Case Summary and Outcome

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) held that the French authorities’ decision to evacuate St Bernard’s Church, after it was occupied by demonstrators, did not violate the applicant’s right to freedom of assembly under Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The case concerned a protest by undocumented immigrants—which included the applicant—who occupied St Bernard’s Church to highlight their difficulties obtaining legal residence in France. The Paris Police Commissioner ordered the church’s evacuation, citing health, hygiene, and public safety concerns. After the evacuation—and the applicant’s subsequent arrest—, the Paris Criminal Court sentenced the applicant to a two-month suspended prison sentence, finding that the occupation of a place of worship and her immigration status constituted sufficient grounds to justify her expulsion from France. The Paris Court of Appeal upheld the sentence and added a three-year ban on the applicant’s entry into France. The Court of Cassation rejected the applicant’s final appeal. The applicant argued before the ECtHR that the church’s evacuation was a disproportionate interference with her right to peaceful assembly and was motivated by political pressure rather than genuine public order concerns. The French government, for its part, argued that the eviction was necessary to maintain public order and to protect the public health and safety of the occupiers and churchgoers. The ECtHR recognized that although the occupation was peaceful, the authorities’ intervention was justified by the deteriorating health and safety conditions and the potential disruption to public order. Moreover, the Court concluded that the intervention, although abrupt, was necessary and proportionate given the significant risks posed by the prolonged occupation. Thus, the Court upheld the measures taken by the French authorities and found no violation of the applicant’s rights.

Facts

In 1996, Ms Madjiguene Cisse, a Senegalese national, acted as spokesperson for a group of undocumented immigrants in France who took part in a protest to highlight their difficulties obtaining legal residency in the country. The protest group, mainly of African origin, occupied St Bernard’s Church in Paris for about two months. The occupation, which was covered by the media, involved around 200 people and was supported by several human rights organizations. The protest escalated when ten men went on hunger strike.

On 22 August 1996, the Paris Police Commissioner ordered the church’s evacuation due to health, hygiene, and public safety concerns. The Commissioner argued that the occupation had nothing to do with religious worship and that conditions inside the church had deteriorated, creating significant risks. The following morning, the police evacuated the church: “[T]he whites were immediately released, while the police gathered all the dark-skinned occupiers, except those on hunger strike, and sent them by bus to a detention centre for foreigners in Vincennes,” including Cisse. [para. 13]

On the same day, the police asked Cisse for proof of her residence permit in France, which she was unable to produce. The police then discovered that on 17 July 1996, Cisse “had been refused leave to remain in France on the ground that she did not satisfy any of the conditions laid down by the Ordinance of 2 November 1945 for the issue of a residence permit and that there were no personal or family reasons justifying her being granted leave to remain on humanitarian grounds. She had been invited to leave French territory within one month after receipt of notification of the Commissioner of Police’s decision.” [para. 14] After interrogation, Cisse was arrested and “accused of having ‘entered and stayed in France without being in possession of the documents or visas required by the rules.’” [para. 16]

On 24 August 1996, the Paris Criminal Court sentenced the applicant to two months’ suspended imprisonment. The court considered that Cisse’s occupation of a place of worship to protest her immigration status constituted sufficient grounds to justify her expulsion from France.

On 23 January 1997, the Paris Court of Appeal upheld the conviction “and added an order excluding [Cisse] from French territory for three years.” [para. 17] The court emphasized the serious risks to public security posed by the occupation of the church and found the police’s actions reasonable in the circumstances.

On 4 June 1998, the Court of Cassation dismissed Cisse’s final appeal.

Cisse lodged an application before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), alleging a violation of Article 11 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR), which protects the right to freedom of assembly. The applicant argued that her eviction from St Bernard’s Church was a disproportionate interference with her right to freedom of expression and to protest. She claimed that the authorities’ decision to evacuate the church was not justified by genuine concerns for public order or security. Rather, it was a response to political pressure to stifle dissent and silence a legitimate form of protest.

The French Government, on the other hand, argued that the measures taken by the authorities were compatible with Article 11 of the Convention. It argued that while the rights to freedom of expression and to protest were fundamental rights, they had to be balanced with the need to maintain public order, health, and safety. The government maintained that the decision to evacuate the church was lawful, necessary, and proportionate, given the deteriorating health and safety conditions and the potential threat to public order posed by the prolonged occupation. The authorities insisted that the intervention was not aimed at suppressing freedom of expression or the right to protest, but rather at protecting the public and upholding the rule of law.

Decision Overview

The Second Section of the European Court of Human Rights had to decide whether the applicant’s right to freedom of peaceful assembly, enshrined in Article 11 of the ECHR, had been violated by the French authorities’ decision to disperse a demonstration in St Bernard’s Church aimed at criticizing immigration regulations.

The applicant argued that the eviction order violated her right to freedom of assembly because the interference was not provided by law, did not pursue a legitimate aim, and was disproportionate. She claimed that the church’s occupation was peaceful and supported by the parish priest and the parish council and that the eviction was motivated by political pressure rather than genuine public order concerns.

For its part, the French government argued that the eviction order was lawful and necessary to maintain public order, protect the health and safety of the occupiers and churchgoers, and ensure the religious function of the building. The defendant argued that the assembly in question was not peaceful because it entailed the occupation of a public place with the intention of disturbing public order.

First, the Court explained that the legal basis for considering the application was Article 11 of the ECHR, which protects the right to freedom of peaceful assembly. The ECtHR noted that this right could be subject to restrictions provided that they are prescribed by law, pursue a legitimate aim—such as the prevention of disorder and the protection of public health—, and are necessary in a democratic society.

Subsequently, the Court examined whether the French authorities’ actions interfered with the applicant’s right to peaceful assembly. It noted that the applicant was part of a group of persons with an irregular immigration status who had peacefully occupied St Bernard’s Church for almost two months to protest against the difficulties they were facing in regularizing their immigration status. In this context, the Court found that the church’s eviction, ordered by the police, did interfere with the applicant’s exercise of her right to freedom of assembly.

Following this, the Court found that the interference was prescribed by law. In particular, the ECtHR held that the French authorities acted pursuant to the Law of 9 December 1905 on the Separation of Church and State, which confers on local authorities the responsibility to maintain public order in places of worship. The Court also considered that the Commissioner of Police had the legal authority, under national law, to order the evacuation.

In addition, the ECtHR argued that the evacuation order pursued the legitimate aim of preventing disorder. To it, the occupation of the church posed a threat to public order and the health and safety of the occupants, particularly given the deteriorating sanitary conditions and the presence of hunger strikers.

The Court acknowledged that the assembly was peaceful and did not disrupt public order or interfere with religious services. However, it emphasized that after two months the situation had escalated to the point where the continued occupation posed significant health and safety risks. The ECtHR opined that although the police intervention was abrupt and more forceful than necessary, the authorities’ concern that the situation might deteriorate justified the intervention. Furthermore, the Court said that the protest had been allowed to continue for a considerable period before the eviction, which mitigated the seriousness of the interference.

Hence, the ECtHR concluded that the interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of assembly was justified and proportionate, considering the wide margin of appreciation afforded to States to maintain public order and in light of the circumstances of the case. The Court highlighted that, although the assembly was peaceful, the prolonged occupation of the church ultimately posed significant health and safety risks that required the authorities’ intervention.

For all these reasons, the ECtHR found that France did not violate Article 11 of the ECHR.