Aider le HAMAS sans s’en désolidariser est contraire aux valeurs de la Convention européenne des droits de l’Homme (justifiant une dissolution d’association en Allemagne en l’espèce).
Ce jour, cette décision de la CEDH semble tel un lointain écho des massacres et nous rappelle une évidence démocratique qu’il est surprenant de voir oubliée (et ce quelle que soit la position de chacun sur la situation au proche-Orient, et sur les solutions acceptables, ou sur les responsabilités historiques des uns et des autres. Un crime de masse prémédité contre des civils est et reste un crime de guerre quel que soit le contexte).
——–
L’Internationale Humanitäre Hilfsorganisation e.V., était une association à but non lucratif dont le siège se situait à Francfort-sur-le-Main, en Allemagne.
Elle a été interdite et ses liens saisis, conduisant l’affaire devant la CEDH.
Ladite Cour a, ce jour, estimé à cette occasion que les mesures prises à l’encontre de cette association ne violaient pas l’article 11 de la CEDH…
Il faut dire que cette association avait fait des dons considérables au HAMAS, et que la CEDH laisse une assez large de manoeuvre sur les outils qui leur sont laissés pour combattre les organisations reconnues comme terroristes.
La CEDH reconnait comme établi le fait que derrière l’aide humanitaire, cette association poursuivait en réalité le but d’aider indirectement le terrorisme du HAMAS, organisation incompatible avec les valeurs de la CEDH (certes… !). On notera d’ailleurs d’illusoires tentatives de camouflage :
« 90. The Court observes that the Ministry and the national courts proscribed the applicant association on the grounds that it had engaged in the indirect financing of terrorism under the guise of providing humanitarian aid and that its activities were directed against the concept of international understanding. The applicant association denied that its object and activities could be considered to be proactively aggressive or directed against the concept of international understanding; it argued that the term “support” for a terrorist organisation was employed too broadly (see paragraphs 54-55 above).
91. While it is true that according to its statute the applicant association’s declared objective was to “provide appropriate humanitarian aid worldwide in cases of natural disasters, wars and other catastrophes” (see paragraph 5 above), the Court reiterates that it will not restrict its examination to the written word of the applicant association’s statutes but will look into their application in practice and the activities the applicant association actually engaged in (see, mutatis mutandis, Vona, cited above, § 59, and Tourkiki Enosi Xanthis and Others v. Greece, no. 26698/05, § 48, 27 March 2008; see also Herri Batasuna and Batasuna, cited above, § 80).
92. In this connection the Court firstly takes note of the applicant association’s undisputed funding of, in particular, the Islamic Society, and later Salam (see paragraphs 7–12 above). In the ensuing proceedings, the Ministry and the national courts assessed the links between those two self‑proclaimed “social societies” and found convincing evidence that they did not constitute separate entities but were truly part of Hamas (compare Vona, cited above, § 60). They also duly assessed that the overall organisation of Hamas, including its so-called “social societies”, was to be considered a terrorist organisation. Noting that the entirety of Hamas has been expressly included by the European Union in the sanctions lists of “persons, groups and entities involved in terrorist acts” since 2003, as confirmed by a judgment of its Court of Justice (see paragraphs 40-41 above), the Court sees no reason to depart from the national courts’ assessment.
93. The national courts made convincing findings that, even though the applicant association had not engaged in acts of actual violence, its leading members knew about and approved the “social societies’” link to Hamas. The national courts also referred to the considerable extent of the applicant association’s funding of those societies, lastly about 50% of its overall donations (see paragraph 24 above), and the close links between the organisations in question.
94. The national courts also paid due regard to the fact that in the past the applicant association, being apprehensive of potential restrictions on its activities, had tried to obscure its relationship with Hamas by replacing the Islamic Society as beneficiary of its financial support with Salam. They drew from this fact the conclusions that the applicant association would try to circumvent restrictions again in future, and that it fundamentally identified itself with Hamas (see paragraphs 23 and 25 above).»
Avec une distinction entre la destruction d’Israël (ce qu’une organisation peut souhaiter sans que ce soit contraire à la CEDH, ce qui ne veut pas dire que c’est ce qu’il faut souhaiter, c’est juste qu’il n’est pas contraire à la CEDH de le souhaiter, tout comme il n’est contraire à la CEDH de souhaiter le maintien d’Israël) et la destruction violente de ses habitants (ce qui là est contraire aux valeurs de base de la CEDH… bien évidement) :
« 87. The Court observes, furthermore, that the concept of international understanding is not only a prerequisite of the international legal order but also figures among the core values of the Convention, including in particular the principles of peaceful settlement of international conflicts and the sanctity of human life (see Hizb Ut-Tahrir and Others, cited above, § 74; see also Kasymakhunov and Saybatalov, cited above, § 106).
88. The Court reiterates that associations which engage in activities contrary to the values of the Convention cannot benefit from the protection of Article 11 interpreted in the light of Article 17, which prohibits the use of the Convention in order to destroy or excessively limit the rights guaranteed by it (see, for an analysis of the case-law, Roj TV A/S v. Denmark (dec.), no. 24683/14, §§ 30-38, 17 April 2018). As with Article 10 (see the principles outlined in Pastörs v. Germany, no. 55225/14, §§ 36-38, 3 October 2019 and the case-law cited therein), the former Commission and the Court have dealt with a number of cases under Articles 11 and/or 17 of the Convention concerning associations whose statutes and/or activities are contrary to core Convention values, for example where they promote and justify terrorism and war crimes. The Court has either declared those cases incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention in view of Article 17 of the Convention (see Hizb Ut‑Tahrir and Others, cited above, §§ 72-75), or else it has relied on Article 17 as an aid in the interpretation of Article 11 § 2 of the Convention so as to reinforce its conclusion on the necessity of the interference (see Karatas and Sari v. France, no. 38396/97, Commission decision of 21 October 1998, and Ayoub and Others, cited above, §§ 92-122).
89. The Court reiterates in particular the application of that case-law in Hizb Ut-Tahrir and Others (cited above, §§ 73-74), which concerned an association that not only denied the State of Israel’s right to exist but also called for its violent destruction and for the banishment and killing of its inhabitants. While the applicant association in the present case did not engage in violent conduct itself, the aims pursued by the prohibition of indirect support for terrorism as being contrary to the concept of international understanding are necessarily very weighty and States enjoy a wider margin of appreciation in that regard (see, mutatis mutandis, Schwabe and M.G. v. Germany, nos. 8080/08 and 8577/08, § 113, ECHR 2011 (extracts); see also Les Authentiks and Supras Auteuil 91, cited above, § 84, and Ayoub and Others, cited above, § 121).»
Dans son appréciation de cette affaire, la CEDH prend en compte, notamment, le fait que ladite association ne s’était pas désolidarisée dudit Hamas.
Source :
