The judgment delivered by the Strasbourg Court on 26 June 2025 originated from several identity checks carried out in France by law enforcement authorities against the applicants, French citizens of African origin, who alleged that they were subjected to such checks based on physical characteristics linked to their ethnic origin. The measures were implemented near railway stations and high-traffic urban areas and, according to the applicants, were not justified by specific conduct or individualized suspicion, but solely by their physical characteristics and ethnic background.

Under French law, authorities are permitted to verify the identity of citizens for purposes of prevention and public security, without the need to identify the elements of a potential offense in certain areas or circumstances. According to the applicants, this represents an excessively discretionary power in the hands of the national authorities, which, combined with the absence of a statutory obligation to record identity checks, effectively makes it impossible to prove the discriminatory nature of the measures adopted.

Domestically, the applicants brought civil claims for recognition of the discrimination arising from the identity checks and for compensation. The national courts recognized in the abstract the risk of discrimination linked to unrecorded checks, developing a probative framework based on a principle of proof of discrimination. In the specific case, however, the Civil Court did not consider the causal link between the checks and the allegedly ethnic selection criterion to be sufficiently established.

fter exhausting domestic remedies, the applicants brought the case to the European Court of Human Rights, emphasizing the structural dimension of the problem, highlighting the historical frequency and visibility of ethnic and cultural minorities to police checks, and alleging violations of Articles 8, 14, and 13 of the Convention.

Firstly, the Strasbourg Court recognized that identity checks can constitute an interference with private life protected by Article 8 ECHR, affecting individuals’ identities and self-perception in public spaces. The judges also confirmed that, in the presence of a principle of proof based on serious, precise, and concordant circumstances – as developed in French jurisprudence – the national authorities are required to provide an objective and reasonable justification for applying differential treatment. The Court further noted that, in cases of racial or ethnic discrimination, the margin of appreciation afforded to states is drastically reduced, making it necessary to apply particularly rigorous scrutiny of the interests at stake.

Regarding the lack of a statutory system for recording identity checks, the ECHR observed that, despite this gap, domestic judges had examined the applicants’ complaints on the merits using a less burdensome evidentiary mechanism and had issued reasoned decisions: the fact that the domestic claims were unsuccessful does not, by itself, render the judicial remedy ineffective. The remedy was indeed provided through means concretely capable of bringing the complaints before a competent and independent judge who issues a reasoned decision; moreover, the applicants provided sufficient elements to meet the principle of proof required to establish the alleged discrimination. Consequently, the Strasbourg judges did not find a violation of Article 13 of the Convention by the French legal system.

Concerning undue interference with citizens’ private life, the Court reiterated that the checks in question are theoretically capable of constituting a violation of Article 8 ECHR. In the cases examined, however, the checks were provided for by law and therefore based on a legal foundation; they pursued legitimate objectives of crime prevention and public order protection, thereby ensuring societal security; they were not disproportionate in terms of manner or duration. For these reasons, the Strasbourg judges concluded that there was no violation of Article 8 ECHR.

Consequently, the ECHR also found no violation of Article 14 ECHR, read in conjunction with Article 8: the applicants had not sufficiently demonstrated the discriminatory nature of the checks, the statistical evidence submitted was insufficient to meet the required evidentiary threshold, and domestic judges had applied a coherent allocation of the burden of proof and examined the matters on the merits. The Strasbourg judges therefore concluded that the alleged discriminatory treatment had not been established, while not denying the existence of racial profiling nor minimizing its systemic seriousness.

The ECHR judgment is consistent with prior case law in pursuing racial and ethnic discrimination. Indeed, the Strasbourg judges reaffirm the need for rigorous and careful scrutiny by public authorities of allegations of discrimination, with the aim of ensuring equality and dignity in public spaces and maintaining social cohesion while valuing individual diversity. The negative outcome in the present case can also be compared – at least in abstract terms –  with the case law on wearing the Islamic veil in public spaces (notably S.A.S. v. France and Dahlab v. Switzerland), where the recognition of a wide margin of appreciation for states parties to the Convention is linked to the promotion of neutrality in public spaces.

The ECHR is therefore once again managing the complex balance between protecting pluralism (whether ethnic, cultural, or religious) and the cohesion of the democratic system, using as a key tool the flexibility of the margin of appreciation afforded to each domestic legal system.

 

(Comment by Martina Palazzo)