 March 1946 on Abandoned and Former German Property

Art. 153, Art. 189, Art. 371 § 2, Art. 422 § 2 Code of Civil Procedure

Art. 172 Civil Code

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. 1(1), Art. 34(1) Decree of 8 March 1946 on Abandoned and Former German Property

Art. 1, Art. 2 Decree of the President of the Republic of Poland of 30 November 1939 on the Invalidity of Legal Acts of the Occupation Authorities

Art. 2228, Art. 2233, Art. 2234, Art. 2243 Napoleonic Code

Art. 6 Civil Code

Art. 13 § 2, Art. 228 § 1, Art. 231, Art. 234, Art. 382, Art. 391 § 1, Art. 3983 § 1, Art. 39815 § 1 Code of Civil Procedure