The Paturel Case and the European Court of Human Rights

The Paturel case and the European Court of Human Rights

Europe condemns France in the name of freedom of expression

22/12/2005 - 4:19 p.m. STRASBOURG (Reuters) - A Jehovah’s Witness who had been convicted of defamation of the Union nationale des associations de défense de la famille et de l’individu (Unadfi), a French anti-cult association, obtains redress in Strasbourg. In a judgment delivered on Thursday, by a unanimous vote of the judges, the European Court of Human Rights holds that the applicant was the victim of a violation of his right to freedom of expression. It orders France to pay him 6,900 euros for pecuniary damage. Christian Paturel, who is aged 58 and lives in the Eure, had published in 1996, at his own expense, a book entitled “Sectes, religions et libertés publiques” (“Cults, Religions and Public Liberties”). In it he denounced in virulent terms the anti-cult movements, and UNADFI in particular, which he compared to the pre-war antisemitic and anti-Masonic movements, indeed to the Inquisition, and which he accused of practising violence in order to “deprogram” certain believers. The Paris criminal court had fined the author and his publisher, La Pensée universelle, 10,000 and 20,000 francs respectively (1,500 and 3,000 euros) in a judgment of 25 March 1997. The judgment was upheld by the court of appeal, which in addition awarded 15,000 euros in costs to the civil party. In its judgment, the Council of Europe court “considers that the impugned statements reflect assertions on questions of public interest and as such constitute value judgments (which need not be demonstrated) rather than statements of fact”. It also finds the totality of the financial penalties excessive in view of the case. The judgment is accompanied by a “concurring opinion” from the French judge Jean-Paul Costa, who admits to having hesitated before joining the opinion of his colleagues. Noting that the conviction rested in part on “grave allegations of fact” which the author was unable to prove, he takes account of the more numerous value judgments retained by the French courts to conclude that freedom of expression must prevail. http://www.boursier.com/vals/all/feed.asp?id=8151

CULTS Freedom of expression: France condemned NOUVELOBS.COM | 22.12.05 | 19:49 The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) held that the freedom of expression of the author of a book criticising the movements fighting cults had been violated. France was condemned on Thursday 22 December by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) for having violated the freedom of expression of the author of a book criticising the movements fighting cults, among them the Union nationale des associations de défense des familles et de l’individu (Unadfi). Christian Paturel, who had had his book “Sectes, Religions et Libertés publiques” published in February 1996, at his own expense, by “La pensée universelle”, will receive 6,900 euros for pecuniary damage. The Court recalls in its judgment that the book “aimed to denounce the excesses of the private anti-cult movements, financed by the public authorities, and challenged in particular Unadfi”, which lodged a complaint against the applicant and his publisher for defamation. “Value judgments” Unadfi had won its case in March 1997, by a first-instance judgment upheld on appeal. For the French courts, “the requirements of a serious investigation and of caution in expression were lacking” and Christian Paturel, a member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, showed “personal animosity towards Unadfi”. “The numerous documents supplied by the applicant constitute a sufficient factual basis”, according to the Strasbourg judges, whose judgment published on Thursday states that the “impugned statements” constituted “value judgments” which cannot lend themselves “to a demonstration of their accuracy”. http://permanent.nouvelobs.com/europe/20051222.OBS9837.html

710 - 22.12.2005 - Press release of the Registrar CHAMBER JUDGMENT PATUREL v. FRANCE The European Court of Human Rights today communicated in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Paturel v. France (application no. 54968/00).

The Court concludes, unanimously, that there has been a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court holds that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant. Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, it awards him 6,900 euros (EUR) for pecuniary damage as well as 7,820.29 EUR for costs and expenses. (The judgment exists only in French.)

1. Principal facts The applicant, Christian Paturel, is a French national, aged 58, residing in Croth (France).

In February 1996 the applicant published a book entitled “Sectes, Religions et Libertés Publiques” (“Cults, Religions and Public Liberties”). The book was published at the author’s expense by the publishing house “La pensée universelle”. The book set out to denounce the excesses of the private anti-cult movements, financed by the public authorities, and challenged in particular the Union nationale des associations de défense de la famille et de l’individu (UNADFI), an association working in the field of the practices of cult organisations.

UNADFI lodged a complaint for defamation against the applicant and his publisher. By a judgment of 25 March 1997, the Paris criminal court found the applicant and the publication director guilty of defamation and fined them 20,000 and 10,000 francs respectively (the equivalent of 3,048 and 1,524 EUR), ordered them to pay one franc in damages to UNADFI, and ordered the publication of the conviction in two newspapers. That judgment was upheld by the Paris Court of Appeal, which in addition ordered the defendants to pay UNADFI 15,000 EUR for the costs it had incurred.

Both at first instance and on appeal, the courts considered that while the denunciation of the abuses liable to be committed in the name of the fight against the cult phenomenon was a legitimate aim, the requirements of a serious investigation and of caution in expression were lacking, the applicant moreover showing personal animosity towards UNADFI.

By a judgment of 5 October 1999, the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law.

2. Procedure and composition of the Court The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 6 December 1999 and declared partly admissible on 7 October 2004.

Judgment was given by a Chamber of 7 judges, composed as follows:

Christos Rozakis (Greek), President, Loukis Loucaides (Cypriot), Jean-Paul Costa (French), Françoise Tulkens (Belgian), Elisabeth Steiner (Austrian), Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijani), Dean Spielmann (Luxembourger), judges, and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar.

3. Summary of the judgment [2] Complaints The applicant submitted that his criminal conviction had entailed a violation of Articles 9 (right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion) and 10 of the Convention.

Decision of the Court The Court decides to examine the applicant’s complaints under Article 10 alone. The question before it is to determine whether the interference with the applicant’s right to his freedom of expression was necessary in a democratic society.

The courts below criticised the applicant for not having established the truth of his statements. Contrary to those courts, the Court considers that the impugned statements reflect assertions on questions of public interest and as such constitute value judgments rather than statements of fact. Having recalled that value judgments do not lend themselves to a demonstration of their accuracy, the Court notes that the numerous documents supplied by the applicant constitute a sufficient factual basis.

The French courts above all criticised the applicant for his lack of caution and moderation in expression, the tribunal finding that he had “exceeded the permitted limits in the framework of this debate, by employing towards the civil party particularly violent and extravagant terms, exclusive of all caution and moderation in expression”. The Court observes in particular that certain impugned passages assuredly have a negative connotation. However, notwithstanding a certain hostility in some of the disputed extracts, and the gravity that may possibly characterise certain statements, the central question of the book concerns the methods of fighting the organisations described as “cults”. And it must be recognised that the question of “cults” or “cult movements” is widely debated in European societies. It clearly concerns a problem of general interest which, in fact, calls for a narrow interpretation.

The French courts relied — in addition to the absence of a serious investigation and of caution in expression — on the applicant’s personal animosity towards UNADFI. The Court notes in this regard that, independently of the interpretation of the disputed passages of the applicant’s book, the fact that he was a Jehovah’s Witness was relied upon by the courts below to characterise that animosity. The criminal court expressly considered that the status of member of the association of Jehovah’s Witnesses reinforced the applicant’s personal animosity towards UNADFI, the latter having ranked the association of Jehovah’s Witnesses among the cults. For its part, the court of appeal held that the disputed passages were “all the more insulting” in that they attributed to UNADFI “precisely the defects of cults”.

Now, such considerations, which target the association of Jehovah’s Witnesses and the applicant in his capacity as a member, cannot constitute, in themselves, relevant and sufficient grounds for the applicant’s conviction. Moreover, the Court recalls that associations expose themselves to close scrutiny when they descend into the arena of public debate and that, since they are active in the public domain, they must show a greater degree of tolerance towards the criticism formulated by opponents concerning their aims and the means deployed in the debate.

As to the penalty imposed on the applicant, the Court considers that while the damages were limited to the “symbolic franc”, the fine — albeit relatively moderate — to which were added the cost of publishing a notice in two newspapers and the costs awarded to UNADFI, did not appear justified in the light of the circumstances of the case.

Accordingly, the Court concludes that there has been a violation of Article 10.

Judge Costa expressed a concurring opinion, joined by Judge Spielmann. The text of that opinion is annexed to the judgment.

---

The Court’s judgments are available on its website (http://www.echr.coe.int).

Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F - 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Press contacts: Roderick Liddell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92) Emma Hellyer (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Beverley Jacobs (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 21) Fax: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 27 91

The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the member States of the Council of Europe in 1959 to deal with allegations of violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. It is composed of a number of judges equal to that of the States Parties to the Convention. Sitting full-time since 1 November 1998, it examines, in Chambers of 7 judges or, exceptionally, in a Grand Chamber of 17 judges, the admissibility and merits of the applications submitted to it. The execution of its judgments is supervised by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. The Court provides more detailed information about its organisation and activity on its website. Read the full text of the judgment Paturel v. France

Le Salon Beige 23 December 2005 - Daily news blog by Catholic laypeople UNADFI condemned Christian Paturel, aged 58, had published in 1996 a book entitled “Sectes, religions et libertés publiques”. This Jehovah’s Witness had been convicted of defamation of the Union nationale des associations de défense de la famille et de l’individu (UNADFI), a French anti-cult association. He has obtained redress from the European Court of Human Rights, which holds that the applicant was the victim of a violation of his right to freedom of expression. He denounced in virulent terms the anti-cult movements, and UNADFI in particular, which he compared to the pre-war antisemitic and anti-Masonic movements, indeed to the Inquisition. The Paris criminal court had convicted the author and his publisher, La Pensée universelle, in March 1997, a judgment upheld on appeal. In its judgment, the Council of Europe court “considers that the impugned statements (…) constitute (…) value judgments (which need not be demonstrated) rather than statements of fact”. Should we rejoice at this case? Although the beneficiary is a Jehovah’s Witness, I believe so, for the European Court has here recognised an attack on freedom of expression, threatened by this anti-cult movement, which targets in particular the Catholic Church. Thus, on UNADFI’s site, one finds criticisms of Catholic communities judged to be cults: the Community of St John (“destruction of the personality of many religious following the loss of their psychological integrity and their individual freedom to think and to act”), the Beatitudes (the “hold is exercised through fear of the demon, who is omnipresent”), as well as the much-dreaded Opus Dei. The fight against cults appears quite subjective… Michel Janva http://lesalonbeige.blogs.com/my_weblog/2005/12/lunadfi_condamn.html

Testimony of Christian Paturel, 6 February 2006 Hello,

I am replying to your email of the 5th of this month and send you my testimony.

As a Jehovah’s Witness and lawyer of my Church, I was confronted with the hostility of Unadfi and its Adfi affiliates from 1989 onwards. I was in fact acting in many sensitive cases:

• construction of places of worship (some ten cases, all won, notably with a “misuse of power” at Albigny-sur-Saône and an “unlawful act” (voie de fait) at Caudebec-lès-Elbeuf)

• national service: I defended more than 3,000 young men (not all of them Jehovah’s Witnesses) who refused this compulsory service

• divorces and child-custody cases in which one of the spouses was supported by Unadfi

• publication of books denouncing Unadfi’s exactions: “et Pharaon dit qui est Jéhovah”, “La dernière croisade”, “sectes, religions et libertés publiques”, “le Bêtisier”

• placing of articles (very often rights of reply) in the press, both national and regional

• defence before the courts of several members belonging to NRMs (the Horus community of La Coucourde near Montélimar…)

…a non-exhaustive list.

On all these cases I have hundreds of anecdotes to tell — some of the highest comedy, others sad, and some lamentable for a liberal democracy that claims to be the Country of the Rights of Man.

These battles earned me numerous hostilities and attacks from every quarter: judges, journalists, lawyers and the inevitable Adfi…

I had perceived very early on that Unadfi was made up of an ill-matched team. That structure originally brought together believers and combat secularists (very often from the hard wing of Freemasonry) whose only common denominator was the fight against NRMs (the Jehovah’s Witnesses date from… 1870 and, for the needs of the bad cause, were lumped into this despised minority).

The book “Sectes, religions et libertés publiques” was of course attacked; it will at least have made it possible to reveal certain realities. Unadfi, today, is apparently run by the hard wing of Masonry, which no longer hesitates, from now on, to oppose the great religions such as the Catholic and Protestant churches. The message at least has the merit of clarity: having cut its teeth on the minorities, it no longer hesitates today to make war on everything spiritual. The single way of thinking advances with its face uncovered…. Let us make clear that many Freemasons attached to the principles of tolerance, liberty and fraternity refuse to associate themselves with this authoritarian movement.

These general considerations having been stated, here is a summary account of my personal adventure.

My public positions during the years 1989–1999 earned me a privileged telephone service (I was wiretapped by the RG and am still on file with those services); the immense kindness of my bâtonnier (president of the bar) and of the Ardèche Bar (invitations to… the disciplinary board for matters not justifying such determination against me); and a special regime from the Ministry of Justice on account of my registration for the judiciary examination.

The apotheosis came in 1996, with the release of the parliamentary inquiry report on cults (10 January 1996) and the publication of my book “Sectes, religions et libertés publiques”. The latter was to appear on the same day as the said report. Mr Michel Morel, the director of La Pensée Universelle (the publishing company), had made the necessary arrangements to that end.

Unfortunately, our adversaries had decided otherwise:

• to his great astonishment, Mr Morel discovers that all the organs of the written and broadcast press refuse to give any publicity whatsoever to this book! He tells me that since the creation of his company (after the war), it is the first time he has met with so general and categorical a refusal
• what is more, his banker abandons him (well, well!) and La Pensée Universelle is placed in receivership
• Mr Morel then informs me that he is unable to ensure the distribution of my book

My publishing contract contained a retention-of-title clause under which I retained full ownership of the 3,000 copies printed. I applied to the administrator appointed by the Paris commercial court for the return of my edition. Refused!!! Yet my publishing contract was sufficiently clear, precise and explicit.

I then turned to a lawyer friend specialising in business law, in order to obtain from the president of the commercial court authorisation to recover my books. My Paris colleague tells me that this kind of procedure is very quick and raises no difficulty (he has done it very many times).

To his great surprise, the president of the commercial court would never deliver his decision within the prescribed time. I recovered my books only in August 1996, thanks to the kindness of the staff of La Pensée Universelle, the buyer of the business not wishing to perform my publishing contract (one wonders why…). It was only 8 months after the release of this book that I was able to honour the orders received (1,200, without publicity and with all the harassments, obstructions and nuisances encountered).

The book was not banned by judicial means; but the recourse to disloyal, twisted and illegal methods made it possible to obtain the same result.

In the meantime, Unadfi had summoned me before the Paris criminal court for defamation.

The trial was a vast comedy. Before the criminal court, Unadfi had retained Arnaud Montebourg as counsel. He would forget the rules of professional ethics by making inappropriate remarks about me once the hearing was over. My defender shone by his self-effacement; visibly he had been subjected to pressure… Mme Tavernier, president of Unadfi, was present. Paradoxically, she behaved as a firm, intransigent but loyal adversary, if one compares her attitude to that of the judges. Visibly the case was decided in advance; my evidence was not examined. The presiding judge of the court even permitted herself to ask me, during the hearing: “Are you a Jehovah’s Witness?” One thinks one is hallucinating, within a secular State that renders a secular justice! Could the verdict be conditioned by the religious affiliation of the defendant? On appeal, I sought the assistance of a lawyer friend who was himself subjected to pressure. He did not yield. At the end of the hearing, he said to me: “You know, Christian, I did the maximum, I put my back into it; but do not delude yourself: your case is political.”

As for the Court of Cassation, it swept the case aside in a few lines.

I therefore lodged an application with the European Court in December 1999. I preferred to conduct my defence alone, in order to avoid either being betrayed by faint-hearted lawyers, or placing in an uncomfortable position friends who would inevitably be subjected to pressure. I had learned the lesson of the unfortunate precedents.

I left the Ardèche Bar in painful circumstances. The victim of a serious road accident in July 1998 (I was unable to work for nearly 6 months), wearied by the incessant attacks, I had put my practice up for sale and found a buyer. Summoned before the disciplinary board by a Freemason bâtonnier who had charged two lawyers with conducting the proceedings (both Freemasons), I was to account for matters of no great importance which had been blown out of proportion for the needs of the cause. The report drawn up by the two colleagues (sic) denounced my religious affiliation!! Bravo, these defenders of individual liberties.

The disciplinary board of the Ardèche Bar pronounced against me a one-year ban on practising. Given the abnormally heavy character of the sanction, the multiple procedural defects and such grave violations of the rights of the defence (the bâtonnier who had initiated the proceedings and a rapporteur took part in the deliberations and in the vote… — illegalities that the European Court has had occasion to censure), I appealed.

The bâtonnier put pressure on me, indicating that the sale of my practice would not be authorised if I maintained my appeal! At the time, I was on sick leave with 6 dependent children. I therefore withdrew my appeal in order to protect my family and to avoid being reduced to insolvency (or bankruptcy).

In the wake of this, the Ministry of Justice, in view of this sanction (which was not final at the time, since my appeal had not yet been withdrawn), sent me a registered letter forbidding me to sit the judiciary examination. Rather curiously, within the space of a few days the following events occurred:

• ban on practising (as a lawyer)
• withdrawal of my professional and personal bank credit facilities (by BNP) and the rejection of several cheques issued
• ban on sitting the judiciary examination (Ministry of Justice). The near-immediate reaction, in the middle of August, of the Ministry of Justice is to say the least unusual, when one knows the “speed” at which that noble institution — “natural defender of individual liberties” — works.
• and a demand for payment served by Unadfi in respect of my conviction as upheld by the Paris Court of Appeal (45,000 francs to pay…) Visibly, the plan had been skilfully prepared; the concertation with a view to a kill was becoming obvious. This all-out attack is its sad confirmation.

For your information: I applied for re-registration as a lawyer: refusal by the Bar, upheld by the Nîmes Court of Appeal and the Court of Cassation. To be accepted, given the rules governing the profession, I would have had to cease all activity in order to be re-registered. Once my re-registration was granted, I was to serve my one-year ban on practising and receive no professional income!!! What was I to do? Register as a welfare recipient in the meantime? Clearly, with such legislation, let us not be surprised at our social deficits…. I lodged a complaint against the Ardèche Bar over the whole of this affair: the refusal of re-registration and the disciplinary sanction. A finding of no case to answer was entered by the Grenoble courts. Those courts nevertheless found the existence of facts sufficiently pertinent to bar the lawyers of the Ardèche from turning against me by way of a complaint for malicious denunciation. Clearly the judges wished neither to prosecute my Bar, nor to place me in the position of an offender.

I would have no difficulty recounting these misadventures and experiences (I cannot evoke everything in these few lines of summary) in a fifth book. Many people ask me to do so. The impossibility of finding a publisher-distributor renders the undertaking pointless. A pity….

Cordially, Christian Paturel