Information Note on the Court’s case-law 41

April 2002

Cisse v. France - 51346/99

Judgment 9.4.2002 [Section II]

Article 11

Article 11-1

Freedom of peaceful assembly

Evacuation by the police of a church occupied for two months by a group of illegal immigrants: no violation

Facts : The applicant was a member of a group of aliens residing in France without residence permits who in 1996 decided to take collective action to draw attention to the difficulties they were having in obtaining a review of their immigration status. Their campaign culminated with the occupation of St Bernard’s Church in Paris by a group of some two hundred illegal immigrants, most of whom w ere of African origin. Ten men within the group decided to go on hunger strike. The movement, known as the “St Bernard sans papiers ”* movement, was supported by several human-rights organisations, some of whose activists decided to sleep on the premises in a show of solidarity with the immigrants’ predicament. After approximately two months the Paris Commissioner of Police signed an order for the total evacuation of the premises. It was made on the grounds that the occupation of the premises was unrelated t o religious worship, there had been a marked deterioration in the already unsatisfactory sanitary conditions, padlocks had been placed on the church exits and there were serious sanitary, health, peace, security and public-order risks. The following mornin g the police set up an identity checkpoint at the church exit, entered the church and proceeded to evacuate it. All the occupants of the church were stopped and questioned. The applicant was subsequently prosecuted and convicted.

Law : Government’s prelimin ary objection (non-exhaustion) – The objection had previously been raised at the admissibility stage and dismissed in the decision on admissibility. Under Article 35 § 4 of the Convention the Court will only reconsider a decision dismissing an objection at the admissibility stage of the application if there is new evidence and exceptional circumstances. Those conditions were not satisfied in the case before it. The objection was therefore dismissed.

Article 11 – Neither the priest nor the parish council had objected to the occupation of their church by the group of illegal immigrants, including the applicant, who had acted collectively to draw attention to the difficulties they were experiencing in obtaining a review of their immigration status in France and the religious services and ceremonies had proceeded without incident. The evacuation of the church had therefore amounted to an interference in the exercise of the right to freedom of peaceful assembly. The interference was prescribed by law and pursued a legitimate aim, namely the prevention of disorder, as the purpose of the evacuation was to bring to an end the continuing occupation of a place of worship by persons who had broken the law. The fact that the applicant was an illegal immigrant did not suff ice to justify the breach of her right to freedom of assembly, as that freedom had already been exercised for two months without intervention on the part of the authorities and peaceful protest against legislation which the person protesting has breached w as not a legitimate aim for a “restriction” on that liberty within the meaning of Article 11 § 2. However, following a two-month occupation of the church, the hunger strikers’ health had deteriorated and the sanitary conditions become wholly inadequate, su ch that it may have become necessary to restrict the exercise of the right to assembly. Admittedly, the parish priest had not asked the police to intervene and the means deployed in their intervention, which had been both abrupt and indiscriminate, exceede d what it was reasonable to expect of the authorities when interfering with the freedom of assembly. However, no request from the parish priest was necessary under domestic law for the intervention to be legitimate and the authorities’ fear that the situat ion might deteriorate rapidly and could not continue much longer was not unreasonable. In any event, the immigrants’ presence with its symbolic and testimonial value had been tolerated sufficiently long for the interference not to appear unreasonable in th e instant case after such a lengthy period. Regard being had to the wide margin of appreciation left to the States in that sphere, the interference was not disproportionate.

Conclusion : no violation (unanimously).

* Immigrants without valid immigration pap ers.

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes