We had the honour of participating in the recent conference organised by the European Implementation Network (EIN): ‘Implementing ECHR Free Speech Judgments: Civil Society Impact, Lessons Learned, and Future Strategies‘.
This important event brought together NGOs, lawyers, researchers, and civil society actors to address a critical issue: how can we ensure the effective implementation of European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) rulings, particularly on freedom of expression?
Generation for Rights Over the World (GROW) joined the conversation by contributing concrete proposals and highlighting youth perspectives in this essential democratic debate.
Freedom of Expression in Europe: Where Do We Stand?
The conference focused on the ongoing challenges to enforcing ECtHR rulings, even in long-standing member states like France. The core question raised: how do we bridge the growing gap between European human rights standards and national security-driven practices?
The Rouillan v. France Case: A Symbolic Legal Battle
A key highlight of the event was the presentation of the Rouillan v. France case by our co-chair, Vincent Lefebvre, which illustrates the tension between national security concerns and the right to free speech.
In 2017, Jean-Marc Rouillan was sentenced to 18 months in prison (suspended) for describing the perpetrators of the 2015 terrorist attacks as ‘courageous’. After exhausting legal remedies in France, he turned to the European Court of Human Rights. In 2022, the Court ruled that his conviction violated Article 10 of the Convention, declaring the sentence disproportionate and unnecessary in a democratic society. Nonetheless, in 2023, French courts reaffirmed the conviction, underscoring a persistent disconnect between European jurisprudence and national practice. This case raises a crucial and timely question: how far can states go in restricting speech in the name of security?
Why This Case Matters
The Rouillan case reflects deeper issues within the European legal landscape:
- A securitarian logic has taken root, where post-terrorism emergency measures have merged with a broad interpretation of ‘apology for terrorism’Free Speech.
- This has created a hostile environment for dissenting or controversial speech.
- The case highlights the difficulty of enforcing ECHR judgments, even in democratic countries like France.
- It exemplifies a systemic reluctance to uphold the Court’s call to protect politically contested or unpopular views without fear of prosecution.
These concerns are not theoretical. Since 2023, activists, researchers, and trade unionists have faced legal action for critical speech, particularly regarding the situation in Palestine, following similar legal reasoning to the Rouillan case.
Our Recommendations
In light of these challenges, GROW makes the following recommendations to ensure robust protection for freedom of expression:
- Repeal the Dupond-Moretti bulletin, which restricts prosecutorial discretion in speech-related cases.
- Train magistrates on the obligations under Article 10 of the ECHR.
- Reform the 2014 Cazeneuve law, which has enabled overly broad limitations on speech.
- Apply international standards, such as the Rabat Action Plan, to guide national legislation.
- Publish up-to-date prosecution data, ensuring transparency and enabling democratic oversight.
You can learn more about the case reading our article Freedom Under Fire: France’s Political and Legal Offensive Against Free Speech, and GROW’s Communication concerning Rouillan v. France (No. 28000/19).
This conference was a valuable opportunity to strengthen collaboration among European civil society actors and explore strategies to make human rights judgments a reality on the ground.
We thank EIN for hosting this important exchange, and we look forward to continuing the conversation.
