PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 26118/10) against the French Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a French national, Mr Hervé Eon (“the applicant”), on 12 April 2010.

The applicant was represented by Mr D. Nogueres, a lawyer practising in Paris. The French Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms E. Belliard, Director of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The applicant alleged, in particular, a violation of Article 10 of the Convention.

On 15 April 2011 notice of the application was given to the Government.

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Laval.

On 28 August 2008, during a visit to Laval by the President of France, the applicant waved a small placard reading “Casse toi pov’con” (“Get lost, you sad prick”) as the President’s party was about to pass by.

The applicant was making an allusion to a much publicised phrase which the President himself had uttered on 23 February 2008 at the International Agricultural Show in response to a farmer who had refused to shake his hand. The phrase had given rise to extensive comment and media coverage and had been widely circulated on the Internet and used as a slogan at demonstrations.

The applicant was immediately stopped by the police and taken to the police station. He was prosecuted by the public prosecutor for insulting the President, an offence under section 26 of the Act of 29 July 1881 (see paragraph 16 below). A summons to appear before the criminal court was handed to him later that day.

In a judgment of 6 November 2008 the Laval tribunal de grande instance found the applicant guilty of insulting the President and fined him 30 euros (EUR), a penalty which was suspended. The court held as follows: “... On the day of the President’s visit ... the defendant ... saw fit to wave a small placard containing an exact copy, served cold, of a famous retort prompted by a direct affront. If the defendant had not intended to cause offence, but solely to give an incongruous lesson in manners, he would surely have preceded the phrase ‘casse toi pov’con’ with words to the effect ‘you shouldn’t say’. Having adopted the phrase strictly as his own, he cannot reasonably maintain that he had no intention of causing offence. The apparently underlying issue of double standards does not even arise, since the purpose of the law is to protect the office of President, and Mr Eon, as an ordinary citizen, cannot claim the right to be treated on an equal footing. The offence of insulting the President of the French Republic has therefore been fully made out ...” As to the sentence, the court noted that in view of the applicant’s circumstances and modest income (EUR 450 per month), it was appropriate to give him a simple warning in the form of a fine described by the judges as “a matter of principle”.

The applicant and the public prosecutor both appealed.

In a judgment of 24 March 2009 the Angers Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s judgment in its entirety. On the issue of the applicant’s guilt, it set out its reasoning as follows: “As to the question of guilt: Actus reus of the offence The definition in the 1959, 2002 and 2006 editions of Le Petit Larousse is almost unchanged: ‘insult [offense] is a concept defined as a remark or action which undermines a person’s dignity or honour; in law, it specifically denotes an affront to a head of State (1959) or a public affront to the President of France ... constituting a criminal offence’ (2006). It is accepted in the case-law that the actus reus of the offence is any insulting or disparaging expression or any defamatory insinuation that is liable to undermine the President’s honour, dignity or reputation, either in the performance of his official duties or in his private life. There is no need for lengthy discussion of the fact that describing the President as a ‘sad prick’ [‘pauvre con’] amounts to insulting him. The small placard containing the phrase in question is indisputably a form of publicly conveying a message, which can take place by means of placards or posters on public display (section 23 of the 1881 Act). Accordingly, the actus reus of the offence has been made out. Mens rea of the offence The expression ‘casse toi pov’con’, which the first-instance judges described as a ‘famous retort’, does not obviate the need for an examination of the insulting nature of the phrase, which has not passed into the public domain and hence has not entered general usage or lost any insulting connotations it might have had. In other words, the accused cannot maintain that he was acting in good faith. In this connection, the court observes that Mr Hervé Eon is an activist and a former Socialist elected representative in the département of Mayenne, who had recently fought a long-running campaign actively supporting a Turkish family residing unlawfully in national territory; several days before the head of State’s visit to Laval, this political battle had ended in a resounding failure for the support committee as the family had been deported. Mr Eon explained to the court that at the time of the events he had been feeling bitter, to say the least. Accordingly, his political involvement (as corroborated by the fact that the accused called a senator as a witness) and the very nature of the phrase used, which was wholly premeditated, conclusively rule out any notion of good faith. The court will therefore endorse the reasoning of the first-instance judges, who found that the accused could not reasonably maintain that he had no intention of causing offence. The offence is therefore established in terms of both actus reus and mens rea as outlined above. The first-instance judges were thus correct in concluding from all these factors that the accused should be found guilty. ...” The Court of Appeal further noted that the applicant had declined to apologise, which meant that he could not be given a discharge. It observed that the first-instance court had found that a simple warning was required and had given him a suspended fine of EUR 30 as a matter of principle. It noted that the applicant had a previous conviction for destroying genetically modified crops. Accordingly, it concluded that the penalty imposed was entirely appropriate in view of the nature of the offence and the applicant’s character.

The applicant appealed on points of law to the Court of Cassation. He applied to the Court of Cassation’s Legal Aid Board for legal aid. In a decision of 14 May 2009 the Legal Aid Board observed that the applicant’s resources were below the statutory limit but refused his application, holding that no arguable ground of appeal could be made out. The applicant appealed to the judge delegated by the President of the Court of Cassation, challenging the decision to refuse legal aid in the absence of an arguable ground of appeal. He submitted as follows: “In the case between myself and the public prosecutor’s office, the reason for my appeal on points of law was obviously not the amount of the penalty but the question of the fundamental principle of freedom of expression and the concept of insulting the head of State. By not granting me legal aid, you are preventing me from lawfully exercising my rights in relation to a fundamental freedom.”

In an order of 15 June 2009 the President of the Court of Cassation upheld the refusal to grant legal aid in the absence of any arguable grounds of appeal.

The applicant nevertheless pursued his appeal on points of law to its conclusion. The Government stated that on 15 September 2009 the law firm instructed to represent him had sent the Court of Cassation a letter indicating that it did not intend to file further pleadings in support of the appeal; nor had the applicant filed any pleadings himself. The applicant submitted that in view of his inability to pay the fees charged by the law firm, the firm had informed him that it would not file any pleadings.

In a judgment of 27 October 2009 the Court of Cassation declared the appeal inadmissible, finding that there were no grounds to warrant its examination.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-117742_a5_e1
001-117742_a5_em1
CODE
DIRECT
26118/10
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-117742_a5_e2
001-117742_a5_em2
ORG
QUASI
French Republic
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-117742_a5_e3
001-117742_a5_em3
DEM
QUASI
French national
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-117742_a5_e4
001-117742_a5_em4
PERSON
DIRECT
Mr Hervé Eon
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-117742_a5_e5
001-117742_a5_em5
DATETIME
QUASI
12 April 2010
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-117742_a5_e6
001-117742_a5_em6
PERSON
QUASI
Mr D. Nogueres
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-117742_a5_e7
001-117742_a5_em7
LOC
QUASI
Paris
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-117742_a5_e8
001-117742_a5_em8
ORG
QUASI
French Government
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-117742_a5_e9
001-117742_a5_em9
PERSON
QUASI
Ms E. Belliard
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-117742_a5_e10
001-117742_a5_em10
DEM
NO_MASK
Director of Legal Affairs
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-117742_a5_e11
001-117742_a5_em11
ORG
NO_MASK
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-117742_a5_e12
001-117742_a5_em12
DATETIME
QUASI
15 April 2011
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-117742_a5_e13
001-117742_a5_em13
DATETIME
QUASI
1952
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-117742_a5_e14
001-117742_a5_em14
LOC
QUASI
Laval
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-117742_a5_e15
001-117742_a5_em15
DATETIME
QUASI
28 August 2008
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-117742_a5_e14
001-117742_a5_em16
LOC
QUASI
Laval
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-117742_a5_e16
001-117742_a5_em17
DEM
QUASI
President of France
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-117742_a5_e17
001-117742_a5_em18
MISC
QUASI
waved a small placard reading “Casse toi pov’con” (“Get lost, you sad prick”)
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-117742_a5_e18
001-117742_a5_em19
MISC
QUASI
much publicised phrase which the President himself had uttered
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-117742_a5_e19
001-117742_a5_em20
DATETIME
QUASI
23 February 2008
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-117742_a5_e20
001-117742_a5_em21
MISC
QUASI
International Agricultural Show
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-117742_a5_e21
001-117742_a5_em22
MISC
QUASI
response to a farmer who had refused to shake his hand
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-117742_a5_e22
001-117742_a5_em23
DATETIME
QUASI
6 November 2008
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-117742_a5_e23
001-117742_a5_em24
ORG
QUASI
Laval tribunal de grande instance
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-117742_a5_e24
001-117742_a5_em25
QUANTITY
QUASI
30 euros (EUR)
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-117742_a5_e25
001-117742_a5_em26
MISC
QUASI
wave a small placard containing an exact copy
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-117742_a5_e26
001-117742_a5_em27
MISC
QUASI
‘casse toi pov’con’
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-117742_a5_e4
001-117742_a5_em28
PERSON
DIRECT
001-117742_a5_em4
Mr Eon
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-117742_a5_e16
001-117742_a5_em29
DEM
QUASI
001-117742_a5_em17
President of the French Republic
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-117742_a5_e27
001-117742_a5_em30
QUANTITY
QUASI
EUR 450 per month
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-117742_a5_e28
001-117742_a5_em31
DATETIME
QUASI
24 March 2009
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-117742_a5_e29
001-117742_a5_em32
ORG
QUASI
Angers Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-117742_a5_e30
001-117742_a5_em33
DATETIME
NO_MASK
1959
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-117742_a5_e31
001-117742_a5_em34
DATETIME
NO_MASK
2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-117742_a5_e32
001-117742_a5_em35
DATETIME
NO_MASK
2006
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-117742_a5_e33
001-117742_a5_em36
MISC
QUASI
Le Petit Larousse
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-117742_a5_e30
001-117742_a5_em37
DATETIME
NO_MASK
1959
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-117742_a5_e16
001-117742_a5_em38
DEM
QUASI
President of France
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-117742_a5_e32
001-117742_a5_em39
DATETIME
NO_MASK
2006
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-117742_a5_e34
001-117742_a5_em40
MISC
QUASI
‘sad prick’ [‘pauvre con’]
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-117742_a5_e35
001-117742_a5_em41
MISC
QUASI
small placard containing the phrase
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-117742_a5_e26
001-117742_a5_em42
MISC
QUASI
‘casse toi pov’con’
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-117742_a5_e4
001-117742_a5_em43
PERSON
DIRECT
Mr Hervé Eon
POLITICS
check
001-117742_a5_e36
001-117742_a5_em44
DEM
QUASI
Socialist
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-117742_a5_e37
001-117742_a5_em45
ORG
QUASI
département of Mayenne
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-117742_a5_e38
001-117742_a5_em46
DEM
QUASI
Turkish
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-117742_a5_e14
001-117742_a5_em47
LOC
QUASI
Laval
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-117742_a5_e4
001-117742_a5_em48
PERSON
DIRECT
Mr Eon
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-117742_a5_e39
001-117742_a5_em49
QUANTITY
QUASI
EUR 30
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-117742_a5_e40
001-117742_a5_em50
MISC
QUASI
destroying genetically modified crops
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-117742_a5_e41
001-117742_a5_em51
ORG
QUASI
Court of Cassation
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-117742_a5_e42
001-117742_a5_em52
ORG
QUASI
Court of Cassation’s Legal Aid Board
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-117742_a5_e43
001-117742_a5_em53
DATETIME
QUASI
14 May 2009
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-117742_a5_e42
001-117742_a5_em54
ORG
NO_MASK
001-117742_a5_em52
Legal Aid Board
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-117742_a5_e44
001-117742_a5_em55
ORG
QUASI
President of the Court of Cassation
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-117742_a5_e45
001-117742_a5_em56
DATETIME
QUASI
15 June 2009
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-117742_a5_e44
001-117742_a5_em57
ORG
QUASI
President of the Court of Cassation
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-117742_a5_e46
001-117742_a5_em58
DATETIME
QUASI
15 September 2009
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-117742_a5_e41
001-117742_a5_em59
ORG
QUASI
Court of Cassation
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-117742_a5_e47
001-117742_a5_em60
DATETIME
QUASI
27 October 2009
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-117742_a5_e41
001-117742_a5_em61
ORG
QUASI
Court of Cassation
Hervé Eon
FRA
CHAMBER
Task: Annotate the document to anonymise the following person: Hervé Eon