The case Garros de Versus France was decided by the Chamber of the European Court of Human

Rights on 24 June of 2003.

Why is the case important?

The main importance of the case consists in the fact that it exposes a situation where

the Court assessed an act which did not fall under the scope of Article 10, therefore not

configuring freedom of expression.

It is a great example of the necessity of state interference in an act not aimed to

express ideas or thoughts, but to subvert the values of the Convention.

Principle Facts In 1995, Mr Roger Garrigy, French national

philosopher, writer and former politician, published a book called The Founding Myth

of Israeli Politics, distributed through non-commercial outlets by La Vielle publishers, and in 1996

republished at his own expenses with the title Zami Stad, Roger Garrigy.

Resulting from innumerous criminal complaints against him from different associations, five

different criminal proceedings were established for denying crimes against humanity, publishing

racially defamatory statements, and inciting to racial and religious hatred or violence,

all under the Freedom of Press Act of 29 July 1881.

In 1998, Mr Garrigy was convicted by challenging the occurrence of crimes against humanity,

public defamation of Jews, incitement to discrimination and racial hatred, by the Paris Court of Appeal

and five different sentences.

The Court found the book to be revisionist, regarded to the crimes committed by the Nazi

regime, and he received sentences of imprisonment and fines.

In 23 October 2000, Mr Garrigy lodged an application at the European Court of Human Rights, alleging

infringement to his right to expression under Article 10 of the European Convention of Human

Rights.

Affirming that the Court did not understand well the content of his book, he claimed not

to be revisionist of the Holocaust or the crimes committed by the Nazi regime.

He added that his real purpose was to make an analysis of the political view of Zionism

and his point of view of form of fundamentalism, and to criticize the state of Israel and its

politics, but not the Jewish faith itself.

He also affirmed that the Court's imposed historic interpretation under the facts occurred

closing any other form of views of criticism, including his own.

He also complained that the right protected under Article 9, freedom of thought, conscience

and religion, and Article 14, non-discrimination, and Article 4, Protocol 7, right not to be

tried or punished twice, had been breached.

The Court's finding.

The Court found that the content of the book to be indeed a historical revisionist related

to the Nazi crimes and had clear racist objectives, and therefore it stated that such an act cannot

be tolerated in a democratic system, being a violation of human rights and threat to

the public order.

The Court pointed out that although freedom of expression is an essential right for democracy,

the democratic principle itself requires some level of protection of its basic values.

This way, nobodies can rely on a right protected by the Convention in order to counter its

provisions.

The decision also provides a negative definition of the right to expression.

Opinions or statements with racist intentions, such as the denial of crimes against humanity

of the Nazi regime, cannot even be considered simply expression.

The analysis considered that the intent of the applicant was clearly racist, therefore

being totally out of the scope of the protection of Article 10.

The inadmissibility ration material, based on Article 17 of the European Convention,

which prohibits any abuse of right, showed extreme care of the Court in protecting the