Conviction for Volksverhetzung (§ 130 StGB): a shopkeeper displayed a shop-window sign reading "JUDEN haben hier Hausverbot!!!" ("Jews are banned from entering"); sentenced to six months' imprisonment (suspended). Such an anti-Semitic statement does not fall within the scope of protection afforded by freedom of expression (Article 5(1) of the Basic Law): It undermines the human dignity (Article 1(1) of the Basic Law) of Jews living in Germany by, on the basis of the history of Nazi persecution, denying them any right to social recognition and respect across the board and defaming them as ‘non-persons’.

§ 130 Abs. 1 Nr. 1 und Nr. 2 StGB.

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

Judgment on the merits: the police dissolution and prohibition of the "Palästina-Kongress 2024 – Wir klagen an!" (organized by "Jüdische Stimme für gerechten Frieden in Nahost") was unlawful because the police failed to sufficiently examine less intrusive alternatives (e.g., excluding individual speakers) before a total ban.

§ 22 Abs 1 Nr 3 VersammlFrhG BE, § 4 Abs 1 S 1 VersammlFrhG BE, § 4 Abs 2 VersammlFrhG BE, Art 8 Abs 1 GG, Art 5 Abs 1 GG

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

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

Held that a blanket ban on disputing Israel's right to exist is unlawful per se, as such statements alone do not fulfil a criminal offence and are generally protected by freedom of expression; distinguished from slogans like "Yalla, yalla, Intifada" (lawfully banned) and left open the criminal-law status of "From the river to the sea".

§ 86a Abs. 1 Nr. 1 i.V.m. § 86 Abs. 1 und 2 StGB

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

Interim relief proceeding: court held that denying Israel's right to exist during a pro-Palestinian assembly likely constitutes a prohibited symbol of Hamas (§ 86a StGB) and may fulfil §§ 130, 140 StGB; upheld the police prohibition of the slogan.

VersG NRW § 13 Abs. 1 S. 1, GG Art. 5, Art. 8; StGB §§ 86a Abs. 1 Nr. 1 i.V.m. 86 Abs. 1, Abs. 2 , StGB §§ 86a Abs. 3 i.V.m. 86 Abs. 4; StGB § 130 Abs. 1, StGB § 140 Nr. 2

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

Rejected the State of Berlin's application for leave to appeal against VG Berlin's judgment (24 K 493/24, political-activity ban unlawful) for failure to meet statutory pleading requirements.

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

Interim proceeding on assembly conditions requiring organizers to announce restrictions (incl. on "From the river to the sea") at the start of a rally; court discussed the ambiguity of the slogan and its potential relevance under § 130 StGB.

§§ 86a Nr. 1 i.V.m. § 86 Abs. 1 Nr. 1 , ; § 130 StGB

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

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

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

The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the Employment Tribunal had erred in its assessment of several race harassment claims under the Equality Act 2010. One allegation concerned the circulation in a workplace WhatsApp group of a beer advertisement depicting a “pure” utopia inhabited only by white blonde people, which the claimant associated with Nazi racial purity ideology. The EAT held that the advertisement was capable of being related to race and remitted the harassment claim for redetermination.

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

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.

Continued the court's line of case law (following its 2023 lead decision) on the classification of denying Israel's right to exist as antisemitic symbolism potentially attributable to Hamas within assembly-law danger prognoses.

§ 20 Abs. 1 Satz 1 Nr. 5 VereinsG, § 86 Abs. 1 Nr. 1 i.V.m. § 86 Abs. 2 StGB

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

Mme [Y], a French national who obtained her lawyer’s proficiency certificate (CAPA) in October 2023, applied for registration at the Paris Bar in November 2023. The Bar Council refused her application in December 2023, ruling that she failed to meet the moral requirements of the profession. During 2023, while an active trainee, she published numerous messages on X (formerly Twitter) expressing "unconditional support" for Hamas and disseminating antisemitic tropes,. These included calls for the dissolution of the CRIF (labeled as a "terrorist, Zionist organization") and messages stating opposition to "almost all Jews in France" who support Israel. She had previously been convicted of apology for terrorism for these posts (a decision currently under appeal). The Court of Appeal confirmed the Bar Council's decision in its entirety. The refusal of Mme [Y]'s registration to the Bar was upheld as a necessary and proportionate measure to maintain the honor and integrity of the profession,.

The appellant challenged a decision of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal striking him off the Roll of Solicitors for publishing numerous antisemitic and offensive posts on social media. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Tribunal had been entitled to conclude that the tweets were antisemitic and that regulating such speech was a justified and proportionate interference with the appellant’s freedom of expression.

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.

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 Court of Appeal overturned the first-instance decision, holding that the use of the word "notamment" ("in particular") in the indictment did not render it invalid under the French Press Law, as the charges were sufficiently precise. The court further found that videos posted on TikTok glorifying Nazi extermination camps and inciting hatred against Jews constituted both public incitement to hatred and public advocacy of crimes against humanity.

Loi du 29 juillet 1881 sur la liberté de la presse)

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

The decision concerns the use of the slogan “From the river to the sea” at a demonstration. The court held that, in the specific context of the case, the slogan was not used as a Hamas symbol within the meaning of § 86a StGB but as an expression of solidarity with Palestinians in the Gaza war. The decision emphasises the contextual interpretation of speech in light of freedom of expression. § 86a StGB Art. 5 Abs. 1 S. 1 GG

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 decision concerns social media posts describing “Zionists” as criminals, terrorists and genocidaires and the question whether these statements constituted incitement to hatred. The court held that the term “Zionists” was context-dependent and could refer to criticism of the State of Israel or its government rather than to Jews as a protected group under § 130 StGB. The conviction for incitement to hatred was therefore overturned, with particular emphasis on freedom of expression and the need to consider alternative interpretations of ambiguous statements § 130 StGB

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

Revision judgment: the 2019 Bundestag resolution condemning the BDS movement as antisemitic is a "simple parliamentary resolution" not subject to review by administrative courts; jurisdiction lies with constitutional courts only. Clarified administrative-court remedies remain open against individual implementing measures.

§ 40 VwGO; § 17a Abs. 5 GVG

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 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.

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

The decision concerns a Facebook post depicting the Auschwitz gate with the slogan “Impfen macht frei” (“Vaccination sets you free”) in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Federal Court of Justice held that the image trivialised the Holocaust by equating public health measures and vaccination policies with the persecution and extermination of Jews under National Socialism. The conviction for incitement to hatred was upheld, and the court also noted the antisemitic conspiracy narrative conveyed by the depiction of Bill Gates.

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

The case concerns property that had belonged to a family whose members were largely murdered during the Holocaust, with the surviving heirs settling in Israel. The court held that the post-war administration of the property by the State Treasury did not extinguish the rights of the Holocaust survivors and their heirs, rejecting the State Treasury’s claim to ownership by acquisitive prescription because it had acted only as a statutory administrator rather than as an owner.

Art. 172, Art. 336, Art. 338, Art. 339 Civil Code

Art. 386(1), Art. 520(3) Code of Civil Procedure

The case concerns family law proceedings on child support, in which the court took into account the mother’s use of abusive language, including the term “parch,” a historically antisemitic slur; although the case did not involve hate speech as a separate legal issue, the court treated the use of such antisemitic and vulgar expressions as evidence of aggressive behavior and a harmful environment for the children, contributing to a negative assessment of her parental conduct and its impact on the children’s well being.

Art. 133 §1, Art. 135 §1, Art. 138 Family and Guardianship Code

The case concerns the dissemination of an antisemitic conspiracy message in a Telegram group, alleging that Jews were involved in child abuse, satanic rituals, global manipulation and plans to trigger a third world war. The court found that the message incited hatred against Jews and denied them equal standing within society by portraying them as non-human and inherently criminal. The defendant was convicted of incitement to hatred for forwarding the message to a group of 39 members. § 130 StGB

Criminal proceedings concerning public insult and defamation committed online and involving explicit antisemitic narratives. The defendant published social-media content insulting and defaming a private prosecutor, including the use of historically antisemitic labels associated with the Holocaust. The court found that the conduct was ideologically motivated, intended to incite hostility and publicly humiliate the victim, and deliberately exploited antisemitic tropes with strong historical and stigmatizing meaning.

Art. 212 § 2, Art. 216 § 2, Art. 11 § 2 and § 3, Art. 212 § 3 Criminal Code

Art. 624 § 1 Code of Criminal Procedure

The case involves the conviction of a 20-year-old female student for approving crimes by distributing flyers shortly after the October 7, 2023, Hamas attacks, and for physical assault and resistance against police officers during a later demonstration. The court had to weigh the limits of freedom of expression regarding specific statements in the flyers versus the criminal offense of endorsing mass murder and terrorism. The defendant distributed flyers in front of a Berlin high school. The front showed a fighter and the text "Palestine bursts its chains". The back described October 7, 2023, as a "historic moment for all liberation struggles of the world" and claimed Palestinian forces had "liberated large areas from the river to the sea". This case clarifies that while general political slogans may be protected, the explicit glorification of specific massacres is a punishable offense.

§ 140 No. 2 StGB (Approving Crimes), §§ 113, 114 StGB (Resistance and Assault on Law Enforcement), Art. 5 GG (Freedom of Expression), §§ 1, 105 JGG (Juvenile Justice Act).

The case concerns the validity of an extraordinary (without notice) termination of a long-term employee (a locksmith) following several antisemitic and violence-glorifying posts on his private Facebook account (asking where the next "demo against Jews" in North Rhine-Westphalia would take place). The core legal issue was whether a private, off-duty statement constitutes "good cause" for dismissal if the employee’s profile establishes a visible link to the employer’s brand. The court concluded that while the plaintiff's private statements were reprehensible, the employer's interests did not outweigh the employee's interest in continued employment to the point of immediate termination. A warning would have been the appropriate and sufficient response to address the breach of the duty of consideration. The plaintiff was ordered to be reinstated.

§ 626 BGB (Termination for Good Cause), § 241 II BGB (Duty of Consideration), Art. 5 GG (Freedom of Expression), §§ 130, 140 StGB (Criminal Code).

The case concerns the legality of a complete ban issued by the city of Frankfurt against a pro-Palestinian demonstration titled "For a Free Palestine – Victory belongs to Justice," which was scheduled to take place on October 7, 2024—the first anniversary of the Hamas terror attacks on Israel. The court granted the applicant’s urgent request to restore the suspensive effect of her objection, effectively overturning the ban. The respondent (the city of Frankfurt) banned the assembly, arguing that the date of October 7 is a uniquely sensitive day of mourning for the victims of the Hamas massacre. The authorities claimed that a pro-Palestinian demonstration on this specific day would be an "absolute provocation" and a threat to public order and social peace. The court held that the authorities relied on political considerations and speculation rather than concrete facts. While the applicant had made controversial statements in the past, her most recent assemblies had been peaceful. The court emphasized that a person’s political views or past investigations do not justify a total ban on their right to assemble.

HV Art. 14; HVersFG § 14 Abs. 2 S. 1; GG Art. 8 Abs. 1

The VG Düsseldorf ruled that a restriction prohibiting the slogan "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" at a public assembly was lawful to avert an immediate threat to public safety under § 13 (1) VersG NRW. The court classified the slogan as a prohibited symbol of the terrorist organization HAMAS (§ 86a StGB) and the banned association Samidoun (§ 20 VereinsG), emphasizing that its use in the current political context frequently serves as an action directly in favor of these organizations. A concrete danger prognosis was justified by the organizer's and participants' demonstrated personal and ideological proximity to the dissolved and extremist "Palästina Solidarität Duisburg" (PSDU) as well as Samidoun.

VersG NRW § 13 Abs. 1 S. 1; GG Art. 5, Art. 8; StGB §§ 86a Abs. 1 Nr. 1 i.V.m. 86 Abs. 1, Abs. 2; StGB §§ 86a Abs. 3 i.V.m. 86 Abs. 4; VereinsG §§ 20 Abs. 1 S. 1 Nr. 5 i.V.m. 9 Abs. 1, Abs. 2; VereinsG §§ 20 Abs. 1 S. 2 i.V.m. 9 Abs. 1 S. 2

The High Court granted Queen Mary University of London a summary possession order in respect of part of its Mile End campus following an unauthorised student protest encampment. The court held that the occupation amounted to trespass and that reliance on rights to freedom of expression and assembly did not constitute a defence to the possession claim, particularly in light of significant operational disruption and safety concerns relating to upcoming graduation ceremonies.

Alan David Sokal appealed against the refusal to disclose an unredacted university report under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The report concerned, among other matters, the initial withdrawal of an invitation to a Holocaust Memorial Week event on the state of antisemitism. The Tribunal upheld the refusal, finding that parts of the report were exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.

Interim relief (référé-liberté) proceeding: rejected the applications of the Ligue des droits de l'homme and the Fédération départementale des libres penseurs de l'Hérault against the Préfet de l'Hérault's order banning pro-Palestinian rallies in Montpellier and Béziers, finding the ban proportionate to the risk of public-order disturbance.

Emergency suspension of an administrative decree banning demonstrations (référé-liberté) under Article L. 521-2 of the Code of Administrative Justice (CJA)

The VGH Munich upheld the prohibition of the slogan "From the river to the sea" during a public assembly, ruling that its use in this specific context fulfills the criminal elements of using symbols of terrorist organizations under § 86a StGB. According to the sources, an organizational link to the banned group HAMAS is established for an unbiased observer if the action appears to be directly in favor of the organization. Such a link does not require formal membership of the assembly leader but can be derived from a lack of distancing from HAMAS’s terrorist acts and the organizational support by groups that publicly glorified the October 7 attack.

VWGO § 80 Abs. 5, § 146 Abs. 1; BayVersG Art. 15 Abs. 1; GG Art. 5 Abs. 1 S. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 1; VereinsG § 20

The case concerns a neighbourhood conflict involving assault and insults, including antisemitic language directed at one party; the appellate court largely upheld the judgment, finding that the insult occurred immediately after a physical attack and thus had a reactive character, emphasising that even offensive expressions must be assessed in context, while rejecting self defence claims, identifying the other party as the initiator of violence, and recognising diminished responsibility of one defendant due to mental disturbances.

Art. 157 § 2, Art. 31 § 2, Art. 25 § 1, 2a, Art. 216 § 3 Criminal Code

Art. 7, Art. 438 pkt 2, 3, Art. 439, Art. 440, Art. 624 § 1 Code of Criminal Procedure

The case concerns the criminal conviction of a 22-year-old German-Iranian student for approving crimes under § 140 StGB,. The defendant shouted the slogan "From the River to the Sea – Palestine will be free" during an unauthorized assembly in Berlin just four days after the Hamas terrorist attacks on Israel. The court concluded that her actions were intended to legitimize the killings and kidnappings as a perceived "political liberation struggle".

StGB § 140 Abs. 1 Nr. 2

A restriction on freedom of assembly (in this case: a ban on assembly) may be justified in individual cases on the basis of the sole slogan of the assembly, ‘From the river to the sea – Palestine will be free’, provided that any interpretation that would not be punishable can be ruled out in the individual case. In individual cases, the assembly authority may base its discretion to ban an assembly on the fact that the applicant has refused to change such a sole assembly slogan as discussed in the cooperation meeting and that, as the assembly authority, it is not entitled to, to impose an alternative assembly slogan on the organiser or to order that the assembly be held without a slogan.

VwGO § 80 Abs. 5; VwGO § 146 Abs. 1 ;GG Art. 5 Abs. 1 ;GG Art. 8 Abs. 1; SächsVersG § 15; StGB § 86a Abs. 1 Nr. 1 i.V.m. § 86 Abs. 2

On January 27, 2024, during a demonstration titled "Freiheit für Palästina" in Hamburg, the two defendants loudly chanted the slogan "From the sea to the river, Palestine will live forever". The Public Prosecutor's Office issued penal orders, alleging that the first part of this chant was confusingly similar the prohibited slogan "From the river to the sea". The court held that the phrase "From the river to the sea – Palestine will be free" does not qualify as a prohibited symbol under § 86a StGB.

Public use of symbols of unconstitutional and terrorist organizations (§ 86a StGB in connection with § 86 StGB); Freedom of expression (Art. 5 Abs. 1 GG).

Validity of an extraordinary summary dismissal (außerordentliche fristlose Kündigung) of a professional football player due to posts on Instagram

Freedom of expression (Article 5, Paragraph 1 of the German Basic Law - GG); Duty of consideration and loyalty (§ 626 and § 241 Paragraph 2 of the German Civil Code - BGB)

The VG Berlin confirmed the legality of a restriction on a public assembly prohibiting the slogan "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free," citing an immediate threat to public safety. The court found a sufficient suspicion of criminal liability under §§ 86a, 86 StGB and § 20 VereinsG, as the slogan is utilized as a symbol of the banned organizations HAMAS and Samidoun in the current assembly context. A concrete danger prognosis was justified by the applicant's failure to expressly distance themselves from HAMAS and their demonstrated proximity to other prohibited extremist groups.

VwGO § 80 Abs. 3 S. 1; VersFG BE § 14 Abs. 1; VersammlG § 15 Abs. 1; GG Art. 5 Abs. 1, Abs. 2; StGB § 86a Abs. 1 Nr. 1, § 86 Abs. 2; VereinsG § 20 Abs. 1 S. 1 Nr. 5

The University of Birmingham obtained a summary possession order to remove a student-led protest encampment from its campus. The High Court rejected arguments of discrimination and breaches of freedom of expression and assembly, holding that the decision was not motivated by the protesters’ views, that the University had complied with its public sector equality duty and statutory free-speech obligations, and that the occupation constituted trespass. Possession was granted and extended to the wider campus to prevent relocation.

This case concerned a claim by the University of Nottingham for summary possession of land on its Jubilee Campus following an unauthorised pro-Palestinian protest encampment. The defendants argued that eviction would unlawfully interfere with statutory free-speech protections and rights to peaceful assembly. The High Court rejected those arguments, holding that the encampment constituted trespass and that the University’s decision to seek possession was a lawful and proportionate response to the unauthorised occupation. The court granted summary possession, finding no realistic defence to the claim.

The case concerns a financial penalty imposed on a radio broadcaster for allegedly antisemitic content, based on statements interpreted by the regulator as demeaning Holocaust victims; the court annulled the decision, holding that the finding of antisemitism resulted from a misinterpretation and decontextualization of the broadcast, emphasising that the contested phrase did not refer to Jewish victims or any protected group, and that accusations of antisemitism must be based on clear and direct content rather than speculative associations, as overbroad interpretations risk infringing freedom of expression.

Art. 18(1), Art. 53 Broadcasting Act

Art. 54 Constitution of the Republic of Poland

Art. 10 European Convention on Human Rights

The VGH Munich overturned a lower court's decision and suspended a restriction that prohibited the slogan "From the river to the sea" at a public assembly, ruling the ban disproportionate and a violation of the freedoms of assembly and expression (Art. 8, Art. 5 GG). The court clarified that the slogan's inclusion in the Federal Ministry of the Interior's list regarding HAMAS does not automatically render its use criminal; instead, criminal liability under §§ 86, 86a StGB depends on individual circumstances and a demonstrable organizational link. In this specific case, the city failed to provide evidence for a pro-terrorist context, as the assembly’s theme focused on "peace and freedom for all" and the organizer had no known extremist ties.

VwGO § 80 Abs. 5, § 146 Abs. 1; BayVersG Art. 15 Abs. 1; GG Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 1; StGB § 86, § 86a; VereinsG § 20

The proceedings concerned a defamation claim arising from a tweet in which statements made by an unnamed Member of Parliament were described as dangerous, antisemitic, anti-scientific, and conspiratorial in the context of vaccinations. The antisemitism-related core issue was whether the tweet should be understood as attributing antisemitism as a matter of fact to an identifiable individual, or merely as a sharply worded political opinion about the nature of the statements made. The court held, as preliminary issues, that the tweet was predominantly an expression of opinion directed at the content of the statements rather than at the individual as an antisemite, with only the fact that something had been said being classified as a factual assertion. Defamation Act 2013, section 1; Defamation Act 2013, section 3; Human Rights Act 1998, section 12.

The VGH Mannheim upheld a restriction prohibiting the slogan "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" during a public assembly, ruling that its use posed an immediate threat to public safety under § 15 Abs. 1 VersG. Consequently, the restriction of the freedoms of assembly and expression (Art. 8, Art. 5 GG) was deemed proportionate, as the public interest in preventing irreversible criminal acts and effectively enforcing organizational bans outweighs the organizer's interest in using that specific wording.

GG Art. 8; VersG § 15 Abs. 1; VwGO § 80 Abs. 5

The case involves the criminal conviction of a defendant for several posts on her public Instagram account between August 2022 and October 2023. The posts included antisemitic incitement (for example: Posting a photo of Jewish worshippers at the Al-Aqsa Mosque with the caption: "A suicide attack there would be commendable, by Allah"), the glorification of the October 7 Hamas attacks, and calls for violent riots in Berlin. The defendant, who acted out of anti-Semitic motives, wanted to use this post to call on all those who had access to her Instagram account to kill people of the Jewish faith or Israeli nationality in Germany and elsewhere. The court found the defendant guilty of incitement to hatred, public solicitation of crimes, and the approval of crimes.

StGB § 86 Abs. 1, Abs. 2, Abs. 3, § 111 Abs. 1 und 2, § 130 Abs. 1 Nrn. 1 und 2, § 140 Nr. 2, 52, 53, 74

The case concerns a possession claim by the University of Birmingham against student protesters who set up encampments on university land during Gaza-related protests. The Court considered licensing and protest rights in relation to property rights and granted possession for certain areas.

Conviction for incitement to hatred (Volksverhetzung) under § 130 Abs. 3 StGB for publishing an image of a concentration-camp gate captioned "Impfen macht frei" ("vaccination sets you free"), held to trivialize the Nazi genocide of European Jews.

§ 130 Abs. 3 StGB.

Criminal-appeal decision on the interpretation of § 86a StGB in conjunction with association-ban law regarding use of Hamas-attributable symbols/slogans at demonstrations.

Art 5 Abs 1 S 1 GG, § 86 Abs 1 Nr 1 StGB, § 86 Abs 1 Nr 2 StGB, § 86 Abs 1 Nr 4 StGB, § 86 Abs 2 StGB, § 86 Abs 4 StGB, § 86a Abs 1 Nr 1 StGB, § 86a Abs 2 StGB, § 86a Abs 3 StGB

Criminal liability for promoting a fascist system through Nazi symbolism with inherent antisemitic meaning. The accused participated in producing audiovisual materials featuring Nazi gestures and swastika imagery intended for online dissemination. The Court of Appeal held that such symbolism is inseparable from the antisemitic and genocidal ideology of National Socialism and constitutes public promotion of a fascist system. The use of Nazi symbols was treated as inherently antisemitic and significantly aggravating due to Poland’s historical experience of the Holocaust.

Art. 256 § 1 and § 2, Art. 258 § 1 Criminal Code

The case concerns a Jewish cemetery and a challenge by a Jewish religious organisation to its removal from part of the heritage register; the administrative court rejected the complaint without examining the merits, holding that the organisation lacked legal standing because such registry actions are technical measures involving only the property owner, and that although the case related to Jewish cultural and religious heritage, the organisation could only participate in earlier formal administrative proceedings, not in this type of action.

Art. 22 Act on the Protection of Monuments and the Guardianship of Monuments

Art. 3 § 2, Art. 50 § 1, Art. 58 § 1 Code of Administrative Procedure before Administrative Courts

§ 14, § 15 Regulation of the Minister of Culture and National Heritage (26 May 2011)

On June 22, 2022, a mural was discovered on a transformer building in Avignon, signed by the artist "Lekto". The mural depicted a puppet theater where a Pinocchio puppet with the face of President Emmanuel Macron was being manipulated by a man in a suit with the face of Jacques A.,. Below the scene was the title "LA BETE 2 ; L'EVENEMENT" (The Beast 2; The Event),. A photo of the work was also posted on Instagram. The court had to deal with the question whether the representation of a Jewish public figure as a "puppeteer" of the President constitute an antisemitic insult or a provocation to hatred. The court emphasized that freedom of expression includes ideas that may be shocking or disturbing, especially in the context of political satire. Analysis of Symbols: The court found that the man's face was based on a well-known public photograph and was not distorted or caricatured with traditional antisemitic features (e.g., money bags, Stars of David, or exaggerated facial traits). The Court confirmed the acquittal of Léonard P.,. It ruled that the mural, while satirical, did not contain an exhortation to hatred or discrimination and did not constitute a criminal insult based on religion.

ART.33 AL.3, ART, 23 A.L.1. ART.29 AL, 2, ART.42 LOI DU 29/07/1881. ART93-3 LOI 82-652 DU 29/07/1982 et réprimés par ART.33 AL.3, AL.6, AL.7 LOI DU 29/07/1881.

Conditions imposed on a public assembly (Auflagen für eine Versammlung) - the authority's appeal against the first-instance decision in the expedited proceedings in favor of the organizer of a pro-Palestinian demonstration is partially successful.

Art. 8 GG; § 15 I VersammlG

Conditions imposed on a public assembly (Auflagen für eine Versammlung) - the court granted interim relief restoring suspensive effect against conditions (Auflagen) on a pro-Palestinian assembly, holding that the banned expressions (“From the river to the sea. Palestine will be free,” “Child murderer Israel,” and an image of Israel in Palestinian colors) were unlikely to constitute criminal offenses.

Art. 8 GG; § 15 I VersammlG

The case concerns a refusal to grant veteran status based on alleged wartime assistance to Jews, where the applicant relied on his family’s actions in hiding Jewish persons during the occupation; the court upheld the refusal, holding that as a young child he could not have consciously and intentionally provided such assistance, and that the statutory concept of aiding Jews requires personal and deliberate action which cannot be attributed to a minor lacking awareness.

Art. 2 point 31 Act on Combatants

Art. 7, Art. 8, Art. 75 § 1, Art. 77 § 1 Code of Administrative Procedure

Art. 133 § 1, Art. 134 § 1, Art. 145, Art. 151 Law on Proceedings before Administrative Courts

Following the terrorist attacks by Hamas on October 7, 2023, and the subsequent Israeli military response, the daily newspaper Ouest-France published a front page with the headline "Gaza under bombs" (Gaza sous les bombes). On October 10, 2023, an anonymous user under the handle @chacha28011 posted a tweet featuring a portrait of the plaintiff, [C]-[S] [W], alongside the journal's front page. The tweet stated that [W] "assumes his islamo-leftism and his most abject antisemitism" and referred to him and the staff as "traitors in the pay of the Foreigner" and "journaleux". M. [W] sought a court order for X to delete the tweet, provide the user's identification data, and pay damages. While the court acknowledged the remarks were "outrageous" (outranciers), it ruled that they did not constitute a manifest abuse of freedom of expression.

des articles 6 I 8 de la loi pour la confiance en l’économie numérique du 21 juin 2004 (LCEN) modifiée, 29 alinéa 1er et 32 alinéa 1er de la loi du 29 juillet 1881, 223-1-1 du code pénal et 839 et 481-1 du code de procédure civile

The case concerns an urgent application for preliminary legal protection against content-based restrictions imposed on a pro-Palestinian demonstration titled "Demo against arms deliveries to Israel". The court was asked to decide whether the city of Bremen could preemptively ban specific slogans and symbols based on concerns regarding public safety and potential criminal acts. Specifically challenged were the bans on images of the Israeli state territory filled with the colors of the Palestinian flag, the slogan "From the River to the sea. Palestine will be free." and The slogan "Kindermörder Israel" (Israel child-murderer). The court granted the applicant's request and reinstated the suspensive effect of her objection, finding the restrictions likely unlawful. The court emphasized that when restrictions target the content of a speech, the interpretation must favor freedom of expression. If an utterance is ambiguous and has non-criminal interpretations, the court must adopt the interpretation that is not punishable.

VersG § 15 Abs. 1; StGB § 130 Abs. 1, § 126 Abs. 1 Nr. 3, § 140; GG Art. 8

The case concerned an appeal relating to a Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) request addressed to the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) following its report on antisemitism in the Labour Party. The antisemitism-related core arose from questions about the EHRC’s treatment of evidence concerning alleged antisemitic comments and whether a passage in its report reflected a drafting error or a factual finding. The Upper Tribunal held that the appellant’s communication did not constitute a valid “request for information” within the meaning of s. 8(1)(c) FOIA, as it sought clarification, opinion, or reconsideration rather than recorded information held by the authority. Although the First-tier Tribunal had erred procedurally by striking out the appeal on a ground not raised by the parties, the Upper Tribunal re-made the decision and struck out the appeal because it had no reasonable prospect of success. Freedom of Information Act 2000, ss. 1(1), 8(1); Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, s. 12; Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009, r. 8(3)(c), 8(4).

In 2014, the applicant, who worked for a Holocaust remembrance association, was harassed by a man (B.) after she declined his romantic advances. B. sent her 26 emails containing death threats, threats of rape, and violent antisemitic insults. The French authorities initially opened an investigation into "antisemitic insults" and "death threats". However, the prosecutor eventually chose to prosecute B. via an immediate appearance procedure (comparution immédiate) only for "simple" death threats, omitting the antisemitic motive from the formal charges. Despite repeated requests from the applicant to reclassify the acts to include the antisemitic aggravation (under Art. 222-18-1 CP), the French courts convicted B. only of the simple threats. The Court of Appeal acknowledged the antisemitic nature of the remarks but refused to reclassify them, arguing that it would violate the defendant's rights as he was not present to debate the heavier charges. The Cour de cassation declared the applicant's appeal inadmissible.

The ECHR unanimously found a violation of Article 8 in combination with Article 14. By ignoring the antisemitic dimension, the authorities failed to recognize the applicant's status as a "Jewish victim" and failed to apply the appropriate higher penalties, which compromised the effective protection against hate speech.

Violation of Article 8 (Right to respect for private life) combined with Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination) of the ECHR; Positive obligations of the state to provide effective protection against antisemitic speech; Article Art. 222-18-1 Code Pénal

Defamation - Wilson v Mendelsohn concerns a dispute over offensive and defamatory posts on social media that arose from a personal dispute and were later disseminated publicly. The parties involved were engaged in a public debate on antisemitism, Israel and Zionism, to which the online posts referred. The High Court dealt exclusively with the civil law question of whether the publications were unlawful and did not make any decision on the substantive assessment of antisemitism.

Whether the use of the slogan ‘From the river to the sea’ in the context of a gathering constitutes a criminal offence cannot be conclusively answered in the summary examination required in summary proceedings and with the limited means of investigation available. On this basis, it is permissible to weigh up the interests of the respective applicant in using the slogan against the public interest in preventing this, and to evaluate them. This weighing up of interests is in favour of the public interest and thus against the use of the slogan at a public assembly.

GG Art. 8; VersG BW § 15 Abs. 1; VwGO § 80 Abs. 5

The case includes Facebook posts containing antisemitic rhetoric alongside pro-Russian and xenophobic content. While the court acknowledged that the antisemitic statements were socially harmful and offensive, it held that they were not the subject of the prosecution and did not establish the specific intent required for the offence of publicly praising a war of aggression.

Art. 117 § 3, Art. 12 § 1 Criminal Code

Art. 7, Art. 410, Art. 99a § 1, Art. 193, Art. 636 § 1,

Art. 54 Constitution of the Republic of Poland

Art. 10(2) European Convention on Human Rights

Art. 19 and Art. 20(1) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

The court ruled that restricting the slogan ‘From the river to the sea, ...’ under assembly law during a pro-Palestinian demonstration is unlawful, as it does not constitute a criminal offence and therefore does not endanger public safety.

In its reasoning, the court states that expressions of opinion are only relevant under assembly law if they constitute a criminal offence. The slogan ‘From the river to the sea, ...’ is not uniformly considered punishable in case law and literature. After a summary examination, the court found that the slogan was not punishable under Sections 140 No. 2, 111, 130 (1) of the German Criminal Code (StGB) or Section 20 (1) sentence 1 No. 5 of the German Association Act (VereinsG). The slogan as such does not contain a compelling call for armed struggle against Israel and can also be understood as criticism of Israeli policy.

GG Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 8; HVersFG § 14 Abs. 1; StGB § 111, § 130 Abs. 1, § 140 Nr. 2; VereinsG § 20 Abs. 1

The court upheld the decision of the Administrative Court of Frankfurt am Main to restore the suspensive effect of the appeal against restrictions on the right of assembly, as there was no sufficient threat to public safety posed by the planned statements at the pro-Palestine rally.

The restrictions on freedom of assembly imposed by the respondent, which prohibited the chanting of certain slogans, were deemed manifestly unlawful by the court. The court stated that a concrete threat to public safety or order that would justify a restriction cannot be based solely on the political and legal conflict potential of the Middle East conflict. Rather, there must be concrete indications of a high probability of harm occurring. The respondent was unable to provide such indications. In addition, it was found that freedom of expression under Article 5 of the Basic Law and freedom of assembly under Article 8 of the Basic Law are high-ranking legal interests that cannot be restricted on the basis of mere assumptions. In particular, in the case of ambiguous statements, the interpretation that is still covered by freedom of expression must be taken as a basis. The court emphasized that in the event of criminally relevant slogans being used during the assembly, the competent authorities must take the necessary measures depending on the situation.

VereinsG § 9 Abs. 1 S. 2, § 20 Abs. 1 S. 1 Nr. 1; GG Art. 5, Art. 8; HVersFG § 14 Abs. 1; StGB § 111, § 126, § 130

This case involves an urgent legal challenge against restrictions imposed on a pro-Palestinian assembly titled "Stop the war in Gaza Save Rafah," scheduled for March 23, 2024, in Frankfurt. The city authorities (the respondent) had issued a decree prohibiting specific slogans and calls, which contain a ban calling for the destruction of Israel and a ban on the slogans "Jews child killers" ("Juden Kindermörder") and "From the river to the sea" (in any language). The Court found that restrictions require an immediate danger to public safety based on concrete and comprehensible facts. The court ruled that mere suspicions, vague conjectures, or the organizer’s affiliation with the non-banned association "Palestine e.V." were insufficient to justify the bans. Regarding the phrase "Jews child killers," the court acknowledged its criminal relevance under § 130 StGB but found no concrete evidence that it would actually be used during this specific assembly, especially since the organizer had distanced herself from antisemitism. The court ruled that the police should instead intervene on-site if such crimes occur rather than banning them preemptively.

§ 14 Abs. 1 HVersFG, Art. 8 Abs. 1 GG, Art. 5 Abs. 1 GG, § 130 StGB, § 86a StGB, § 20 VereinsG

The VG Frankfurt a. M. suspended a restriction that prohibited the slogan "From the river to the sea" at a public assembly, ruling the ban likely unlawful due to an insufficient danger prognosis regarding public safety. The ruling emphasizes that the slogan is multi-interpretable and not exclusively attributable to HAMAS, especially when the organizer explicitly advocates for a peaceful Palestine with equal rights for all. Since no concrete evidence linked the assembly to terrorist goals and the police anticipated a peaceful course, a blanket prohibition was deemed a disproportionate infringement on the freedoms of assembly and expression.

GG Art. 5, Art. 8 Abs. 1; HVersFG § 14 Abs. 1

Defamation – Former MP Andrew Bridgen sued Matthew Hancock for publicly criticising Bridgen's comparison of the Covid vaccination campaign to the Holocaust as an antisemitic conspiracy theory. Hancock was responding to a tweet by Bridgen and described such comparisons as unacceptable. The court clarified that Hancock's statement was not a factual claim about Bridgen's character, but a permissible expression of opinion.

The case concerns the unlawful detention of a participant in a peaceful counter-demonstration opposing the Independence Day march, which she viewed as promoting neo-fascist and antisemitic views. Although the proceedings focused on the legality of her detention rather than antisemitism, the court awarded compensation after finding that the police had unlawfully deprived her of liberty during the anti-fascist protest.

Art. 552 § 4, Art. 554 § 4, Art. 224 Code of Criminal Procedure

Art. 114 § 2, Art. 46 § 2 Code of Procedure in Petty Offence Cases

Art. 244 Code of Criminal Procedure

Art. 65a Code of Petty Offences

Disciplinary proceedings against a pharmacist – he had publicly stated at a rally on Al Quds day in London that the Grenfell fire was also caused by Zionist interests in the Tory party – he has on many other occasions made similar remarks – concerns question whether the comments are offensive and/or antisemitic and whether he is fit to practise pharmacy

Pharmacy Order 2010, Standards for pharmacy professionals, s 29(4) National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Act 2002

Civil liability for online dissemination of Holocaust-denial content and facilitation of hate speech. The case concerned a foundation that republished a private individual’s image alongside a Holocaust-denial statement, triggering antisemitic and dehumanising abuse by third parties. The court held that combating Holocaust denial does not justify exposing a private individual to foreseeable hate and harassment, and that social-media administrators may be liable for maintaining such content. A violation of dignity and the right to image was found, while claims relating to reputation and monetary compensation were rejected.

Art. 6, Art. 23, Art. 24 § 1, Art. 448 Civil Code

Art. 81 § 1 Act on Copyright and Related Rights

Art. 14 § 1 Act on the Provision of Electronic Services

Art. 233 § 1, Art. 350 § 1 and § 3, Art. 385, Art. 386 § 1 and § 6, Art. 100 Code of Civil Procedure

Appeal against a judgement (Berufung gegen ein Urteil) - the defendant was given notice to leave his flat due to anti-Semitic statements; this is not considered effective due to the defendant's schizophrenia; the appeal is unsuccessful.

§ 573 II Nr. 1 BGB

The case concerns inheritance proceedings relating to property owned by a Jewish victim of the Holocaust. The court acknowledged that the Holocaust had disrupted the family’s history and documentation, complicating the identification of lawful heirs, but ultimately convicted the defendant of attempted judicial fraud for concealing earlier inheritance proceedings in an effort to obtain a succession order over the property.

Art. 13(1), Art. 286(1), Art. 294(1), Art. 69(1), Art. 70(1), Art. 72(1)(1) Criminal Code

Art. 627 Code of Criminal Procedure

Revocation of the firearms license (Widerruf von Waffenbesitzkarten) - the court denied the plaintiff’s request to overturn the revocation of two firearm licenses, finding that his membership in the Reichsbürger movement showed he lacked the reliability required under German firearms law.

§ 42 II, 113 I 1 VwGO; §§ 4 i Nr. 2, 5 I Nr. 2, 45, 46 WaffG

Action against dismissal from civil service probationary employment (Klage gegen eine Entlassung aus dem Bemamtenverhältnis auf Probe) – the plaintiff was dismissed because of his membership in a chat group in which antisemitic content was disseminated.

§§ 42 II, 113 I 1, 117 V, 124, 124a, 154 I, 167 II VwGO

Incitement, Artistic Freedom (Incitation, Liberté artistique) - The rapper Freezer Corleone applied for interim legal protection to lift a ban imposed by the Prefect of the Rhône on his planned concert - The Prefect justified the ban on the grounds of the risk of disturbances to public order due to antisemitic statements, apologies for National Socialism and terrorism in the artist's lyrics, especially against the backdrop of current political tensions - The court rejected the application, as the ban was considered proportionate and lawful in view of the serious threat to human dignity and public safety

Art. L. 521-2 du code de justice administrative; Art. 421-2-5 du code pénal

Complaint against a search and seizure order under association law (Beschwerde gegen eine vereinsrechtliche Durchsuchungs- und Beschlagnahmeanordnung) - The court upheld searches tied to the ban of “Die Artgemeinschaft,” finding its racist and antisemitic ideology akin to National Socialism and thus justifying prohibition.

§ 3 Abs. 1, § 4 Abs. 4, § 10 Abs. 2, Abs. 5 S. 2 VereinsG; § 146 Abs. 1 VwGO; Art. 9 GG

This case concerns a judicial review of the allocation of housing by an Orthodox Jewish housing association. The High Court ruled that the allocation practice, which was geared towards the Orthodox Jewish community, was lawful under the exceptions of the Equality Act 2010.

The case concerns allegations linking an academic to antisemitic conspiracy theories through her alleged reliance on the work of Jennifer Bilek, who was described as promoting narratives about Jewish influence over transgender activism. The court held that these characterizations formed part of a broader ideological debate and constituted protected value judgments rather than actionable factual allegations, dismissing the claimant’s claims for defamation.

Art. 23, 24 and 448 Civil Code

Art. 54 Constitution of the Republic of Poland

Art. 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights

Art. 321 § 1 and Art. 98 Code of Civil Procedure

Freedom of speech, Discrimination, Academic Freedom – Concerns the dismissal of a university professor for antizionist teachings – the professor claims unfair and wrongful dismissal – tribunal finds that his antizionists beliefs qualify as a philosophical belief that is protected by law

Section 13 Equality Act 2010; Sections 122(2), 123 (6) Employment Rights Act 1996

Holocaust denial – person accused in France for denying the holocaust files an extradition appeal – court affirms the decision of the Edinburgh Sheriff Court and refuses leave to appeal

sec 64 and 21a Extradition Act 2003

An employee was dismissed after posting a racist joke on the employer’s internal social platform, including the phrase that Mario “grabs coins like a Jew”. The Employment Tribunal initially found the dismissal unfair, but the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses. The case concerns unfair dismissal arising from racist and antisemitic workplace speech.

Injunction (Unterlassungsklage) - the defendant is sued to stop making offensive statements - calling people antisemites or idiots; vilifying criticism.

§§ 823, 1004 BGB; §§ 185, 186 StGB

Exclusion of a party from state funding (Ausschluss einer Partei von der staatlichen Finanzierung) - the Federal Constitutional Court has ruled that the respective party is excluded from state funding for a period of six years - Concerns the NPD/Die Heimat

§ 18 PartG; Art. 21 Abs. 3 Satz 1, Art. 93 Abs. 1 Nr. 5 GG in Verbindung mit § 13 Nr. 2a, §§ 43 ff. BVerfGG

The dispute concerned a request for disclosure of legal advice on the definition of antisemitism relied upon by a regulatory authority when handling complaints against doctors. The antisemitism-related core issue was whether, and on what legal basis, different definitions of antisemitism were applied and whether this gave rise to an overriding public interest in transparency. The Tribunal upheld the refusal of disclosure, finding that the legal advice was protected by legal professional privilege and that the public interest in maintaining that protection outweighed the interest in disclosure. Freedom of Information Act 2000, section 42; Freedom of Information Act 2000, section 2(2)(b).

The case concerned an appeal under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 against a refusal by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to disclose minutes and related documents concerning the choice of location and specification of the UK Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre. The antisemitism-related core lay in the broader policy context of establishing a national Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre, including considerations about how antisemitism and the Holocaust would be addressed in its content. The Tribunal held that the requested information related to the formulation or development of government policy within s. 35(1)(a) FOIA and that the policy remained “live” because planning permission had not been secured and legislative obstacles were still unresolved. Applying the public interest test, the Tribunal found that the need to protect a “safe space” for ongoing policy development outweighed the public interest in disclosure and dismissed the appeal. Freedom of Information Act 2000, s. 35(1)(a), s. 57.

The appellant requested information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 about the estimated costs of the proposed UK Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre. The First-tier Tribunal held that the requested information related to the ongoing formulation of government policy and upheld the refusal to disclose it under section 35(1)(a) FOIA.

Freedom of speech, Incitement (Meinungsfreiheit, Volksverhetzung) - a former AfD Member of Parliament uploaded a video on Facebook in which he compares the measures to contain the COVID-19 pandemic with the 1938 pogroms - the appeal is granted.

Art. 5 I GG; § 130 III StGB

The VG Köln restored the suspensive effect of a lawsuit against a preventive house ban issued by a university to prevent potential disruptions of a lecture by the Israeli ambassador. The court ruled that measures based on university house rights (§ 18 HG NRW) require a viable danger prognosis of future disturbances, which cannot be based on mere "likes" of boycott calls or the previous use of the slogan "From the river to the sea". It further clarified that the intent to ask critical or unpleasant questions during a sanctioned discussion does not constitute a disruption of university operations per se. A house ban was also deemed disproportionate, as the university failed to establish why milder means—such as security checks or removing the person only in the event of an actual disturbance—would be insufficient.

§ 18 Abs. 1 Satz 4 HG NRW.

The case concerns the legality of a search warrant issued against a third party (the appellant) who had registered a pro-Palestinian "solidarity action" in Munich on October 9, 2023. The search was ordered to identify an unknown individual who, via the Instagram account of a local organization linked to the appellant, had posted comments allegedly approving the atrocities committed by Hamas against Israel on October 7, 2023. The Local Court (Amtsgericht) Munich issued a search warrant for the appellant's home and electronic devices, suspecting that these statements constituted the approval of criminal acts (§ 140 No. 2 StGB) and that evidence to identify the unknown poster could be found on the appellant's devices due to his functional relationship with the organization. The appellant filed a complaint, arguing a lack of initial suspicion and a violation of freedom of expression. The Regional Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the search warrant's lawfulness.

"GG Art. 5, Art. 13 StPO § 102, § 103; StGB § 140 Nr. 2 "

Application for restoration of the suspensive effect (Antrag auf Wiederherrstellung der aufschiebenden Wirkung) - The court declared the ban on the demonstration “Stop the Genocide in Gaza! End the Occupation of Palestine!” unlawful. It held that references to criminal provisions alone cannot justify a prohibition; the alleged danger must be concretely linked to statutory elements. Freedom of expression protects even controversial or potentially antisemitic views unless they clearly constitute a criminal offense. Authorities must apply milder measures before imposing a total ban.

GG Art. 8 Abs. 1 HV Art. 14 HVersFG § 14 Abs. 2 S. 1 Alt. 1 HVersFG § 14

Application for restoration of the suspensive effect (Antrag auf Wiederherrstellung der aufschiebenden Wirkung) - The Court allowed a pro-Palestinian assembly but prohibited the slogan “From the river to the sea, you will get the hug you need.” A blanket ban was disproportionate (§ 14 VersFG BE), yet the slogan was deemed potentially criminal (§§ 86a, 86 StGB; § 20 VereinsG).

§ 14 Abs. 1 VersammlFrhG BE; §§ 86a Abs. 1 Nr 1, 86 Abs. 2 StGB; § 20 Abs. 1 S. 1 Nr. 5 VereinsG; § 80 Abs. 5 VwGO