| Applicant name | ALLOUCHE |
| Applicant type | natural person |
| Number of applicants | 1 |
| Country | France |
| Application no. | 81249/17 |
| Date | 11/04/2024 |
| Judges | Georges Ravarani, président, Lado Chanturia, Carlo Ranzoni, Mārtiņš Mits, Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, Mattias Guyomar, Mykola Gnatovskyy |
| Institution | Court |
| Type | Judgment |
| Outcome Art. 8 | Violation 8+14 |
| Reason | Positive obligation |
| Type of privacy | Private life; procedural privacy |
| Keywords | Prosecution discriminatory remarks |
| Facts of the case | The Court observes that the applicant’s complaint relates to the fact that the authorities, having failed to take into account the anti-Semitic dimension of her attacker’s remarks, failed to provide her with effective protection against acts of anti-Semitic violence, threats and insults. It is not disputed that some of B.’s remarks were extremely violent, contained direct threats and were aimed at the applicant as a member of the Jewish community. As the Court is the master of legal classification, it considers that this complaint falls within the scope of Article 8 taken together with Article 14 of the Convention, which apply ratione materiae in the present case. |
| Analysis | While the Court cannot criticise, as such, the choice of prosecution and the characterisation of the facts by the public prosecutor, it notes the following points. First, the criminal court did not provide the slightest response to the applicant’s repeated complaints concerning the anti-Semitic nature of the acts she suffered, and it sentenced her attacker to a suspended prison sentence of eighteen months (the criminal provision applied provided for a maximum sentence of three years), whereas a sentence of five years, corresponding to a higher statutory amount, would have been incurred for the threats thus aggravated. Furthermore, the Court cannot but note, once again, that the appeal court, in the grounds of its judgment, did indeed classify B.’s messages as anti-Semitic threats, in accordance with the applicant’s request. However, it did not use any legal possibility that would have enabled it to provide an appropriate legal response to offences tinged with anti-Semitism, while ensuring the rights of the defence. The Court of Cassation declared the applicant’s appeal inadmissible. |
| Other Article violation? | No 6 ECHR |
| Damage awarded | Holds that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following amounts : a) EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros), plus any amount that may be due on this sum by the applicant by way of tax, for non-pecuniary damage ; b) EUR 3,840 (three thousand eight hundred and forty euros), plus any amount that may be payable on this sum by the applicant by way of tax, for costs and expenses ; c) that from the expiry of the said period and until payment, these amounts will be increased by simple interest at a rate equal to that of the marginal lending facility of the European Central Bank applicable during this period, increased by three percentage points ; |
| Documents | Judgment |