SATL-Database

The case originated from a procedure against an individual (X) for voluntary damage (dégradations volontaires). The juvenile judge of the tribunal de grande instance of Colmar issued an order declaring LICRA's constitution as a civil party inadmissible. LICRA appealed this procedural dismissal to the Court of Cassation. The Court of Cassation overturned the decision of the Court of Appeal considering that the appeal was received within the legal timeframe and transcribed onto the public register by a clerk of the tribunal to which the judge belonged.

articles 186, alinéa 4, et 502 du Code de procédure pénale et de l'article 24 de l'ordonnance du 2 février 1945 relative à l'enfance délinquante

On July 8, 2009, a video was posted on the website europalestine.com showing a demonstration at a Carrefour store where activists called for a boycott of products from Israel. The video featured slogans claiming that purchasing these products supported the Israeli army in killing Palestinian children and equated each purchase to a bullet used against a child. The defendant, the website's director of publication, was prosecuted for provocation to discrimination, hatred, or violence against a group based on their belonging to the Israeli nation. While the trial court initially acquitted her, the Paris Court of Appeal partially overturned that decision, convicting her to a €1,000 suspended fine but declaring the civil party intervention of the Chamber of Commerce France-Israel (CCFI) inadmissible. The Court of Cassation focused on the admissibility of the CCFI as a civil party.

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

The case arose during the high-profile criminal trial of the so-called "Gang of Barbarians" (Gang des barbares), a case known for its extreme antisemitic violence. An attorney involved in the case, M. X, gave an interview to the magazine Le Nouvel Observateur in which he referred to the Advocate General, M. Y, as a "genetic traitor" (traître génétique). This remark was a reference to the fact that the magistrate's father had been a collaborator during World War II and was convicted at the Liberation. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the attorney. The Paris Court of Appeal (March 24, 2011) initially cleared M. X, arguing that his "violent remarks" did not constitute a breach of honor or delicacy given the "particular circumstances" of the case. The lower court viewed his comments as a response to the Advocate General's own conduct, specifically a question the magistrate had asked the main defendant in court: "Don't you believe that by the outrance of your remarks... you risk making antisemitism odious?" The Court of Cassation overturned the acquittal: By attacking the magistrate’s moral integrity through his family history, the attorney failed to uphold the "essential principle of delicacy" (principe essentiel de délicatesse) which is mandatory for lawyers in all circumstances.

Article 6 de la Convention européenne des droits de l'homme; Article 15 du décret n° 2005-790 du 12 juillet 2005

On July 28, 2006, the President of the Republic issued a decree dissolving the de facto group known as "Tribu Ka". Mr. [A], the self-declared leader of the group, filed a petition to annul this decree, arguing it was insufficiently motivated and violated freedom of expression. The group "Tribu Ka" was accused of systematically spreading ideas and theories via press releases, their website, and public statements that justified and encouraged racial discrimination, hatred, and violence, particularly against individuals who were not of Black African descent. Furthermore, the group was noted for its antisemitic stance and for organizing threatening actions targeting people of the Jewish faith. The court specifically cited a concerted and organized antisemitic action committed by members of "Tribu Ka" on May 28, 2006, in the Rue des Rosiers in Paris (a historically Jewish neighborhood) as evidence of the group's dangerous nature. While acknowledging that the dissolution restricted the group's freedom of expression, the court held that this restriction was necessary in a democratic society. It was justified by the "gravity of the dangers to public order and public security" resulting from the group's racist and antisemitic provocations.

Loi du 10 janvier 1936 sur les groupes de combat et milices privées (Article 1er, 6°); l'article 10 de la convention européenne de sauvegarde des droits de l'homme et des libertés fondamentales

The defendant, Hervé X, was prosecuted for provocation to discrimination, hatred, or violence based on religion and ethnicity. In September 2007, he posted comments on a website targeting "Jewish intellectuals and decision-makers," labeling Judaism as a "corrosive product that dissolves the national community" and attributing various negative traits specifically to "the Jew". The public prosecutor initiated the proceedings. During the trial, LDH and LICRA intervened to join as civil parties. The defendant was convicted and ordered to pay €1,000 in damages to each association. He appealed to the Court of Cassation, arguing that in press matters, no new party should be allowed to intervene once the initial act of prosecution has fixed the scope of the case. The Court of Cassation rejected the defendant's arguments. The court affirmed that it would be "paradoxical" to prevent associations specifically empowered by law to defend certain values from acting simply because the prosecutor initiated the case first.

article 48-1 de la loi du 29 juillet 1881; Sur le premier moyen de cassation, pris de la violation des articles 6 § 1 de la Convention européenne des droits de l'homme, 23, 24, 48-1, 50 et 53 de la loi du 29 juillet 1881, 2, 3 et 593 du code de procédure pénale, manque de base légale

On July 3, 1996, the satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo published an article titled "Bienvenue au pape de merde" ("Welcome to the Shit Pope"), written by Philippe Z..., which targeted Pope John Paul II. The association AGRIF filed a lawsuit for defamation against the author, the director of publication (Gilles X...), and the publishing company, arguing that the article was defamatory toward Christians and their religious identity. Distinction between Defamation and Satirical Criticism AGRIF argued that the article’s imputations of "assassination," "antisemitism," and "hypocrisy" against the Pope constituted defamation under the Law of July 29, 1881. The Court of Cassation, however, upheld the lower court's finding that the remarks did not constitute defamation. The court noted that for defamation to be established, there must be allegations of precise facts that harm the honor or reputation of a specific group. In this case, the court determined that the article consisted of virulent critiques belonging to a "debate of opinions" rather than factual allegations.

articles 29, alinéa 1, et 32, alinéa 2, de Ia loi du 29 juillet 1881

On December 29, 2015, the defendant posted a message on the Twitter account "Lesquen2017" stating: "Centered on rhythm, negro music addresses the reptilian brain". The defendant argued that the term "negro music" (musique nègre) was not pejorative and that his analysis was a scientific "judgment of knowledge" based on Professor Paul MacLean’s "triune brain" theory, which identifies the reptilian brain as the seat of instincts. The court rejected the defendant's defense that his remarks were purely scientific or objective. By specifically linking "negro music" to the "reptilian brain," the defendant chose a formulation intended to be contemptuous toward a group defined by their race. The defendant is ordered to pay a symbolic one Euro (1 €) in damages to each of the following associations: UEJF, J'accuse!, MRAP, LICRA, Avocats Sans Frontières, and SOS Racisme.

articles 23, 29 alinéa 2 et 33 alinéa 3 de la loi du 29 juillet 1881 sur la liberté de la presse

The applicant had been sentenced by the Paris Court of Appeal to a two-month suspended prison term and a fine of 500 euros for contesting crimes against humanity and provocation of racial hatred. During his appeal to the Court of Cassation, the applicant submitted a Priority Preliminary Ruling on Constitutionality (Question prioritaire de constitutionnalité – QPC) regarding the offense of contesting crimes against humanity., arguing that Article 24 bis of the Law of July 29, 1881, was unconstitutional. The Court of Cassation examined whether the question should be referred to the Constitutional Council. It determined that the question was not "serious" for the following reason: The infringement on freedom of expression caused by such criminalization appears necessary, appropriate, and proportionate to the objective pursued by the legislature: combating racism and anti-Semitism and protecting public order.

article 24 bis de la loi du 29 juillet 1881; article 34 de la Constitution; article 16 de la Déclaration de 1789

On January 2, 2017, the accused, M. K., published a post on Twitter (now X) referring to the IRIS institute as an organization "directed by the pro-Qatar antisemite P. B.". P. B., the founder and director of IRIS and a well-known geopolitical expert, along with the institute itself, filed a complaint for public insult. In the first instance, the court acquitted the accused, ruling that her remarks were protected by freedom of expression given P. B.'s status as a public figure and his involvement in public controversies. The court of appeals described the Characterization of the Insult: The court defined "antisemitism" as a systematic doctrine of hostility toward the Jewish community. Without specific factual justification within the tweet, labeling someone an "antisemite" is considered outrageous as it attacks honor and sensitivity. Because the tweet explicitly linked the accusation to the leadership of the institute, the insult also reflected poorly on IRIS.

L'alinéa 2 de l'article 29 de la loi du 29 juillet 1881; paragraphe 2 de l'article 10 de la Convention européenne des droits de l'homme.

The defendant, Paul X, was prosecuted for public defamation after publishing an article claiming that "scriptural anti-Judaism and the doctrine of the fulfillment of the Old by the New Alliance lead to antisemitism and formed the ground where the idea and fulfillment of Auschwitz sprouted". Following a referral after a previous cassation, the Court of Appeal of Orléans confirmed the judgment ordering the defendant to pay damages and publish a notice of the conviction. The defendant appealed to the Court of Cassation, arguing that his remarks were objective, sincere, and part of a painful but necessary debate regarding the circumstances of Nazi crimes. He contended that his comments lacked any personal attack or unnecessary malice. The Court of cassation upheld the decision arguing that the incriminated passage accused the Christian community of being responsible for the massacres committed at Auschwitz due to their core theological doctrines.

articles 32 2 de la loi du 29 juillet 1881, 10 de la Convention européenne de sauvegarde des droits de l'homme et des libertés fondamentales, 591 et 593 du Code de procédure pénale

"The defendant, Alain X (alias Y), acting as the director of publication for the website egaliteetreconciliation.fr, was prosecuted following the publication of several user comments. These comments were posted in response to an article on the site criticizing the journalist Frédéric Z for refusing to invite Alain X to his programs due to the latter's antisemitism. The comments included vulgar personal attacks (such as calling the journalist a ""journalope,"" ""corrupt traitor,"" and ""prostitute of the system"") as well as antisemitic slurs and references (such as ""Shoanirium pleurnirium"" and ""holocaustesque pleureuse""),. The Paris Court of Appeal previously convicted the defendant to a €5,000 fine and awarded damages to the civil parties. The Court of Cassation upheld the ruling of the Court of Appeal for the following reasons: • Gross Personal Attacks: The remarks targeting the individual were correctly identified as gross, contemptuous invectives that constitute personal attacks contrary to human dignity. • Religious Targeting: The remarks regarding the victim’s perceived religious belonging were characterized as insults because of their semantics, wordplay, and references to the Shoah"

articles 29, alinéa 2, et 33, alinéa 3, de la loi du 29 juillet 1881 sur la liberté de la presse; article 33, alinéa 3, de la même loi; article 33, alinéa 2, de ladite loi

The case arose from an electoral pamphlet distributed by Jacques X, a candidate for the general council elections in Rambouillet in March 1994. The pamphlet, titled "Political Contract of Jacques X," contained several aggressive statements regarding immigration and foreigners. This included statements such as: Pledges to "fight fiercely against immigration" and denounce those who "fraudulently" obtained French nationality.Following a complaint by LICRA, the defendant was convicted by the Versailles Court of Appeal (February 10, 1995) for provocation to racial discrimination. He was sentenced to a fine of 15,000 francs and the court ordered the publication of the decision. The defendant appealed to the Court of Cassation, arguing a violation of Article 24 of the 1881 Law. The core legal question was whether "foreigners residing in France" constitute a "determined group of persons" protected by the law against hate speech, and whether the language used in the pamphlet crossed the threshold into criminal provocation., Court’s Reasoning: The Court of Cassation rejected the appeal and upheld the conviction.

l'article 24, alinéa 6, de la loi du 29 juillet 1881.

The dispute arose from an article published in the weekly magazine A titled "Against the antisemitic leprosy, racist decadence, the hatred of the other" (Contre la lèpre antisémite, la déchéance raciste, la haine de l'autre). The article, written by journalists B and C, examined the potentially antisemitic character of certain newspapers. It included a quote from an article by Mr. X, which he claimed was taken out of context and mingled with other antisemitic texts. Mr. X and his publishing company sued for damages, arguing that this presentation constituted a "fault" under general civil law (Article 1382 of the Civil Code) or defamation. Although they initially alleged defamation, they explicitly renounced the specific provisions of the Press Law of 1881 during the appeal, relying instead on general civil liability while still seeking damages for "harm to honor and consideration". The core issue was whether journalists commit a civil "fault" when they question the antisemitic nature of other publications within the framework of a political and polemical debate of opinion. he Court dismissed the appeal (rejette le pourvoi), finding that no fault had been committed by the journalists.

Article 1382 of the Civil Code (now Art. 1240) vs. the Law of July 29, 1881

The applicant, Mr. Bruno A., was a university professor at Jean Moulin Lyon 3 University. On October 11, 2004, during a press conference held at his political headquarters, he made public statements regarding a report commissioned by the Minister of National Education on the issues of racism and antisemitism at his university (the "B. Report"). In his remarks, Mr. A. attacked the author of the report, Henry B., calling him a "personality of Jewish origin" whose neutrality and objectivity were not established due to his background. Additionally, regarding the Holocaust, Mr. A. stated that while he did not dispute the existence of concentration camps, it was "up to historians to discuss... the existence of gas chambers in such or such extermination camp," thereby casting doubt on the reality of the gas chambers. Following these comments, the disciplinary body of the CNESER imposed a five-year ban on teaching and research activities at Lyon 3 and a 50% salary reduction. Mr. A. appealed to the Conseil d'État, arguing that since the comments were made in a political context outside the university, they should not be subject to disciplinary proceedings.The Conseil d'État rejected the appeal and upheld the disciplinary measure. The court ruled that university professors are bound by a duty of tolerance and objectivity as part of their professional ethics. Contesting the neutrality of a scientific figure specifically because of their religious or ethnic (Jewish) origin was deemed a serious violation of these ethical standards.

Code de l'éducation (notamment l'article R. 232-37); Loi n° 83-634 du 13 juillet 1983 modifiée (notamment l'article 7); Code de justice administrative; Décret n° 92-657 du 13 juillet 1992 modifié (notamment les articles 24 et 27); Principes de déontologie universitaire

The case centers on a deliberation passed by the municipal council of Bondy on June 24, 2016, which called for a boycott of products originating from Israeli settlements. The National Bureau of Vigilance Against Antisemitism (BNVCA) sought to annul this deliberation, arguing that such a boycott call is illegal. In the first instance, the Administrative Tribunal of Montreuil rejected the BNVCA's application as inadmissible. The tribunal noted that the BNVCA had failed to produce the actual text of the contested municipal deliberation, even after being formally requested to do so by the court registry. The BNVCA then appealed this dismissal to the Administrative Court of Appeal of Versailles. The BNVCA contended that the deliberation established a discriminatory practice in violation of Articles 225-1 et seq. of the French Penal Code. However, the primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was procedural: whether the BNVCA's failure to provide the contested document in the first instance could be corrected during the appeal process. The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's finding of inadmissibility. It cited Article R. 412-1 of the Code of Administrative Justice, which mandates that a legal challenge must be accompanied by the contested act, except in cases of justified impossibility.

l'article R. 412-1 du code de justice administrative; discrimination qui viole les articles 225-1 et suivants du code pénal

The case involved a video posted online on October 6, 2020, titled "Episode 90," in which the defendant Dieudonné M'bala M'bala addressed Mme Rachel Khan. The victim, a granddaughter of Holocaust survivors who identifies with the Jewish community, had previously written an article in the Huffington Post criticizing antisemitic lyrics in rap music and questioning the rise of a "Dieudonné 2.0". In the video, the defendant made several controversial remarks, including references to "Jewish censorship" and "Jewish scams". The specific statement prosecuted as a public insult was: "tu resteras une pauvre négresse à la fin de l'histoire" ("you will remain a poor negress at the end of the story"). The lower court (Tribunal Judiciaire de Paris) had initially convicted the defendant on September 15, 2022, sentencing him to 100 day-fines of 100 euros each. The Paris Court of Appeal quashed the lower court's judgment, acquitted the defendant, arguing that therefore appears that, in the context in which they were made, the remarks in question cannot be considered to constitute offensive language, contemptuous terms, or invective.

However, the decision has since been overturned by the Cour de Cassation, and in January 2026, the Cour d'appel de Paris ruled that the defendant's statements did indeed constitute an insult.

l'article 10 de la Convention européenne des droits de l'homme

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

On March 30, 1993, the municipal council of Draguignan passed a deliberation to allocate a subsidy of 1,000 francs to the local section of the International League against Racism and Anti-Semitism (LICRA),. A local resident, Robert X..., challenged this decision. The Administrative Court of Appeal of Marseille annulled the subsidy, prompting the municipality to appeal the annulment to the Conseil d’État. The central legal issue was whether the subsidy granted to LICRA complied with the powers of a municipal council. Under Article L. 121-26 of the Code des communes (now codified as Article L. 2121-29 of the General Code of Local Authorities), a municipal council "regulates the affairs of the municipality through its deliberations". This provision allows a council to grant a subsidy to an association only when the attribution presents a communal interest. The court examined whether the actions of the local LICRA section met this criterion. While the association’s statutory humanitarian goals were susceptible to presenting a communal interest, the court found evidence of a partisan nature in its local activities. Consequently, the subsidy was illegal.

l'article L. 121-26 du code des communes, aujourd'hui reprises à l'article L. 2121-29 du code général des collectivités territoriales

Background of this decision is a judgement against the former politician Jean-Marie Le Pen, father of Marine Le Pen. On 19 April 2003, Jean-Marie Le Pen gave an interview to Le Monde in which he made remarks about Muslims in France (''The day we have, in France, not 5 million but 25 million Muslims, they will be the ones in charge. And the French will hug the walls, step off the sidewalks and lower their eyes. When they don't do so, they are told: “Why are you looking at me like that? Are you looking for a fight?” And you have no choice but to leave, otherwise you'll get beaten up.'') that were considered provocation to discrimination, hatred, or violence. The Court of Appeal convicted Le Pen of incitement to racism and discrimination and that the LICRA (Ligue internationale contre le racisme et l’antisémitisme) was dismissed as a civil party in the appeal proceedings—a point that was challenged before the Court of Cassation. The Court of Cassation ruled that LICRA is not permitted to intervene as a civil party in a procedure already initiated by another party via a direct summons.

articles 24, 48-1, 50 et 53 de la loi du 29 juillet 1881; articles 2, 3, 7, 8, 10, 485, 591 et suivants du code de procédure pénale

The case originated from an article published in the newspaper Le Quotidien de la Réunion titled "Antisémitisme sur Zinfos 974". The article criticized the news website Zinfos 974 and its director, Mr. Y, following the publication of a user comment regarding working for Jewish people. The article explicitly accused the website and its director of antisemitism, racism, and xenophobia, further claiming they maintained an environment of "disinformation, hatred, denunciation, and lynching". The Court of Cassation overturned the lower court's decision. It held that while the remarks were undoubtedly insulting toward the civil parties, they did not contain any precise facts that could be readily debated or proven in court. By qualifying these general value judgments as defamation rather than insults, the Court of Appeal misapplied Article 29 of the Law of July 29, 1881.

articles 29 de la loi du 29 juillet 1881, 591 et 593 du code de procédure pénale

The defendants, M. Fabrice X and M. Vincent Y, were being prosecuted before the Paris Tribunal de Grande Instance (17th Chamber) for the denial of crimes against humanity (contestation de crimes contre l'humanité). In the course of these criminal proceedings, the defendants raised a Priority Preliminary Ruling on Constitutionality (Question prioritaire de constitutionnalité or QPC). They sought to challenge the constitutionality of the law under which they were being charged, claiming the law lacked clarity and precision. The court found the challenge lacked a "serious" character because the offense is clearly defined by reference to the 1945 Nuremberg Charter (Article 6 of the International Military Charter), which is part of French internal law. The Court ruled that there was no ground to refer the constitutional questions to the Constitutional Council.

l'article 24 bis de la loi du 29 juillet 1881; l'article 8 de la Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen, à l'article 34 de la Constitution

Free speech and general right to personality (Meinungsäußerungsfreiheit und Allgemeines Persönlichkeitsrecht) - question whether singer can be called an antisemite

Art. 5 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GG, Art. 2 Abs. 1 GG, § 1004 Abs. 1 und § 823 Abs. 2 BGB iVm § 186 StGB, § 193 StGB

Compensation for damage to professional advancement (Schaden im beruflichen Fortkommen) - Claim was rejected because the plaintiff was not a displaced person of German nationality or German ethnicity. Appeal rejected because no sufficient grounds were presented.

§ 519 III Nr. 2, 519b ZPO

Plaintiff claims compensation for loss of her mother's household effects (Klägerin verlangt Entschädigung für den Verlust des Hausrats ihrer Mutter) - The plaintiff is entitled to a new decision because the claim for compensation was rejected before the promulgation of the Final Act on the grounds that the persecution-related damage would have occurred even without the persecution.

§ 9 V BEG, Art. I No. 6 BEG-SG

The plaintiff demanded adjustment because she had waived her right to a pension (Recht auf Rente) - The plaintiff was awarded compensation for health damage in an unappealable decision. She refused the ordered examination and the "preliminary decision" was rejected. - The BEG-SchlussG allows her to invoke § 189 III BEG. The case must be decided anew.

Art. III BEG-SchlußG, § 189 III BEG

Action against reduction of the war victim's pension (Kriegsopferrente) - Plaintiff was classified in the income class of her deceased husband. Later, the pension was reduced because of particularly favourable economic circumstances due to living together with her second husband. - The court denied that the claimant lived in particularly favourable economic circumstances, so that the reduction was inadmissible.

§ 15a Abs. 3 2. DV-BEG

Compensation for damage to liberty (Schaden an Freiheit) - Non-Jewish plaintiff who was married to a Jew claims to have been forced to work. Interpretation of § 43 III BEG with the aid of the old wording from § 16 III BErgG to the effect that forced labor under conditions similar to imprisonment is equivalent to deprivation of liberty, even if the person did not live under conditions similar to imprisonment outside the workplace.

§ 43 III BEG; § 16 III BErgG corresponds to § 16 III BEG in the version of 1 April 1956

Compensation for a violation of the general personality right (Eingriff in das Allgemeine Persönlichkeitsrecht und daraus folgender Entschädigungsanspruch) - Plaintiff demands DM 10,000 in damages from a magazine for spreading falsehoods - The plaintiff is only entitled to compensation if there has been a serious violation of personal rights, which the court denied in this case. The action was dismissed - The magazine reported that the plaintiff, a former minister who earlier had belonged to the Nachtigall unit, was actively involved in the massacre against Jews in Lemberg - his involvement in the massacre could not be proven in other, earlier proceedings

§ 847 BGB

Restitution (Restitution) - Person of Jewish faith took refuge in England in 1942 and left the apartment of which he was a tenant in Paris - The apartment was rented by the owner to somebody else in 1943, without terminating the tenancy granted to the Person who had to seek refuge either by agreement or court order – The Jewish refugee is considered to still being the tenant and the appartement has to be restituted to him – confirmation of the application of the law by cour d’appel

Article 1719 Code civil