Conseil Constitutionel

Case: Decision no. 2012-647 (see text here)
Date: February 28, 2012
Issue: Law on the punishment of denials of the existence of genocides recognised by law

Case: Decision n° 60-7 L (see text here)
Date: July 8, 1960
Issue: reparation of war damages

Cour de Cassation (Chambre Criminelle)

Decision: n° 94-85.126 (see text here)
Date: June 15, 1997
Issue: denial of crimes against humanity

Decision: n° 09-80774 (see text here)
Date: May 7, 2010
Issue: freedom of expression

European Commission of Human RIghts

Case: Marais vs. France (see text here)
Date: June 24, 1996
Issue: Holocaust denial and freedom of speech
Summary: In a judgement of 10 June 1993, the Paris Criminal Court sentenced Mr. Marais to a fine of 10,000 French francs for complicity in the denial of crimes against humanity. The applicant filled a complaint against the European Commission of Human Rights arguing that his right to freedom of expression had been infringed. The Commission said that the applicant’s article ran counter the basic ideas of the Convention: justice and peace and therefore. It said that there were sufficient reasons to convict the applicant.

European Court of Human Rights

Case: Lehideux and Isorni vs France (see text here)
Date: September 23, 1998
Issue: Holocaust denial and freedom of speech
Summary: In 1998, Francois Lehideux and Jacques Isorni were charged in France for aiding and abetting a public defence of the crimes of collaboration with the enemy. They were condemned to pay 1 French franc for damages and the publication of the sentence in the newspaper “Le Monde”. The defendants complained before the ECtHR that their conviction had breached Article 10 of the Convention. The Court said that the “negation or revision of clearly established facts, such as the Holocaust, would be removed from the protection of Article 10 by Article 17” However the Court added: (…) “it does not appear that the defendants attempted to deny or revise what they themselves referred to in their publication as “Nazi atrocities and persecutions” or “German omnipotence and barbarism”. As a consequence, the Court considered the applicants’ conviction disproportionate and unnecessary in a democratic society.

Case: Garaudy vs. France (see text here)
Date: June 24, 2003
Issue: Holocaust denial and freedom of speech
Summary: Between February and July 1996 four criminal complaints were lodged against Mr. Garaudy for denying crimes against humanity in his book The Founding Myths of Israeli Politics. The book was distributed through non-commercial outlets by “La vieille taupe” publishers. The Paris Court of Appeal found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to a suspended term of six months’ imprisonment and a fine of 50.000 French francs. It examined the question as the compatibility of section 24 bis of the Act of 29 July 1881 with Article 10 of the Convention. The Court said that “section 24 bis of the Act of 29 July 1881 is aimed at preventing or punishing the public denial of facts that have been the subject of a final ruling by the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal and relate to the events that are totally incompatible with the values of the Convention for the purposes of Article 17”.  
In 2000 the Court of Cassation concluded that “denial of the existence of crime against humanity falls within the provisions of section 24 bis of the Act of 29 July 1881, even where presented indirectly or in terms expressing doubts or by insinuation”.
Before the ECtHR the applicant submitted that his right to express his opinions freely had been violated. The Court noted that denying crimes against humanity is one of the most serious forms of racial defamation of Jews; it continued by saying that the real purpose of the author of the book was to rehabilitate the National-Socialist regime and, as a consequence, accuse the victims of falsifying history. This behaviour constituted a serious threat to public order and was incompatible with democracy and human rights. As a conclusion, the Court considered that the main content and general tenor of the applicant’s book was markedly revisionist. 

Case: Chauvy and others vs. France (see text here)
Date: September 29, 2004)
Issue: Holocaust denial and freedom of speech
Summary: On 14 May 1997 Mr. and Mrs. Aubrac sued Mr. Chauvy for defamation under the civil law. Chauvy, in his book, had accused the Aubracs of treachery. He said that Raymond Aubrac was the French officer whom the Germans used to infiltrate the leaders of the Secret Army upon its formation and a member of the Resistance whom Barbie turned into one of his department’s agents on his arrest in March 1943. The civil parties considered that the entire book tarnished their honour and reputation. The applicant was found guilty.
The applicant complained before the ECtHR that his right of freedom of expression had been infringed. The Court considered that although the issue in question (defamation) did not belong to the category of clearly established historical facts, it had to find a fair balance between the right of freedom of expression and the right of persons to protect their reputation. It concluded that the convictions were based on relevant and sufficient reasons.