SATL-Database

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

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

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

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 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.

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

This case concerned protest encampments established by “Cambridge for Palestine” on land belonging to Trinity College, Cambridge and St John’s College, Cambridge. The High Court granted summary possession orders and final injunctions, holding that the encampments constituted trespass and caused serious disruption, including interference with examinations and the creation of an intimidating environment. While recognising the protesters’ rights to freedom of expression and assembly, the court found the measures proportionate, emphasising that those rights could be exercised through lawful means not involving occupation of private land.

Criminal liability involving organised crime and violence linked to neo-Nazi and antisemitic ideology. The defendant challenged his conviction by disputing the courts’ findings that he acted within an extremist, antisemitic, and neo-Nazi environment. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation, holding that the ideological findings were factually supported and legally relevant to assessing criminal responsibility and motivation, and reaffirmed that antisemitism and neo-Nazi ideology are not protected and may be taken into account in criminal proceedings.

Art. 4, Art. 258 § 1, Art. 158 § 1, Art. 256 § 1, Art. 256 § 2, Art. 65 § 1, Art. 57a § 1–2 Criminal Code

Art. 439 § 1 pkt 2 and 11, Art. 433 § 2, Art. 457 § 3, Art. 535 § 3 Code of Criminal Procedure

Judicial review of state protection of a former Jewish cemetery destroyed during the Holocaust. The case concerned the inclusion of privately owned land within the protected boundaries of a historic Jewish cemetery to safeguard a site of antisemitic persecution and religious sanctity. While acknowledging the enduring protection owed to Jewish cemeteries even when physically destroyed, the Supreme Administrative Court annulled the measure on procedural grounds, holding that heritage protection must respect constitutional guarantees of property rights and provide owners with effective procedural safeguards.

Art. 22 ust. 2, Art. 6 ust. 1 pkt 1 lit. f, Art. 3 pkt 1 Act on the Protection and Care of Monuments

Art. 64 ust. 1 and 2, Art. 31 ust. 3 Constitution of the Republic of Poland

Art. 1 Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights

Art. 146 § 1, Art. 188, Art. 207 § 2 Law on Proceedings before Administrative Courts

This case concerns a civil libel claim arising from an online article alleging that the claimant had engaged in, supported, and encouraged a campaign of online abuse and harassment against a minor. The statements complained of were made in the context of public discussions concerning antisemitism within British political life, including debate about antisemitism in the Labour Party, on which the claimant had publicly expressed views. The High Court held that the defendant’s pleaded defences of truth, honest opinion, and publication on a matter of public interest had no realistic prospect of success, as the pleaded facts were incapable of establishing the factual allegations found to be defamatory. Defamation Act 2013, sections 1–4

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal disbarred solicitor Farrukh Husain after he repeatedly published antisemitic and offensive statements. His appeal to the High Court was unsuccessful, as the court did not consider the statements to be covered by freedom of expression. The judges upheld the decision because the behaviour was deliberate and damaged confidence in the legal profession.

The High Court ruled on an appeal against a decision of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal by which a practising solicitor had been struck off the roll for numerous social-media posts found to be antisemitic, offensive and inappropriate, as well as for offensive correspondence with the regulator. The Court examined whether the Tribunal had committed errors of law in establishing the breaches, in its treatment of medical evidence, in its assessment of freedom of expression, and in the sanction imposed. The appeal was dismissed; the Court upheld the Tribunal’s conclusion that the statements exceeded the bounds of permissible political speech and that striking off was a proportionate sanction. Solicitors Act 1974, in particular section 49; Solicitors Regulation Authority Principles 2019 (Principles 2, 5 and 6); Solicitors (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules 2019; Equality Act 2010; European Convention on Human Rights, in particular Articles 6, 8 and 10.

Application for a temporary injunction (Antrag auf einstweilige Anordnung) - the applicant is denied access to the "Festhalle" in Frankfurt am Main due to accusations of antiemitism. GG Art. 3, 5 I 1, III 1; HessGO § 20 I

Dangerous bodily harm motivated by antisemitism - 24-year-old defendant physically attacked a Jewish fellow student known from the university environment. The victim suffered severe injuries including a complex midface fracture and a brain hemorrhage. The court regarded the antisemitic intent as the decisive aggravating factor in sentencing, citing further evidence such as the defendant’s statements, social media material, and display of materials denying Israel’s right to exist.

§ 224 StGB

The 2025 case concerns a claim arising from a public statement in which remarks made by a Member of Parliament about vaccinations were described as dangerous, anti-scientific, conspiratorial, and antisemitic. At an earlier stage of the proceedings ([2024] EWHC 1603 (KB)), the court had already determined that the statement was to be understood predominantly as an expression of opinion about the character of the remarks made, rather than as an assertion that the individual concerned was himself an antisemite. Building on that determination, the court then examined whether the claim could be disposed of without a full trial, in particular on the basis that no serious reputational harm had been caused or that the statement was protected by the defence of honest opinion. The court rejected that approach, holding that both the existence of serious harm and the actual impact of the statement on public perception could only be resolved through an examination of the evidence. The proceedings were therefore allowed to continue to a full substantive hearing. Defamation Act 2013, section 1; Defamation Act 2013, section 3; Civil Procedure Rules, rule 24.3; Civil Procedure Rules, rule 3.4 .

The proceedings concerned a libel claim against a theatre company arising from a press statement in which the claimant was accused of verbally abusing Jewish audience members after a performance and aggressively demanding that they leave the theatre. The antisemitism-related core issue was whether the statement should be understood as alleging, as a matter of fact, antisemitic conduct, or as expressing a value judgment about the claimant’s behaviour. The Court determined, as preliminary issues, that the description of the incident constituted an allegation of fact (Chase Level 1), whereas the characterisation of the conduct as intimidating, antisemitic, unacceptable, and inconsistent with the theatre’s values amounted to an expression of opinion; furthermore, the reference to police involvement implied that there were grounds for a criminal investigation. Defamation Act 2013, ss. 1, 3

Property dispute arising from post-war restitution proceedings in which allegations of antisemitism were raised during civil litigation. The State Treasury sought to invalidate a settlement transferring property to a Jewish religious municipality. Arguments invoking antisemitism and the Holocaust were expressly rejected by the appellate court as legally irrelevant and abusive. The court held that historical suffering cannot replace statutory requirements and dismissed the State’s claim solely on property-law grounds, namely the municipality’s acquisition of ownership by prescription.

Art. 10 Act on Land and Mortgage Registers and Mortgage

Art. 172, Art. 5, Art. 58, Art. 316 § 1, Art. 123 Civil Code

Act of 20 February 1997 on the relationship between the State and Jewish religious communities in Poland

Defamation - The High Court dealt with defamation claims brought by Labour donor Dale Vince against Paul Staines and Richard Tice over their reporting on his alleged comments about Hamas.Staines claimed in an article that Vince had described Hamas as ‘freedom fighters’.Tice also published a tweet in which he portrayed Vince as a supporter of Hamas.The court ruled that these publications were defamatory because they attributed positions to Vince that, in the court's opinion, he had not held.

The case concerns a defamation claim brought by Dale Vince OBE against media commentators in relation to publications and online statements. The Court examined the pleaded meanings of the statements, which the claimant alleged portrayed him as supporting Hamas and endorsing antisemitic violence, and considered whether those meanings were capable of being defamatory in law.

Defamation - The libel suit brought by John Ware against Roger Waters centred on the distinction between what constitutes opinion and what counts as a statement of fact in legal terms.The court viewed the description of Ware as a ‘Zionist mouthpiece’ as an exaggerated but permissible expression of opinion in the context of his critical reporting.However, it ruled that the statement that Ware supported ‘genocide’ was an unsubstantiated factual claim.The ruling clearly defines the line between sharp political criticism and impermissible defamation.

Civil proceedings concerning alleged antisemitic portrayal of the Polish underground resistance in a television series. Former resistance members and their association challenged a film that depicted the group as antisemitic and complicit in the Holocaust. The Supreme Court recognised the particular sensitivity and potential harm of attributing antisemitic traits to a historically identifiable group in the Polish context and referred questions to the CJEU on jurisdiction, highlighting the need for effective protection against collective stigmatisation while balancing freedom of expression.

Art. 23, Art. 24, Art. 43 Civil Code

Art. 1099, Art. 398¹³ Code of Civil Procedure

Art. 5(3) Regulation (EC) No 44/2001

Art. 267 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Art. 8 European Convention on Human Rights

Protection of personal rights in relation to the use of the expression “Polish extermination camp Treblinka.” A former Auschwitz prisoner challenged a foreign media publication for falsely attributing Nazi crimes to Poland, arguing that the wording distorted Holocaust history and violated his personal and national dignity. The Supreme Court held that such expressions carry serious defamatory potential and annulled the appellate decision for failing to properly assess Polish courts’ jurisdiction over harm suffered in Poland, remitting the case for reconsideration.

Art. 7(2) Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012

Art. 1099 § 1, Art. 397 § 11, Art. 387 § 3, Art. 398¹⁵ § 1 Code of Civil Procedure

This case concerns a libel claim by Dale Vince against Lord Bailey of Paddington arising from comments made on GB News and a crowdfunding website following a Times Radio interview about Hamas. The High Court considered the natural and ordinary meaning of the statements and whether they were capable of amounting to honest opinion. While rejecting the truth defence, the court held that an honest person could have held the opinion alleged and therefore refused the defendant’s application for summary judgment, allowing the claim to proceed to trial.

The case concerns an appeal by Gary Mond against a decision of the Charity Commission for England and Wales disqualifying him from acting as a charity trustee. In setting out the factual background, the Tribunal records that the appellant had long-standing involvement in Jewish charitable organisations, including organisations concerned with Jewish communal affairs, and that the Commission’s decision related to concerns arising from his conduct, including social media activity; the Tribunal examined the lawfulness of the disqualification

Judicial review of heritage protection of a former Jewish cemetery destroyed during the Holocaust. The case concerned the inclusion of privately owned land in a heritage register as a former Jewish cemetery, based on its historical link to antisemitic persecution and Jewish burial traditions despite the absence of visible remains. While recognising that Jewish cemeteries retain protected status even after wartime destruction, the court annulled the administrative decision because the factual basis for defining the cemetery’s boundaries was insufficiently substantiated and disproportionately affected property rights.

Art. 3(1), Art. 4, Art. 6(1)(f), Art. 6(1)(h), Art. 22(2) Act on the Protection and Care of Historic Monuments

Art. 14(1), Art. 14a(1)–(2), Art. 15(1) Regulation of the Minister of Culture and National Heritage of 26 May 2011

Art. 3 § 2 point 4, Art. 134 § 1, Art. 146 § 1, Art. 200, Art. 205 § 2 Law on Proceedings before Administrative Courts

Art. 64(3) Constitution of the Republic of Poland